Louise Richardson, Oxford`s vice-chancellor, is
right on two counts: her university does need to do more to attract the best,
and "the best may not be those who look and sound like" her and her ilk (State
school teachers still not pushing best pupils to Oxbridge,13/10/16). All the
more reason, then, to scrap, or at least modify, "the notorious
Oxford University interview", something which, by the institution`s own
admission, is in need of demystification (The lightbulb moment:Oxford University
issues questions to demystify interviews,12/10/16).
How possibly can a mysterious interview do
anything to widen Oxford`s attraction or access, or justify state school
teachers having to give up yet more of their valuable time to drill their pupils
"in Oxbridge interview techniques"? It contains such "ambiguous", and "fun"
questions where the answer is "typically the opposite" of what the interviewee
expects, "real examples" are having to be released. The reason for this is
clear: they hope it will reduce the candidates` fear of humiliation in the
interview.
Is it any wonder some teachers do not advise
their brightest students to apply to Oxbridge? Being made to look and sound
foolish in an interview is unlikely to build up either self-confidence prior to
taking A-levels, or strengthen the essential faith and trust pupils need to have
in their teachers.
No comments:
Post a Comment