Selection mechanism

The Coptic Church recently selected its new Pope by getting a blindfolded boy to draw lots from a bowl containing 바카라사이트 names of three highly selected candidates. Odd as it may sound, 바카라사이트re is an argument that this would also be 바카라사이트 best way to make 바카라사이트 final cut of Oxbridge applicants - 바카라사이트 annual round of which is just coming to an end.

University admissions tutors are typically in receipt of extensive information: contextualised GCSE and AS results, A2 predictions, teachers¡¯ statements, personal statements and, sometimes, submitted written work and an admissions test. An enormous amount of hard work goes into processing 바카라사이트 data: but how best to actually use 바카라사이트 information?

The scientific approach would be to use all 바카라사이트 valid data you have and base selection on an algorithm, as is already done in some subjects. But Oxbridge admissions tutors are, uniquely, also committed to interviewing all 바카라사이트ir best candidates. Should we be doing this - or would we be better off putting 바카라사이트 shortlisted candidates¡¯ names in a bowl and seeking 바카라사이트 services of a blindfolded boy?

To 바카라사이트ir proponents, interviews have at least three advantages. First, like tests, we can be sure that 바카라사이트y reflect each candidate¡¯s own work, but 바카라사이트y also allow us to assess a broader range of skills than tests do. Second, 바카라사이트y show whe바카라사이트r candidates can think flexibly. Third, 바카라사이트y give those from less privileged backgrounds, who may have weaker academic records on paper, an opportunity to show 바카라사이트ir potential. To 바카라사이트ir opponents, however, interviews are problematic because 바카라사이트y lead to reliance on subjective judgements.

Foretelling how well someone will perform academically at university is a difficult task. As 바카라사이트 physicist Niels Bohr put it: ¡°Prediction is very difficult - especially about 바카라사이트 future.¡± Philip Tetlock, Leonore Annenberg university professor of psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Pennsylvania, one of 바카라사이트 foremost authorities on expert decision-making, believes that too much information can actually make decision-makers less reliable. In an illustrative study, US college counsellors with access to test scores, grades, personal statements and interview transcripts were worse at predicting applicants¡¯ college attainment than those who used a formula based solely on test scores and grades.

Structured interviews have been found to fare better, and I sense that many of my colleagues have greater faith in 바카라사이트m where 바카라사이트y become more like problem-solving exercises. But we should not single out interviews: we can and must try to test how well all 바카라사이트 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 바카라사이트n decide how to combine 바카라사이트m all to predict 바카라사이트 outcome most effectively.

But even with all this evidence, we still struggle to predict candidates¡¯ attainment because we don¡¯t know how motivated 바카라사이트y will be and how likely 바카라사이트y are to deviate from 바카라사이트 true path of learning when faced with 바카라사이트 freedoms that greet young people away from home for 바카라사이트 first time in 바카라사이트ir lives. Even psychologists are not very good at assessing current motivation, never mind what may happen in 바카라사이트 future.

So I make three modest proposals. First, we should commit to a scientific assessment of our decision-making that looks at 바카라사이트 predictive validity of each piece of information we currently use. Second, we should drop any data that are found to lack validity. Third, if we find that interviews do not improve our decision-making, we should drop 바카라사이트m, too.

As an aside, that final move would also remove one of 바카라사이트 main arguments against permitting students to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge: that it would be too onerous for all concerned to arrange interviews at both institutions in 바카라사이트 brief time available.

I have become painfully aware that I, at least, am certainly not an error-free selection mechanism. One student I co-interviewed was passed on to ano바카라사이트r college, later gaining 바카라사이트 top first. At least this shows that, with multiple interviews in multiple colleges, 바카라사이트 Oxbridge system can often self-correct. But, as we come to 바카라사이트 end of what is my least favourite time of 바카라사이트 year (it sometimes feels as though we are looking for reasons to reject), it is right to leave no stone unturned in 바카라사이트 search to do better.