The way in which we select people is a complicated affair, and one which seemingly divides Oxford. Not only do we find colleges split over their approach to the personal statement, but also to their interpretation of hustings procedures, both of which have drawn criticism this week. Cherwell would suggest we should respect the autonomy of SCRs, and by and large, JCRs, to make their own decisions about these matters.
The UCAS form: hours of deliberation, focus-grouping, re-writes and deep analytical consideration of the issues being addressed. It all seemed to suggest we were writing the next Labour manifesto and not, in fact, 47 lines of personal statement. Cherwell remembers well the emphasis and priority that teachers and heads of departments applied to what essentially boiled down to ‘my hobbies and interests.’ Now we hear that several Oxford colleges are in agreement with their Cambridge counterparts: our personal statements weren’t worth the paper they didn’t bother to print them on. The discovery that personal statements do little but ‘muddy the waters’ of the application process has understandably irritated students who feel they were grossly misinformed when filling out their UCAS forms. However, we shouldn’t be too quick to anger. Much as the haze of a couple of years might lead us to believe our acceptance to Oxford was little but a foregone conclusion, we did in fact all apply to other universities. As is well known, Oxford isn’t like other universities. The fact that some colleges now ignore personal statements does not necessarily discredit them in general. The UCAS website itself admits a likely disparity in opinion, stating that ‘some course tutors find personal statements crucial when making decisions’ whereas ‘others might not put as much emphasis on them.’ The Oxbridge application process varies significantly from the majority of higher education institutions, many of which do not ask students to attend interviews, and therefore only have the UCAS form to make their decisions. Difference between Universities, and indeed between Colleges, is something to be expected, not derided.
The same sort of inter-college disparity is present in JCR hustings. Some are dry as dust and poorly attended whilst others are raucous affairs of debauched tomfoolery, with a minority of colleges striking an effective balance. Cherwell would argue that there is room for both. There are clearly some lines to be drawn: Asking St Peter’s JCR presidential candidates to illustrate a preference between various paternal/canine intercourse scenarios, for example, is surely completely inappropriate when involved in the appointment of the most senior student position in college. Admittedly, when looking at student politics from an objective viewpoint the righteous gravity with which many apply themselves to their roles can seem a touch ridiculous. But these roles are nonetheless important parts of a successful college community, and choosing a JCR President on basis their ability to borrow a ladder seems strangely at odds with the significance most colleges give the position. So as ‘profoundly patronised’ as many Worcester students currently feel about the college’s SCR forcing an overhaul of how the JCR goes about its husting process, it isn’t impossible to understand their viewpoint. That being stated, Cherwell doesn’t suggest that the student bodies which currently require their candidates to engage in shoe wrestling, sexual hypothetics and inordinate alcohol consumption don’t care who represent them. That fact that they have chosen requirements which to some seem irrelevant to an important decision making process doesn’t necessarily undermine the elected after the fact—after all, the majority of the electorate will already be aware of the character of their candidates to some extent. We should consider all selection procedures with respect to the needs and culture of the college in question. What has been lacking from the furore over both stories this week is an appreciation for context.
The same applies to personal statements. Perhaps it was pointless for many of us to fill up those 47 lines, but for equally as many others it might not have been. Institutions make decisions in myriad different ways: One party will consider one side of the coin, the other party the reverse, the important thing is which way up it lands.
