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 was one. I'd say don't do this:

'It really doesn't hurt to find out who you're going to be interviewed by and talk about their specialist subject. They love it.'

That is a sure fire way (in most cases) for your DC to make a fool out of themselves. It also backfires massively if the interviewers change (which they do, frequently). I feel sorry for applicants who have been told to do that.

Do not assume that the interviewer(s) will be supporting their own views or the views you think that they should hold.

In my subject, predicted grades mean little by interview stage. GCSE grades do, although we're flexible. The rankings and tests which get you to interview are often not dealt with by the interviewers themselves. Some interviewers don't even look at UCAS forms and take the candidate as they come. Others read the personal statement in detail and will ask subject-related questions about it, even related to your hobbies (if applicable). So please don't assume that the Oxford lecturer in front of you is not into parachuting, electronic music, juggling or football.

Teachability is not measured but it is a vague quality which might be ascribed to a candidate: when faced with something new, do they try to reason through the problem? do they ask questions? do they start answering in stages? do they try an educated guess? Or, when faced with criticism of their view, can they revise it or take that into account, or do they stick doggedly to the view come what may?

Lastly: it is a bit of a lottery and so don't feel bad if you don't get in. Brilliant applicants are missed and they can do very well elsewhere.

@foxglovetree thank you so much for taking the time to contribute that much information to the thread - its really interesting and reassuring. I’m sure anyone who has had DC go through the process are hugely grateful for the time and care you take.

What about contextual data? Ie someone resitting exams or someone who underperformed due to illness or bereavement, how is that considered?

@Rocknrollstar I can say with confidence that the people who are making the admissions decisions will have absolutely no idea whatsoever whether he spoke to the secretary or not! It really is on academic performance only.

It really doesn't hurt to find out who you're going to be interviewed by and talk about their specialist subject. They love it.

Another interviewer of many years here, saying really don’t do that. Interviewers find it embarrassing and awkward — we aren’t the focus of the interview: the candidate is. The interviewer is interested in the candidate’s passions and ideas, not their own! They want to learn about what the candidate is interested in, not to be flattered or buttered up with a feigned interest in their own work. (Another tip is that a candidate doesn’t have to have any questions for the interviewer. We always ask if they do, but it’s a formality and isn’t part of the actual interview. So much info is available online nowadays, that a candidate really doesn’t need to manufacture a question just for the sake of it.)

@cityofgirls We stopped asking “do you have any questions for us?” because most candidates either looked really worried when they didn’t, or would make up a long question designed to butter us up eg “Professor X, I see you have written a book on topic Y. I was wondering if you could tell me
more about the importance of topic Y to the field). It just wasn’t helpful and was stressing candidates out and wasting time. Almost no one had an actual question they needed to know the answer to and as you say, if they did, they could find the answer online (or email the admissions office).

We found it was much better just to end interviews with “it’s been a pleasure speaking to you, thank you for coming.”

@foxglovetree Before we start I always say “There will be an opportunity for you to ask any questions you have at the end, and that’s not part of the formal interview”; and then when we finish I say something like “the interview is now finished; do you have any questions for us?” Most of them don’t, but a few do ask something.

We’re currently still online, which I hate. Our AT loves online, but you get a much better rapport with the applicants in person. It’s much harder to put them at their ease and get them to relax a bit on a video call.

Do you think Oxford will move back to in-person interviews at some point? Or are online interviews here to stay?

I don't see Oxford moving back to in-person for the foreseeable future. Personally I preferred in-person as an interviewer, but I can also see the benefits of online (much less expense for applicants, avoids safeguarding issues with under 18s away from home, minimises time off school, avoids the stress to candidates of hanging around Oxford for several days, sustainability as it cuts down on thousands of car/bus/train journeys).

My nephew studies maths at Trinity and we have no family history of Oxbridge and no contextual offer. I do think that generally kids get in on their own merit though I guess maybe parents with interview knowledge could help coach for the interview? My nephew had interview practice arranged by his school from someone who had been to Cambridge/possibly lectured there….im not sure.

It's also possible to meet some contextual criteria, but still come from a high achieving academic background despite living in a deprived area or attending a low achieving school. They're not mutually exclusive!

Candidates who had contextual factors considered still have to achieve exactly the same offers as every other offer holder for their subject. They're not given a free ticket or only have to get 2 x Cs

Honestly, I can't see how having gone through the Oxford interview process oneself would help that much. I did, and wouldn't have a clue how to advise my daughter, not least because we both did completely different subjects. I would not have a clue how an Eng Lit interview was likely to go and my experience of answering difficult maths questions would obviously be of little use to her! I suppose the only way in which it might be helpful is that she looks at it as achievable so maybe a bit less anxiety about the whole process?

In my experience, that kind of detail (which isn't the official contextual data or part of a SEN report) is not always available to the interviewers. Sometimes it is available through the references (so it is important for schools to put this in) but then there will usually only be very guarded comments. It would influence my decision-making to some extent, but the student would still have to be very promising at interview.

Often it is only years later, when the applicant is a student, that we might find out from them the actual circumstances alluded to in the reference. Sometimes the background is much worse than we could have imagined from the comments.