Has anyone on here been on Oxford interviewer?

[Donchawishyourgurlfriendwashotlikeme]

I’ve read so much about Oxford admissions having had three children go through it (two in one not) and I find it so interesting how it still seems quite mysterious.

Is it right that everything is weighed in the balance of GCSEs, predicted grades, admission test, written work if submitted and interview? Or is it that all those first metrics simply determine who gets to interview and after that point an offer hangs solely on interview performance?

And what is that ‘teachability’ that they are trying to determine in interview and how do they work it out?

Id absolutely love to sit in on the deliberations post interviews! I bet it’s fascinating (to me at least 😂)

I should have asked at the end- does anyone have any inside knowledge?

No, but everyone we know who has been offered a place either has a family tradition of Oxbridge (ie; parents went there/siblings go there), or they're contextual candidates. This is not to put people off but is the case with around 20 families we know offered over the last two years.

No each element is scored. The further you go through the process less weighting is added to the earlier stage scores as more scores are factored in. They do set out the weighting hidden somewhere online (they are good at having the information there but in a way it takes forever to find!)

Possibly down to the fact that clever parents often have clever children though.

No doubt @Spirallingdownwards. I found it quite interesting - might be to do with social capital, parents able to attend alumni dinners to gain tips/contacts, better prepared or more confident dc re; the interview system. One parent was able to use their Oxbridge friend to do mock interviews with their dc in their subject. It seems some advantage is conferred. However, this is just our personal experience and an observation.

So I work at Oxford Uni. I used to work in undergraduate and graduate admissions (at different times) but moved away from both because some times of year (application season) were hell.

• your grades, personal statement etc all determine whether you get the interview. The interview is the most important thing, then the admission test is also considered (ie if they decide they want you, you also need to have scored well on the test).
• I think someone said that getting into Oxford was generational. While this used to be very true and is still somewhat true in some departments (I'm not going to name names...) I would say this does not stop very good candidates without family members from Oxford getting in. One department I worked at in particular were very very keen to get as diverse a pool of excellent students as possible. Depends on the subject.
• the interview. It's not strictly about what they know. Most people who get an interview are smart, or they wouldn't be there. That's not what's being tested. It about original thought, about being given an idea and running with it and coming up with interesting ideas, theories and concepts. If you're applying for something more factual, it's about looking at data and thinking about how it could be interpreted differently or what factors affect it that others would have thought of. Etc etc. they want to see you have the ability to think independently and really contribute to new or interesting ways of thinking, rather than what you already know.
• I really doesn't hurt to find out who you're going to be interviewed by and talk about their specialist subject. They love it.

Best of luck with applications. And remember, Oxford isn't everything (trust me, I've worked here a decade!!!)

Oh I also was interviewed for Oxford twice (didn't get in either time, this was when I was 17 and knew no better!). It was really weird. There was a stuffed bear, full size, in the corner of a book-stuffed office and I had to sit on a throne-like armchair. Very uncomfortable for a state school kid. I don't think they do that sort of thing any more. In fact, I was talking to one of the professors recently and he said that they do most of their interviews online now. Such a shame.

DS went to Cambridge - the first in the family to do so. We think one of the reasons he was accepted was because he chatted to the secretary when he was waiting to be called in for interview.

I have done Oxford admissions for more than 20 years and had various roles related to admissions policy. I would say:

1. Interviews are never a tie breaker. They form part of the picture of a candidate and that whole picture is taken into account in making decisions. I have often taken candidates with fairly mediocre interview scores but fantastic performance from school/admissions test. They have often gone on to do very well.
2. I would never use the term 'teachability' and have never heard anyone use it in discussing candidates. If someone were to use it as a reason I would ask them to explain what they mean, as there's always a risk that such terms are shorthand (probably unconsciously) for 'the kind of person I am comfortable with'. Interviewers are very aware of those problems and all of the discussions I have taken part in have always focused very clearly on the criteria we use to score and evaluate candidates. That said, unsurprisingly, those criteria tend to reward the kinds of skills that enable a student to do well on the course so to that degree 'teachability' might encompass a general sense that the student scores well on our criteria.
3. A PP referred to a weighting that is hidden online. I am not sure what this means. We do have a ranking for all applicants to the department that combines different elements of the admissions information. That ranking is a helpful guide as it tells college tutors where their candidates sit across the whole cohort of applicants. It is not used to determine offers but to assist the decision process. It is department specific and takes account of our data on how students perform on course. For that reason the precise weighting changes as we get new data.
4. I have never, for obvious reasons, asked candidates or students whether they have an Oxford connection so I have no idea how accurate the annecdotal perceptions mentioned above of 'generational admissions' is. No doubt having clever parents who value education and talk about interesting ideas is helpful. Many parents who went to Oxbridge will be in that category but so will many others. Annecdotally, I know very many Oxford colleagues whose children have not got into Oxbridge and several friends with no connection whose children have. Quite a lot of our students volunteer that they don't have any connection or are the first in their family to go to university and we are very conscious of the fact that applicants come from very different backgrounds, not all of which are obvious from the data we have on school/postcode etc. Now that we do most interviews online most students will be in their home/school environment whilst being interviewed so if coming to the alumni family day used to be helpful for familarity with the buildings then that will not be the case now.
5. I really doesn't hurt to find out who you're going to be interviewed by and talk about their specialist subject. They love it. I wouldn't follow this advice unless you really do love the specialist subject. It's very obvious when a student has just looked up your most recent paper and claims the topic is their favourite. We try to avoid opportunities for students to do this and stick to the interview questions that allow us to get comparable information across candidates.

DS went to Cambridge - the first in the family to do so. We think one of the reasons he was accepted was because he chatted to the secretary when he was waiting to be called in for interview.

Your DS sounds lovely and congratulations to him. I am sure that he will have got his place entirely on academic merit and not for this reason.

There is a wealth of information available from freedom of information requests that you might find interesting.
For example...btw - they are available for some other subjects too. Lots of content redacted but insightful.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/202223oxforddppeadmissionssman/response/2297706/attach/3/PPE%20Admissions%20Manual%202022%2023.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

@huffpuff123 that’s really interesting.

However the shortlisting section surprised me.
I am aware that schools vary hugely in how they approach predicted grades (some happily hand out aspirational scores, some go direct from the result of the most recent in-school test, some have a blanket policy of only giving the admission requirement and no higher) and also surely teacher’s UCAS reference is very skewed depending on how much the teacher likes or even knows student, how switched on they are about what to say etc.
I’m really surprised they two elements are weighted in the mix with the seemingly more objective stuff like admission test and interview.

My DC went to Oxford and Cambridge with no family connections on either side. No contextual flags either.
I have no idea how much grades versus interview matter. I have always assumed they got in on the basis of their exam profiles. DD is an extrovert and loves situations like exams and interviews. DD is quiet and procrastinates but comes up with original ideas. Both graduated with Firsts.

I went to Cambridge from a comprehensive and was the first in my family to go to university. In my cohort only one other student had a parent (mother) who had been to Cambridge.

@anoxfordtutor unclear what this point means:

"PP referred to a weighting that is hidden online. I am not sure what this means. We do have a ranking for all applicants to the department that combines different elements of the admissions information. That ranking is a helpful guide as it tells college tutors where their candidates sit across the whole cohort of applicants. It is not used to determine offers but to assist the decision process. It is department specific and takes account of our data on how students perform on course. For that reason the precise weighting changes as we get new data"

Do you mean each department sends applications to the colleges with a number next to them based on what? Their UCAS form? How Is that helpful in the "decisions process"? Is this for Oxford only (my understanding for Cambridge is that the colleges are in control and the faculty doesn't play any part)?

Hi, I was responding to a PP who said this No each element is scored. The further you go through the process less weighting is added to the earlier stage scores as more scores are factored in. They do set out the weighting hidden somewhere online (they are good at having the information there but in a way it takes forever to find!)

I am not quite sure what that means exactly. There is no single weighting, hidden or not. Instead each department has its own processes.

What I mean in my post is that departmental processes will often include some form of ranking of candidates (perhaps at multiple points) to allow canadiates to be compared across colleges. For example, if you look at page 18-19 of the PPE manual linked above (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/202223_oxford_ppe_admissions_man/response/2297706/attach/3/PPE%20Admissions%20Manual%202022%2023.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 ) they set out the ranking formula they use for comparing candidates for 2nd interviews.

Ah ok, thanks, so that's a post-interview ranking, not a pre-test "application" ranking, which was what I was confused about.

On families, I didn't try Oxbridge (but possibly might have got in - best A levels in school, diod very well in my degree etc) and none of my 5 children wanted to have a go. My siblings both went (one (a younger sibling than I am ) was the first from our school ever to go) whose children went and our other sibling has one child there now. I always felt it never made too much difference to my legal career that I had not gone so perhaps that transmitted to my children or may be as they said that time they thought they wouldn't get in and it was too much effort to try (some of them can be quite laid back).

Yes that example is a post-interview rank but other deparments might well use an application ranking e.g. in order to shortlist. If you look at that PPE manual, it was clearly impacted by the covid GCSE results that had messed up the way they would otherwise have done shortlisting. At page 15 they discuss the way that they would have otherwise scored candidates for their pre-interview score and explain what they are doing instead.

The basic point is that all deparments put a huge amount of effort (look how long and complex the PPE manual is) into creating a process that is as fair as possible. Increasingly that means finding ways of comparing candidates across college so that the 'right' candidates are shortlisted, given 2nd interviews or given offers, regardless of the college they applied to.

This is old now, but might be interesting

Alan Rusbridger: lifting the lid on Oxford admissions | Times Higher Education (THE)

Very interesting read. A decade old, so hopefully it's out of date. Not sure if it's Rusbridger's intention or not, but the tutors in part three come across like absolute arseholes.

Wow at that article
Is that still how it works? Such individual consideration and deliberation?

Of course it’s going to be careful, individualised and painstaking. There are thousands of applicants for hundreds of places.

And why do the tutors sound like arseholes? They’re doing an immensely difficult job and trying to balance individuals with a broader picture.

I have been involved in Oxford admissions. Yes it is incredibly careful, painstaking, and individualised. It is also a vast amount of work - between mid-October and mid-December it can feel rather like working two fulltime jobs simultaneously. Bear in mind that (at least in my subject) the written work and the test are marked by Oxford tutors - since every candidate who applies will take those, that's a huge load of extra marking which must be done carefully and fairly, but in a short window during the teaching term. UCAS forms have to be gone through painstakingly by everyone who will be interviewing that candidate. Decisions must be made about shortlisting and reallocation. In the first part of December when admissions peaks, you've finished your normal fulltime teaching load, but you are doing really long days and often working late into the night. And the admissions cycle essentially runs all year round: even outside the peak times there is a lot to do, not least the time needed nowadays to write detailed responses to FOI requests from disappointed candidates who didn't get a place.

Tutors don't on the whole mind this massive extra workload because it's generally felt that this is an important decision, that a lot is bound up in it emotionally for the candidates, and so it's right to put in as much time and effort as it takes to do justice to the candidates. We also know that we only have a small insight into the candidates and we may make the wrong call - noone claims that the process is infallible, only that we're doing the best job we can on the evidence we have. What is really dispiriting though is to get through the exhausting week of interviews, and then read a load of media stories about how lazy/biased Oxford dons are, or to go to a Christmas party and have someone find out what you do and berate you because they've decided admissions is fundamentally unfair and that you and your colleagues are all toffs/Marxists who hate state school/private school kids.

The other thing that is disspiriting is that it's very hard to demystify the process, because however open you are, some people will insist that you are just giving the party line and there is a secret way admissions works that you aren't telling them. The boring truth is that what the university says on its website is accurate and that it isn't in Oxford's interests to have secret rules we don't tell anyone about. It is hugely in our interests to select the best candidates irrespective of background because we are then going to spend the next 3 or 4 years teaching them in very small groups, and it makes a massive difference to a tutor's quality of working life if the students they teach are motivated and are suitable for the course.

The exact details of how things work vary a lot between subjects so it doesn't make sense to generalise about the system and how things are weighted or scored. The Rusbridger article doesn't exactly reflect my experience, but this maybe subject differences as well as the process changing over a decade. After all, different subjects have different requirements in terms of written work or tests, and the way reallocation works varies between subjects.

My friend is one. I think all of the elements in the mix are important. But what I got from her is that she is passionate about her subject. And I think she wants to see someone else who is or has the ability to become passionate. Not someone who rocks up with 10 9s and 4 A*s and expects a place.
My DS is applying this year. He's an interesting case study. Our advice is not to get too hung up on it, it is effectively a lottery.
As an aside also have a friend that interviews for medical school. Says it's a nightmare. Lots of people, all practically the same on paper so has to look for the smallest reason to offer one over the other.