@lindyk8L: Haha I completely understand :). The problem is many private schools LOVE to handpick their class in a metropolitan fashion so as to diversify their classes. But there are positives and negatives with everything: in this case, they are rejecting qualified applicants because they may not fit the “mold” of the class.
Yes, quite a few UK universities do use interviews (some I know of are York, Warwick, Exeter, Bristol) - but generally not as intimidating as Oxbridge ones. It does depend on both subject and university, and it’s possible some won’t bother with overseas candidates, even if they expect to interview domestic applicants.
Name (and technically age but you can work that out by dates of education and exams) blind apps are quite common in job recruitment here too, until shortlisting for interviews is completed.
I think they are talking about combating bias against minorities who have similar school backgrounds and ECs as whites.
Also, ECs in the UK are only mentioned to the extent that they relate to the subject you are applying to study- the emphasis on ‘well-rounded’ is not an important feature, and summers are much less intensively scheduled for most secondary students (at least compared to US students).
Am I the only one that feels this doesn’t make sense? I feel most people agree that race hurts Chinese, White, and Jewish? students and helps URM students (ie if you look in the accepted/declined/waitlist posts, there’s a spot for URM)
Ideally it’s meritocracy but it seems like it would just help white/Chinese/Jewish students
Edit: Just saw that all else equal, their system favors british/upper class applicants so I guess this policy works.
The UK is a small country with only about 265K or fewer annual applicants to their system. I do not really think that their experiences are scalable to the US.
The arguments about “meritocratic” admissions assume that test scores determine academic merit. Personally I think that qualities of intellectual curiosity, creativity, and integrity cannot be well-measured by standardized tests, which are exceedingly gameable. Furthermore, the better UK universities are not “pure” meritocracies in that they rely heavily on the interview, which weeds out the inarticulate, the awkward, and the weird. Therefore, the idea that UK universities are purer meritocracies (re stats-based numerical criteria) than the US is not really accurate.
The elite American universities rely very heavily on the Oxford/Cambridge ideal of the well-rounded, “clubbable” student who will join his/her place in the socioeconomic elite of national leaders. The idea that the UK universities value pure “academic” (as defined by test scores/grades) merit more than American universities is not wholly accurate, certainly at the elite level.
@NJSue, the Oxbridge interviews weed out the inarticulate, perhaps, but these days, Oxbridge is keen to avoid being a good old boys club. Nor do they care much for well-roundedness. You must be reading too many novels based in pre-WWII England. They don’t give a fig about grades (though A-level subject tests results definitely matter), but these days, Oxbridge value academic prowess first and foremost. Those interviews are by the faculty of the subject you will read and they are looking for kids who will excel in that subject.
@PurpleTitan, I don’t appreciate your condescension. I have some personal experience of Oxford. There is still a tension between the nerdy “Northern chemist” archetype and the polished, social PPE student. The question is, how do you measure “academic prowess”? My problem is with the equivalence of stats-based admission with meritocracy. The idea that Oxbridge admissions are purely stats-driven, like NMF cutoffs here in the US, is erroneous. They care about personal presentation. It matters. Otherwise they would ditch the interview.
@NJSue, if you have personal experience with Oxford, it does not show. Oxbridge has not held an ideal of “well-rounded clubbable” kids for a while now.
I think if an applicant makes it to the interview stage, it means someone took the time to read the application. They didn’t just thrown it away without reading it, after seeing the name.
A video is worth a thousand words. There are a series of sample interview video on this page.
http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/interviews
There was little objection to mold fitting when that mode was white, male and Protestant. Diversity matters. In the UK they are trying to increase it and thereby improve meritocracy with blind app idea. Here we try to increase it with an open app. Blind apps here would fail to recognize the disparities in the population here. This is not a good approach for here. And as far as taking the high school name out that is ridiculous. All high schools are not equally good and the preparation is not the same.
@juicymango I agree that if a Latina offered to spend time helping people in India that would be viewed differently. And it should because it is different for someone to spend time helping those of a completely different place and culture. This would apply equally to Asians who help Africans. It is simplistic to consider only the sameness of the facts in your example but not the nuance and meaning in it.
It’s interesting that in the demographics data for Oxford(#11), there’s quite a disparity in acceptance rate between the various ethnic groups and the mixed background groups:
White: 26%
Arab: 7%
Bangladeshi: 9%
Pakistani: 9%
Indian: 15%
Chinese: 17%
Other Asian: 14%
Black African: 11%
Black Caribbean: 11%
Other black: 15%
Mixed - White and Asian: 25%
Mixed - White and black African: 26%
Mixed - White and black Caribbean: 18%
Other Mixed background - 21%
I have read that the majority of non-immigrant students reported as “black” at Harvard are actually biracial. I wonder if mixed background applicants also get more of an advantage in US college apps, or if such bias(if exist at all) is only through face-to-face interviews because mixed race people are less “ethnic” in appearance and mannerisms.
“The arguments about “meritocratic” admissions assume that test scores determine academic merit. Personally I think that qualities of intellectual curiosity, creativity, and integrity cannot be well-measured by standardized tests, which are exceedingly gameable. Furthermore, the better UK universities are not “pure” meritocracies in that they rely heavily on the interview, which weeds out the inarticulate, the awkward, and the weird. Therefore, the idea that UK universities are purer meritocracies (re stats-based numerical criteria) than the US is not really accurate.”
However, UK A levels aren’t multiple choice tests. The humanities at least are essay based and an A grade should show signs of original thought, not just regurgitating what the student has heard. Of course it’s not perfect in ranking students, but it’s not a bad predictor of how well a student will do later on. Academic interviews should also investigate the student’s intellectual curiosity etc.
@myyalieboy: You yourself are looking at this in a very 2-dimensional way…one thing I hate about colleges is that just because you are of a particular ethnicity, they assume you assimilate and know everything about that culture. I’m Indian, but I was born in America…in fact the only “Indian” part of my life is my parents who actually came from India. If I happened to go to India because I know it contains the most poverty, I would learn as much about India as the next person, and I wouldn’t receive any advantage or insight based on my ethnicity. I just happen to be Indian, helping out in India…but to be honest I don’t consider myself “Indian” just as white people don’t consider themselves “European”, they consider themselves “American”…why should it be any different with me? Do you know what I mean? India is just as foreign to me as it is to you…it’s not fair to assume otherwise just because my PARENTS were from their…I have nothing to do with India, because I was born in America.
Lots of African Americans have some European ancestry, as well as African ancestry (some also have Native American ancestry). So it is not news that lots of African American people (students or otherwise, at Harvard or otherwise) have non-African as well as African ancestry. It is only because of American social convention that such people are typically seen as exclusively African American rather than multiracial.
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2028657465/2046793154/mmc2.pdf describes the often hidden or ignored multiracial ancestry of many Americans.
One drop…
@myyalieboy, there are plenty of disparities in the UK as well.
There is nothing hidden about the mixed ancestry of nearly all African Americans (who are not recent immigrants from Africa). If you visit West Africa you see people are MUCH darker than most Americans…