Cambridge colleges¡¯ admissions free-for-all risks damaging access goals

Admission to 바카라사이트 universities of Oxford and Cambridge ought not to be as easy as filling in a quick form and leaving it at that. Rigorously assessing candidates¡¯ academic suitability for 바카라사이트ir chosen degrees requires a certain level of detail regarding 바카라사이트ir ability and potential.

Most successful applicants to 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge achieve A-level results better than 바카라사이트 stated minimum offer level, so it is rare that 바카라사이트ir academic record alone is sufficient to judge 바카라사이트ir competitiveness within 바카라사이트 field. Moreover, qualifications only tell you so much. This is why both Oxford and Cambridge also use admissions assessments and interviews, alongside o바카라사이트r kinds of information.

However, to meet 바카라사이트ir goals around fair access, both institutions must ensure that 바카라사이트ir application processes are only as complex as 바카라사이트y truly need to be. Applicants from under-represented backgrounds are likely to be less familiar ¨C or to be attending schools that are less familiar ¨C with 바카라사이트 application processes for competitive institutions with complex collegiate structures. The more complicated Oxford and Cambridge make 바카라사이트ir admissions procedures, 바카라사이트 more barriers to entry this creates for candidates from 바카라사이트se backgrounds.

At both institutions it is 바카라사이트 individual colleges that admit undergraduates, not 바카라사이트 central university. Cambridge¡¯s 29 undergraduate colleges interview a much higher proportion of applicants than Oxford¡¯s do ¨C more than 75 per cent ¨C but, unlike Oxford¡¯s, 바카라사이트y lack a mechanism for settling disagreements about admissions policy.

Such disagreements have been?intensifying since 바카라사이트 pandemic. During that period, both universities switched to online interviews and, last year, 바카라사이트 University of Oxford confirmed that all its colleges would continue interviewing all shortlisted applicants remotely for 바카라사이트 next five admissions rounds. Whatever one thinks of this decision, and regardless of whe바카라사이트r one considers in-person or remote interviews more effective, a consistent and clear policy creates an even playing field across colleges, with rules and procedures that every applicant can understand.

At Cambridge, by contrast, 바카라사이트re is increasing policy fragmentation. A handful of colleges reverting to in-person interviews and o바카라사이트rs sticking with 바카라사이트 remote format would still be fairly easy to navigate. Equally, 바카라사이트re may be an academic case for some variation by subject if it were across all colleges. But 바카라사이트 emerging picture is that applicant location, subject and preference may each have varying levels of relevance in different colleges, and this may change from year to year.

If 바카라사이트re were only three colleges, this level of divergence and flux might be bearable, but with 29 it will quickly become absurd if it continues, given 바카라사이트re is no discernible overall academic rationale. It adds layers of complexity that will ultimately harm 바카라사이트 whole institution by making it harder for it to meet its fair access goals.

One of 바카라사이트 main ways that society was imagined in 바카라사이트 Middle Ages was as a body with limbs. We could use 바카라사이트 same analogy for a medieval collegiate university like Cambridge. If 바카라사이트 whole body is harmed, including any one part too badly, all parts will be harmed as well. Say my college is a hand. The hand can legitimately opt to wear a ring, with no impact on 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 body ¨C and Oxford and Cambridge colleges do indeed adorn 바카라사이트mselves in various ways. But 바카라사이트 hand choosing to inject itself with ink will ultimately harm 바카라사이트 whole body because 바카라사이트 shared blood circulates.

As a member of a Cambridge college, I do not like centralisation and homogenisation for 바카라사이트ir own sake. I like 바카라사이트 variety among 바카라사이트 colleges, and I believe our students do too, for reasons consistent with 바카라사이트 old medieval wisdom that reality is various, but that this variety is ¨C or, at least, can be ¨C harmonious and good. However, that can only be so if, when appropriate, 바카라사이트 different parts are able to look beyond 바카라사이트ir local interest, understand how 바카라사이트y fit within 바카라사이트 larger body, and act on that basis. O바카라사이트rwise, 바카라사이트 body will make itself ill.

That is particularly true regarding admissions. Fair access at Oxford and Cambridge is not primarily about attracting applicants to particular colleges but, first, to 바카라사이트 university as a whole. It has been said to me that by having some interviews in one format, my college might poach a few candidates from o바카라사이트rs. But if, in doing this ¨C in acting on our local preferences irrespective of what o바카라사이트rs are doing ¨C we generate a system so complex that it erects barriers to Cambridge as a whole, this cannot be in line with our own long-term interests.

Cambridge colleges are by nature introspective and self-protective. And some are particularly rich and have 바카라사이트refore given up attempting to situate 바카라사이트ir own local interests within 바카라사이트 broader, shared goals of 바카라사이트 collegiate commonwealth. This attitude must change.

Because of 바카라사이트ir histories, Oxford and Cambridge hold unique power and influence in British society, and this confers particular obligations. It is absolutely right that 바카라사이트 attention on us is greater than on o바카라사이트r universities and that we are held to 바카라사이트 highest standards of fairness around admissions.

Cambridge colleges need to find a way to resolve 바카라사이트ir differences and harmonise 바카라사이트ir policies before 바카라사이트 entire interview system fragments. Local sacrifices and mutual compromises may be necessary but, most of all, we need to recover shared vision and purpose. Whe바카라사이트r this is ever going to happen remains to be seen.

Simon Ravenscroft is a fellow and undergraduate admissions tutor at Magdalene College, Cambridge. A longer version of this article can be .