Oxford Admissions II

Dispelling some myths

In my last post I talked about some urban myths that still circulate about the Oxford admissions process. I have been asked what kind of thing these are, so here are a few I have come across. They reflect the perceived mystique and elitism of the university, but they are either misguided or simply false (if sometimes amusing).

Myths about Schools

While some still think that students from private or elite schools have an inbuilt advantage, many nowadays voice concerns that those from the state sector have a better chance of admission. Neither is true, though good teaching in either sector will naturally make a difference. Oxford has worked to improve access and widen participation, with over 68% of UK students now coming from state schools, which educate 93% of UK pupils (the notion that there are target schools whose students are guaranteed places is a myth). Well taught private school pupils may be expected to do better in aptitude tests than those who are not as well taught, and contextual data is used to ensure fairness; but decisions are based on individual merit. There is no bias towards nor against admitting students from either sector who perform strongly across the admissions criteria (see previous post).

Myths about Applicants

Some still suppose that only students with perfect grades are accepted. While academic ability is crucial (and a string of excellent GCSE grades is generally found to be a predictor of academic success), admissions tutors also look for potential, intellectual curiosity, and how well applicants suit Oxford’s style of teaching. It’s not the case that those whose parents or relatives went to Oxford means they will get in, or that students should have a certain accent, style of dress, or social class: the student body is highly diverse, with people from all over the world and different socio-economic backgrounds. Any attempts to influence the process by offering favours or money are considered unacceptable; tutors declare any potential conflict of interest, and sometimes withdraw from admissions assessments simply to avoid the perception that they might have been influenced. Nor does it matter which college applicants apply to; if they are good but cannot be taken by their first choice college, they will be put in a pool and have mandatory assessements by other college tutors.

3. Myths about Interviews

Oxford interviews are designed to assess qualities such as critical thinking and problem-solving skills, not to stump or confuse applicants. The use of bizarre or impossible interview questions (e.g. “Why is a banana curved?”) has long been ruled out as a useful guide to students’ abilities. While not all applicants are invited to interview, decisions are based on objective criteria like test scores and prior academic performance. Admissions tutors err on the side of generosity, but experience proves that interviewing applicants with insufficient academic potential can mean the expenditure by all of unnecessary time and effort.

Many years ago I was part of the team that interviewed and admitted a young woman who went on to do very well at Oxford. In her first week she cheerfully remarked that she had seen through the ways we had tried to ‘psych her out’ at interview. I assured her there had been no such intention and asked what she thought those techniques had been. “You invited me to sit on the sofa”, she said, “and I knew it would be soft, so I made sure I sat on the edge of the cushion rather than be swallowed up by it.” “All interviewees are invited to sit opposite us,” I protested, “and that means on the sofa. It’s not a trick!” “Well,” she said, “I also saw you glance at your watch towards the end of the interview when I was being questioned by your co-interviewer. I was determined to ignore it and just kept going.” I assured her that I was only checking that the interview was running to time; but I have been careful not to wear a watch in interviews ever since…