Admitting Defeat
Oxford University is always keen to emphasise the fact that its admissions procedures are a little bit different from those employed by other higher education institutions. Only Cambridge is willing to match the expense and effort lavished on interviews for prospective candidates: Bristol, Durham, Edinburgh and other leading universities are happy to assess their applicants merely on the basis of UCAS forms. This insistence on personal contact is clearly praiseworthy.
While the Oxford interview is without doubt the source of many an urban legend, it is nevertheless a better way to assess a candidate’s potential than a string of A* grades at GCSE and whether or not they have grade five on the clavier. Admittedly it is not perfect, and perhaps on one occasion or another a tutor has indeed asked his charge to drop kick a rugby ball into the waste paper basket.
However, Oxford should stand up to defend interviews against those who would like to do away with them. As we report this week new government proposals have suggested that a proportion of university admissions should take place after students have sat their exams, rather than beforehand. Many senior figures in Oxford have reacted with criticism, claming that this is likely to complicate the current admissions system and make an already burdensome task intolerable and impossible.
However, the really important issue at stake here is whether the lack of enthusiasm which has greeted these proposals is indicative of a genuine consideration of a new admissions system, or whether it is in fact nothing more than the latest manifestation of Oxford’s notorious institutional conservatism.
Our university is unrivalled on a global scale, not only as a centre of research, teaching and punting, but also for its ability to prevaricate and avoid change until the impetus for reform has been exhausted. Think what you will of John Hood, our Vice-Chancellor, but at least concede that he has had the nerve to take on the behemoth of Oxford’s collective resistance to change. Perhaps it is time for the government to do the same thing.
It can be argued that there is a genuine case for reform of university admissions procedures, particularly due to the inaccuracies that dog predicted A-level grades. As anyone who can remember begging, threatening, or bribing their teacher to push a B grade up to the magical A will attest, grade predictions are not necessarily the fairest or most impartial way to decide who will do well at university.
Moreover canny public schools are sometimes willing to predict excessively high grades in order to give their less canny pupils a better chance of reaching the destination of their choice. However, this latest furore over grade predictions and post qualification admissions should be seen as symptomatic of a wider malaise. Grade inflation at A-level is undeniable. Modular papers and spoon feeding have made it simpler to get an top mark than ever before.
Given that many more students now get a string of A-grades at A-level than there are Oxbridge places available, the function of school exams to decide university entrance is less effective than at any time in the past.
Therefore rather than engaging in more lengthy casuistry about how admissions should be conducted, is not the first step towards more egalitarian system to reassess A-levels? An exam that was better able to differentiate the highest levels of achievement, and harder to cram dullards into passing would allow universities to realise their dream of admitting the most able applicants regardless of their background.
We at The Oxford Student are therefore all for a reform of the A-level system, if only because we are safe in the knowledge that we already have both A-grades and places at Oxford.
25th May 2006