AN OXFORD PROFESSOR has questioned the effectiveness of Oxford in- terviews as this year’s application cycle comes to a close. He said further work was needed to ensure that the applications process is “as fair and comprehensive as possible.”
Writing in The Times Higher Education Magazine, Professor Miles Hewstone of New College asked, “Oxbridge admissions tutors are committed to interviewing all their best candidates. Should we be doing this – or would we be better off putting the shortlisted candidates’ names in a bowl and seeking the services of a blindfolded boy?”
He claimed that the effects of the tutors acquiring such extensive information during the interviews process had not been properly researched, and that it may affect final decisions.
In the article, he argued, “We can and must try to test how well all the different pieces of information at our disposal help us to predict final grades. Here science could help, if we could translate each piece of evidence into a numerical value and then decide how to combine them all to predict the outcome most effectively.”
He also considered several arguments put forward in support of the current interview process. He noted that interviews appear to be a good test of the authenticity of students’ work and their intellectual flexibility, and serve as a useful way to “give those from less privileged backgrounds, who may have weaker academic records on paper, an opportunity to show their potential.”
However he also alleged that it was difficult to account for factors such as future motivation, saying, “We still struggle to predict candidates’ attainment because we don’t know how motivated they will be and how likely they are to deviate from the true path of learning.”
A spokesperson for Oxford University said that “as a research university we are committed to an evidence-based approach for our selection procedures, and Profes- sor Hewstone’s suggestions are very much in line with what the Univer- sity and colleges strive to do.”
She added, “Aspects of the selection procedure are regularly reviewed and scrutinised. His article is indicative of the level of discussion, self-scrutiny and commitment within Oxford to getting the admission process right.”
David Messling, OUSU’s Access and Academic Affairs Officer, was similarly supportive of the interview pro- cess. He argued, “Predicting future performance is, as Professor Hewstone points out, a difficult task. Oxford puts itself in a better place than many universities by having not just the general UCAS information, but also submitted work and tests, so it’s never the case that everything hangs on the interview.”
Holly Quinlan, an Access Ambassador at Exeter College, was more scep- tical about Hewstone’s suggestions, opining, “Although I applaud taking a critical look at the interview process, I’m concerned that using any kind of ‘points system’ would lead to students from more advantaged schools being coached on what to do to get the highest score.” She continued, “This is a concern with the process as it stands, and I very much doubt that the system Professor Hewstone suggests would change that.”
Adam Crozier, a first-year at LMH, was also in favour of the interview process, arguing, “A-Levels test nothing but your ability to hit criteria from a mark scheme. I’m pretty sure I only got into Oxford based on my interview where I was able to show my true passion for the subject.”
Professor Hewstone was not available for comment.
