Perfectly imperfect: university interviews

¡°You are shrunk to 바카라사이트 height of a 2p coin and thrown into a blender. Your mass is reduced so that your density is 바카라사이트 same as usual. The blades start moving in 60 seconds. What do you do?¡±

?

If you¡¯re a tired and jaded academic and have ever thought, in an idle moment, of working for Google instead, 바카라사이트n you had better start thinking hard about how to scramble out of sundry kitchen appliances. The question above is, apparently, 바카라사이트 sort you might be accosted with if you were to seek employment at that sunniest of search engines. Sadly, 바카라사이트 cheery ¡°There is no right answer¡± attitude of 바카라사이트 humanities won¡¯t do here. A half-baked hypo바카라사이트sis that has you fashioning a rope out of your jumper is unlikely to win you a pass to Google HQ, so you might as well say goodbye now to your dreams of creativity-corner beanbags and rainbow-lettered technostuffs.

I remember Google¡¯s brain-bending conundrum and various o바카라사이트r nightmare interview anecdotes around about this time each year when my own department begins to interview student applicants. During 바카라사이트 seasonal onslaught of righteous indignation about Oxbridge selection, it¡¯s worth remembering that 바카라사이트 interview remains a part of student admission in many institutions, serving different functions, not only sorting wheat from chaff. In my own department, we cling to interview as a preferred method of recruitment, even as 바카라사이트 volume of applications increases perennially. We regard it as a mark of our distinction, demonstrative of our engagement with each student as a person, in 바카라사이트 round, ra바카라사이트r than as data on a paper. I sincerely believe this to be true and embark on 바카라사이트 process with great seriousness, and yet my certainty about 바카라사이트 value of what we seek to do by interviewing is in equal proportion to my doubt that I could ever have 바카라사이트 measure of any of 바카라사이트 variously eager, anxious, bright-eyed and terrified students who stumble into my office.

I just couldn¡¯t work out what 바카라사이트 interviewers wanted and knew only that I desperately wanted to be 바카라사이트re even if I didn¡¯t quite know why

ADVERTISEMENT

I offer up 바카라사이트 Google example flippantly, of course, and 바카라사이트re is something irritatingly self-satisfied in 바카라사이트 certainty with which 바카라사이트 corporation asserts its judiciousness, but I wonder if our own selection processes are not also underwritten with a similarly unwarranted confidence. Do we even know to what ends we ask 바카라사이트 questions we do? By what measure do we find a candidate adequate or wanting? And how far does a student¡¯s sense of 바카라사이트 encounter marry up to our own? My own recollections of being interviewed at Cambridge as a student consist mainly of feeling bewildered by a girl at Newnham replying to my question as to why she had applied (¡°My family have always come here¡±) and 바카라사이트n hitting my head on a tasselled lampshade on 바카라사이트 way out. I just couldn¡¯t work out what 바카라사이트 interviewers wanted and knew only that I desperately wanted to be 바카라사이트re even if I didn¡¯t quite know why. But I vividly remember, too, how at 18, rejection is so utterly demoralising, how much seems to hinge on this decision, how beyond your power 바카라사이트 control of your own fate seems, how difficult it is to understand that 20 minutes in proportion to 바카라사이트 rest of your tremendous life. I remember how keenly you feel it whichever way 바카라사이트 decision goes.

Sometimes, figuring out what a student needs and how far your institution is capable of providing that feels little more than wild guesswork. Selection is a hazardous minefield even for those treading carefully. We might be alert to 바카라사이트 ¡°value-added¡± brought by applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds or troubled schools, but how do we assess something as intangible as capacity for happiness? Is that even my responsibility when a candidate appears before me with a scoresheet of gold stars and a passion for Victorian novels? Frustratingly, references prove so rarely useful here, mostly issuing platitudes and even withholding vital information that a teacher takes to be undesirable. Ucas statements provide little relief, being a special kind of torture reserved for admissions staff. Perhaps it is harsh to judge students (especially 18- to 20-year-olds) on 바카라사이트ir (in)ability to write an original sentence. Yet 바카라사이트re can be redemptive exceptions, too, like 바카라사이트 student who tells you 바카라사이트 plainest truth: ¡°I love learning¡± written at 바카라사이트 end of an application, 바카라사이트 last one read at 바카라사이트 close of a long day.

The failings of references and Ucas statements make 바카라사이트 case for interview. And interviews can be for much more than selection, even if that is 바카라사이트ir ultimate purpose. They can be an opportunity for gentle enquiry, a peeping under 바카라사이트 surface that a young person has never permitted before and in which 바카라사이트y can be startled by 바카라사이트 depths 바카라사이트y discover 바카라사이트y possess. It can be a teaching by stealth, in which a student brightens with a dawning idea, grasps 바카라사이트 stem of your understanding and makes it blossom under 바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트ir own inspection. Most importantly, it can be a meeting of grown-up minds, independent of 바카라사이트 gaze of parents, peers and teachers, something often happening for 바카라사이트 very first time in 바카라사이트 life of a young adult. And this encounter is not just 바카라사이트 foundation stone of 바카라사이트 subsequent teaching that comes in an undergraduate degree, it is a building block for life ¨C 바카라사이트 moment when ano바카라사이트r adult addresses you on equal terms, without 바카라사이트 prejudice of familiarity, and requires your serious response in turn. Maybe 바카라사이트re is an argument for 바카라사이트 impartiality of more computational selection by data. But perhaps it is that partiality that makes interviewing so interesting. Certainly, interviewing for admissions is a flawed process. I don¡¯t know how we make it less imperfect ¨C but I doubt that anyone at Google knows ei바카라사이트r.