Oxbridge 2024 Entry Part 5

[YouOKHun]

Good Luck everyone whatever the outcome!

The Oxford interview process used to involve 2 - 3 nights in college with candidates from maybe 4 to 6 disciplines eating together, waiting together, socialising together and seeing who was referred to a second or third college. They were often held at the same time as mock exams or coursework deadlines.

Do you really not understand why some candidates may prefer online interviews?

I had face to face interviews at O thirty years ago and found it really stressful. Exited interview 1 in floods of tears then had to hang around with other applicants. Can't remember talking to anyone, I sat in the room. Two days hanging around then a further interview with another college (where I was successful).

DC1 had face to face pre Covid and was teased about his clothes by other cool applicants - he is a state northern school and he wore a suit as he thought that was respectful. DC2 post Covid had online interviews and all went well, no massive commitment of time travelling and getting over invested. Could go straight back to lessons. Had interviews the next week with another college. Someone who works for me was so put off by the (over) confidence of the other applicants they turned down their offer.

I appreciate all the above is anecdotal but on balance I'd favour online interviews - normalises the process. Maybe some people love meeting other applicants over interviews but for many it's just another layer of stress.

DC2 loved going to her offer holders visit a few weeks after her offer - but by then there was no competition as they all had offers.

I agree that online is best. For some people, getting train tickets will cost well over £100, as they can’t be booked far in advance. It should be obvious to all that spending 2 or three days with people you don’t know, in an already stressful interview situation and environment which might be very alien to you, might add to stress and cause candidates to not be able to show their full potential.

There is no reason why being confident in a particular setting, or familiar with it, or knowing more people already there or currently applying, should be able to work in your favour in putting you at ease….or alternatively why a lack of those things should be able to u settle you so you can’t perform to your best.

I agree that there’s a huge difference between having to organise travel spend 2 or 3 days away in an unfamiliar environment, with perhaps 48-56 hours all focused on that hour or less of interviews to come, and being able to prep at home and have normal school and home life surrounding the interview.

The vast majority of students, regardless of education or background will find the staying over night and being interviewed, stressful in some way. It doesn’t have to be part of the process for interviewers to effectively distinguish between candidates and now we have the technology, there’s absolutely no need to put people through it.

To be honest, when people are absolutely convinced it’s a far better system and should be returned to, I think they either don’t have the imagination to see how it actively creates barriers for lots of candidates, or actually want to create barriers and protect privilege, although they wouldn’t say so.

Imagine how many absolutely excellent candidates used to be put off applying by the thought of the cost of getting there and how many maybe applied and then didn’t go to their interview because they didn’t have the money or practical help to organise getting there, and how many found the other teens who perhaps didn’t behave in an inclusive way in the atmosphere if competition and rivalry, more off-putting than they would be in-person 9 months later once actually students together?

In the end, I think candidates and schools and families with privilege can see the numbers from their types of school declining and those from state schools and with contextual offers rising. Whilst theoretically we all know that it’s right that opportunities should be widened, those in the privileged positions naturally want to defend their own privilege and shore-up the aspects which benefit them. One of those aspects was live-interviews. Interviews which required travel, possibly socialising and eating in environments unfamiliar to some candidates and an exposure to other candidates, which just isn’t necessary to ascertain who the strongest candidates actually are.

A move back to live interviews across the board seems extremely unlikely to me.

My DD's interviews were same day a couple hours apart (Cambridge). For her it would have been a day trip.
I can see how spending a couple days away from school, and possibly on your own, could be stressful for many, not to mention the expense (though I thought there was some funding for that)? Might be a real taster of things to come though?
If they can smooth out any technical difficulties I can see continuing online as a good option - and I wonder if they will eventually make it an option?
By the way, what did international applicants do before this technology? By telephone? Were they required to travel over? Interviewed in their home country?

I’m on the fence on this. Both my DC had online interviews. For DC1 it worked well. I think for DD it was pretty stressful - simultaneously using the whiteboard app and Teams strained the WiFi connections, so that she lost contact and had to rejoin quite a few times across the three interviews. This certainly added stress; I’m pretty sure she would have found it easier to be sitting in the same room and just writing on paper in front of her.

Well said @WombatChocolate

@mondaytosunday I think you reinforce the point very well - for my DC it takes 6 hours to get to Oxford and 7 hours to get to Cambridge with at least one change and perhaps going via London. The Oxford process is different with second interviews being common and the 'hanging around' issue while from what you and others say

The playing field isn't level with face to face interviews which is why I favour online. And that is before the cultural disconnect for many in the North with O & C.

I agree improvements and more reliability with the technology would help especially for STEM subjects.

I had a niece who applied from overseas before Covid and she used Skype for her interviews.

Ah come on, that’s a great learning experience if it happens. We’ve all got to learn to pick ourselves up after a disappointment, grit our teeth and get back on the horse. I think you’d be denying her a good learning opportunity by asking her to be excused, and only reaffirming the view that her life is over if she doesn’t get a place.

I think it's a shame that candidates don't have the choice. I agree there are many reasons why online is preferred for some students (no worries about being away from home; no cost etc). But there are equally some reasons why in person might be preferred for others. Working with unfamiliar tech can be stressful - as highlighted by Invested and a lot of people find conversation in person to be easier.

There certainly used to be help with travel costs for those travelling over a certain distance for the Oxford interviews. And I don't remember that the three days away from school caused that much disruption, although this was over a decade ago, and maybe schedules are more crammed now.

The in person interviews and staying in college for several days really helped to get a feel of what it would be like to study there. It was a big step up for me in terms of how I matured in that last year of school; on the train home from interviews I felt like if I had coped with those three days of tough interviews, meeting lots of new people from a whole range of backgrounds and managing to navigate myself around a new city I could cope with anything over the rest of the school year! But then on the other hand, I always thought that made things harder for those who enjoyed the experience but don't get a place, as they have a keener sense of what they missed out on.

What I disagree with is with having some online interviews and some in person interviews. I think they should all be the same. Whether that means all in person or all online is another argument. I’m leaning towards all on line as I believe it is fairer. But they should be the same at least

I agree that lots probably get a sense of achievement from having done the journey and managed the whole thing. I agree that there can be technical problems. I agree that being there allows you to see the place and get some kind of sense of what it might be like.

However, the purpose of the process and the interviews isn’t mostly to achieve those things. Oxford want a process which encourages as many able young people to apply as possible. They want to actively remove barriers to application. In-person interviews which required a stay overnight were a barrier. They might not have been a barrier to all and some might have thoroughly enjoyed them, but the point is that some able young people were discouraged from applying or attending for various reasons. And Oxford wants to and needs to work to remove those barriers. They want to see and interview the very best that are out there. They have are looking to create a process to enable them to do this and to allow and encourage students from everywhere and all backgrounds to access the opportunity.

It honestly doesn’t matter if some people who went had a great time meeting other candidates, loved seeing the city, felt a sense of achievement at managing the whole process and felt they could imagine themselves there, if a decent number of able candidates are not able to access the process for various reasons. Remmeber, it’s not just about money - and people talk about grants being available, as if that resolves all the monetary issues - you have to know the funds are there, apply, and have the confidence to believe you deserve the grant to start with. There are so many cultural barriers in place, and not just for those from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds.

Yes, applicants need to see the city and get a sense of what the university is like and what life there could be like - but an interview is not the time for that. Open Days, the opportunity to visit off your own back, with a school, through an outreach programme, or at an Offer Holder day are the right time to see and think - when not also under the pressure to perform at interview.

I’ve seen the barriers in place first-hand this year, even amongst middle class families. I know 2 families which both have 2 graduate parents from RG unis, who are in professional jobs. They live in decent areas, have access to lots of extra curriculars and their kids are super-bright, having achieved all top level GCSEs and being consistently top in their average Comps. You’d think these would be kids with no barriers. But their parents know nothing about Oxbridge and their schools haven’t sent anyone for 5 and 12 years and don’t have any teachers who have been. The parents weren’t sure it was right for their kids. The school didn’t actively push it and although one did run a trip to an access outreach event which was organised by Oxford, the other didn’t. The kids were self-starters and invovled in lots of activities. They had met some kids from selective and independent schools through these activities, but they still had a sense that it probably wouldn’t be for people like them. They still had a sense that the people at Oxbridge would be different - even though their parents had degrees, good jobs and understood higher education. These kids were aspirational for their education and their careers, but Oxbridge just didn’t really factor. In the end one of the, did apply and was amazed when she got an offer. The other didn’t apply as they weren’t quite up to speed with the timeframes and weren’t sure they’d like it, and just wasn’t in a place by summer and early autumn to have done the thinking ahead about it, that’s needed to hit the ground running for an early ucas application that’s needed in Sept. That teen was as good as the other one. Who knows if they’d have got an interview or offer…but they certainly weren’t getting them when they didn’t apply. And I’m sure they will go onto a great uni and have a great career, because they are a self-starter who is both extremely academic and also enormously personable and hard working. But Oxbridge missed out on their application. Barriers are there still for state school middle class kids, so think how much more they are there for those from less advantaged backgrounds. Those interviews, with college dinners and confident teenagers parading around can be huge barriers - and for lots, it doesn’t take a lot to put them off applying. Of course, there are already far too many good applicants for places, but just how many other really great or better applicants are out there who don’t apply? And I know it’s not the be-all and end-all, or the right thing for lots of people. Fine. But it could be brilliant for lots of those who just don’t apply and who are put off. I think people can’t see the barriers that are there and think a. It if contextualisation along the way is enough. But it’s not. There’s more to do.

@WombatChocolate do you have any stats/research showing that in person interviews stopped people from certain backgrounds from applying? It never came up as a key issue in any of the access work I was involved in - your examples are about the general sense of "Oxbridge not being for people like me", rather than the specific challenge of going to Oxford and Cambridge for a couple of days. The issue of privately educated candidates getting more coaching and preparation support, so they may appear to be more articulate in an interview, will of course be an issue for online or in person assessments.

The other thing that worked as a barrier for both the families I mentioned, was a sense that other students in independent schools were somehow much cleverer, had been taught well beyond the syllabus and had received such extensive preparation for interviews and admissions tests, that they couldn’t compete with them. On one level, these fears are over-played, as most might have had some prep but nowhere near the levels the students imagine. On the other hand, some do receive an awful lot of support.

Both the kids I’m thinking of did have self-confidence in their own academic abilities, but somehow also had a sense that the privately taught kids they’d occasionally encountered at extra-curricular stuff, and who spoke loudly and with confidence about their own achievements, must be better. Most of the time, this wasn’t a barrier to them and their own success, but I think when it comes to applying for Oxbridge and also perhaps certain careers in a few years, this fear and sense of others being better, does cause even the very bright to have self-doubt about their own natural intelligence and ability to succeed and think they can’t compete. In a sense, Oxbridge (and certain oxbridge dominated careers or firms) feels unknown or closed to large percentages of the population, including successful sections who don’t feel excluded from very much at all. On one level, of course it’s an exclusive and elite organisation and most simply can’t and won’t have experience of it. But the challenge is for an instition which by nature is exclusive and elite to also be opening and welcome and remove barriers to which prevent those who absolutely are suited to it from applying.

I can have a look for some stats.
If you worked in access, is it really something that didn’t come up as a barrier? What sort of period of time were you looking at it? Were those looking to broaden access not looking at barriers beyond the financial cost to get to an interview? I’m just surprised by that really, but perhaps it’s only an issue which has had awareness very recently?

I guess that in-person interviews were simply the norm until Covid and just part of the process and people didn’t really consider alternatives or think of changing the system which had existed for so long. Although of course, international candidates are sometimes using Skype, so there was some precedent. I guess what Covid necessitated showed what was possible and perhaps then, as well as considering the cost of running live interviews for the university, access issues also got considered more and were instrumental in swinging the decision to stick with online for Oxford. The tech is ever getting better and the colleges learning how to use it for interviews more and more each year. It’s not perfect, but all things weighed up, I’d think it’s here to stay wouldn’t you?

I suspect Oxford will stick with online interviews because it’s just so much more convenient for most people.

But bear in mind that even in-person interviews nowadays don’t involve the overnight stays, formal dinners in hall that they used to

One issue relating to parity that I don’t think has been mentioned is the number of interviews in person vs online at C.

DD applied to a college with in person interviews but we assumed that there would be 2 as is the norm. In the end she had one interview with 2 people. I don’t think this was the case for anyone doing online? Obviously it can work both ways and some would be happy with one interview, but I regularly read about DC who have one bad and one better interview (maybe with the chance to correct their mistakes 2nd time round?). In my DDs case she felt she messed up and was gutted to have no 2nd shot. I don’t know if this was the case with other colleges who were in person this year?

I think the number of interviews is very much college/subject dependent.

My son had 2 in person interviews at Cambridge this year (neither of which went well unfortunately), but I can think of at least one person who has 1 online interview at Oxford.

I think it depends on the college rather than whether it’s online or in-person. DD1 applied to C twice, same subject, different colleges - first time she had one interview, second time two. Each interview had two interviewers (I think that’s a requirement), but all were online.

I do agree having two interviews gives you a second chance!

DD3 applied to Oxford this year and had two interviews (and second one definitely went better than the first!), but her friend only had one, for the same subject at a different college.

There are quite a lot of stereotypical assumptions in some of the above about private schools. I strongly doubt anyone would have been put off from applying to O or C because they’d had contact in out of school activities with my generally quiet, unassuming, privately educated DD. In person interviews and the interactions with other applicants would certainly suit more socially confident DC - but to assume that this confidence is solely determined by the type of school attended is rather odd.

I don’t think there’s any suggestion that all independently educated students are like this. And to an extent, the idea of loud, confident private school kids is a stereotype, but it is also founded on the fact that some are like this. Given that 1/4 to 1/3 or applicants are from independent schools (varies by subject - far higher in Classics) this might be the first time many state educated kids have encountered large numbers of privately educated kids. If they stay overnight and chat to each other/eat together then it’s entirely possible to encounter applicants who might be loud, confident and who seem different to most people you know. Of course, some of it is about perception too - some students who feel out of place and lacking in confidence, might be looking out for this kind of thing, and encounters with just one or two people can lead to to a feeling that ‘everyone’ is like that.

I think the thing is, that for lots of people, it’s extremely hard to imagine the myriad of barriers that exist. They are subtle, not necessarily established on purpose, but they are present. Similarly, many can’t quite imagine what the barrier to those from the north or other areas with lower application rates might be.

And I will add, that I say all this as a parent of a child in an independent school that has many applying to Oxbridge.

I have a number who I went to uni with - similar education and careers to myself and DH. But they live in different places and most of them are sending their kids to state schools, mostly in areas where there are no state grammar options. The perception that their genuinely middle-class and affluent and successful teens have of independently educated teens is quite striking to me. Much of it is stereo-type and you could say prejudice. But they have a real sense of unfairness and that others have had something and an advantage they don’t have. It particularly comes out when talking about university applications. They are concerned about applying to Durham, Exeter, Bristol, Oxbridge because of the type of people who will be there. Even when their own grades are and will be better than most of the independent applicants they don’t feel they will fit in or have at least passing worries about it.Countless threads on MN and The Student Room run about these issues every year.

I’m not pointing the finger at any individual privately educated students or those from any schools. I’m just saying this is a systemic and entrenched and subtle issue. Lots and lots of things have contributed to it over decades and centuries. Lots of steps are needed for the barriers to be broken down and even then it will take many years to do so. The way assessments, interviews and other application issues, such as UCAS personal statements, timing of Oxbridge applications are organised can either maintain barriers or help to start reducing them.

Anyway, I don’t think I should say anymore on this - it’s not really the focus if the thread. It’s not a criticism of any individuals or their choices of school types. Rightly, Oxbridge want to widen access and encourage more good applicants from areas that have had lower representation to apply. There are lots out there and there are lots of reasons why they don’t apply. Understanding those barriers and starting to address more and more if them isn’t easy, but really necessary, even if it makes some other groups feel like they’re being criticised or under attack in some way.

I find myself drawn into this discussion despite myself. I'm not sure whether in-person interviews would have affected DD at all - could have impacted her confidence either way - but as a parent, given the drawn out nature of the process, I'm grateful it was online. The 'people like me' aspect is interesting. For DD, she's conscious there won't be many people with her background, but the part of her identity that matters for Oxford purposes is academic ability - there aren't many people like her (bookish, academically competitive) at school, so she is looking forward to meeting them there. And yes, as a Classics student there will be a higher ratio of independently educated people; but she knows from UNIQ that there will be a mixture, and from her friends at private schools, knows they're not all loaded or necessarily advantaged academically, and most people are nice either way. She's more worried about being a fish out of water at her insurance choice (either Exeter - too posh, or Liverpool - too loud).

The other thing that worked as a barrier for both the families I mentioned, was a sense that other students in independent schools were somehow much cleverer, had been taught well beyond the syllabus and had received such extensive preparation for interviews and admissions tests, that they couldn’t compete with them.

My DD had a real sense of this - I don't know where from because she has done / is doing much better than privately educated me. Plus her cousin went to Cambridge from a comp in a very deprived part of the country. Somehow she thought she would have no chance (tbf she did get rejected 😂), and wouldn't fit in. The fitting in bit was partly due to impressions on the open day too, but mostly down to some of the parents, not the applicants. I don't know where these ideas come from but they are very pervasive.

Strangely she feels much more comfortable with Warwick, even though if DiscoverUni is to be believed, the students tend to do better at A level (or at least have more UCAS points) than the students on the Oxford course she applied to 🤷‍♀️

So it's not really or not only about being intimidated by clever people I don't think. It's complicated.

I think it depends on the subject. Dd applied for nat sci and one interview was maths questions and the other biology/chemistry questions.

We live in a town in the North East and DS3 is at a state sixth form. There are 900+ in Year 13 with about 30 applying to Oxbridge this year (most years they get 5 - 10 pupils in). DH and I are both Uni educated but a lot of our friends are not.

DS3 has applied to C but most of his friends are not applying to Uni at all. I don't think he has told them as he doesn't want to be "different". He only chats with 2 lads in his FM class about it who also applied to O and C.

For a variety of reasons my DCs peers who have applied to university (and a lot have not) have tended to apply to Unis in the North (Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds and Durham). I think this is down to familiarity (they're posh down South!) and concerns about accommodation costs but also strong family ties that often result in DCs coming back to NE when they graduate.

I think the barriers to local pupils applying to Oxbridge are multifactorial and I'm not sure on-line interviews (although perhaps advantageous for lots of other reasons) addresses this, as I think they've written off Oxbridge (and lots of other prestigious Unis) long before that.