Oxford change selection process

[Scrutiny]

Those of you who applied to Oxford last year but were unlucky enough not to be placed in the pool for interview at a second college (and are thinking of applying again) might wish to know that the 'system' has changed, again.

Oxford has cut the number of interviews from 3.5/place last year to 3/place this year, because of the change in interview process.

Unless they change it again for next year! you would be interviewed by one college initially ('possibly' involving two interviews), then interviewed at another college (one interview). You may be admitted by the first college - on the basis of two interviews, or you may be admitted by the second college - on the basis of one interview, or you may be rejected by both.

If you're unlucky enough to get Somerville for your first college, then one of your two interviews at Somerville will be a scored oral test - the results of which they use in a formula to rank the candidates. The oral test is marked on a question-by-question basis (i.e. point-by-point allocated against each answer), consists of four parts - each carrying 10 marks, to give a mark out of 40. They won't tell you it's a test, and unless you know different you may approach this just as any other interview. However, they are marking you on each answer. They are also awarding 'bonus marks for speed' of answer. They will however, if they don't want you to do well, focus on one particular aspect of the questions for a long time and string you along on that one part instead of asking you each of the set questions. Then you will not score highly because they haven't asked you as many questions as other candidates. However, if you're lucky enough to get Somerville as the second college, then you will not have to do a whole interview with them using this test, but will get a couple of questions from the test and general questions as you would have done at any other interview. They will not therefore be comparing like with like if they administered a full test for one candidate (attending two interviews at Somerville) while administering a bit of the test to another candidate (attending one interview at Somerville). Even if attending two interview at Somerville they may not give you as much time to complete this test as other candidates, and merely make up a score by scribbling an additional number at the bottom of your form. This oral test is not used by any other college in the system, and neither is the formulated scoring system used to rank candidates, so keep your fingers crossed you get another college for at least your first set of interviews.

The number of candidates shortlisted for interview is restricted to 90 (3/place). The initial ranking of candidates is based entirely on the entrance test results. A couple of candidates whose test result puts them in the first 90 but whose applications are not graded highly (e.g. B, B or below) will be removed and not interviewed. A couple of candidates whose test results put them outside of the first 90, but only just, will replace those removed due to their application being graded (e.g. B+, B or higher).

IF your test score means you are ranked below the target group, then you will not be interviewed even if your application is graded 'A' 'A'.

The guideline that states candidates whose applications are graded 'A' (outstanding) ‘should normally be interview’ is not being used to mean that you will be interviewed if your application is graded ‘A’ ‘A’. IF your test score is not high enough you will not be interviewed even if you are graded as an ‘outstanding’ candidate by the two faculty assessors.
Last year two candidates had their applications graded ‘A’ ‘A’ but were not shortlisted. If you think you might be one of them, then you may wish to request copies of the assessment documentation. Others were ‘B+’ ‘B+’ but not shortlisted due to the test scores and the cut off to get 90 interviewees.

The Med School has record of the assessment of your application (including any comments recorded by the two faculty assessors), and also a copy of your test scores and where you were placed in the ranking. You are entitled to copies of these documents, but it will probably cost you £10 to obtain them. Given that they have saved time and energy by deciding not to interview as many people this year, I am sure they won’t mind spending a bit of time assisting you to understand why you were not shortlisted!

Oxford have expressed a desire to reduce the number of interviewees even further, below that of the current 90, and are considering applying even more stringent criteria in order to eliminate even more candidates at the initial selection stage.

However, in the past, colleges have left places unfilled due to them not finding enough suitable candidates at interview, and would rather not fill places than take the candidates shortlisted using the entrance test system. Some people have been rejected by the first choice college, admitted by a second college, and the first choice college has left the place unfilled.

Not everyone involved at Oxford thinks that entrance test system is an adequate way of selecting for interview.

Colleges complain about the quality of applicants and the Committee raise concerns that some candidates admitted have turned out to be ‘unsuitable’ (their phrase). They conclude that ‘it was observed that at present there was no really successful mechanism for attracting and selecting the right candidates’. BUT nevertheless the Course Director continues to rely heavily on the system of shortlisting on the basis of the test results, as it is his pet, and is keen to see a similar test introduced nationwide at all med schools.

There has been a heavy bias in favour of younger female candidates (one year being 21 out of 25, with five places being left unfilled). But that is probably because they are wonderful people. Even the 'girls' have expressed some concern over this seeming bias.

The recent statement from Oxford reported in the Guardian that people with first class degrees will be ‘flagged up’ and considered for interview even if they have scored ‘badly’ in the test is now stated NOT to be correct. The Course Director has stated that this WILL NOT happen, despite the original statement having been written by the Course Director!

The University has yet to issue an ‘official’ statement to clarify exactly what the 'system' is.

Good luck all.

[elles]

Just to clarify - are you talking specifically about the Graduate Entry Programme?

because it doesn't sound much like the previous or published procedure for the standard course (BMAT being numerical, not graded, the fact that everyone had interviews at 2 colleges last year & your reference to bias in favour of 'younger females' doesn't make much sense otherwise etc)...so I'm slightly confused!

in which case, graduate entry scares me

[Scrutiny]

Yes, elle, it is for GEM. I've amended the thread to show that. Thanks.

[wannabe]

The recent statement from Oxford reported in the Guardian that people with first class degrees will be ‘flagged up’ and considered for interview even if they have scored ‘badly’ in the test is now stated NOT to be correct. The Course Director has stated that this WILL NOT happen, despite the original statement having been written by the Course Director!

The University has yet to issue an ‘official’ statement to clarify exactly what the 'system' is.Good luck all.

Bloody Hell (is all I can think to say after reading that post). Btw, do you have the reference for the Guardian article? Thanks,

[Scrutiny]

Bloody Hell (is all I can think to say after reading that post). Btw, do you have the reference for the Guardian article? Thanks,

http://education.guardian.co.uk/oxbr...419697,00.html

[The Messiah]

Boy, as if getting into Oxford wasn't hard already....

[Scrutiny]

Yes, indeed.

[Scrutiny]

If you are considering applying to Oxford for GEM, you should also be aware that Somerville College operates an additional entrance test - but only for 'some' interviewees!

Despite the GEM Committee stating that Colleges should not operate 'independent marking criteria', and despite the University stating that applicants will not be disadvantaged by choice of college, and despite the Prospectus stating that 'all colleges will work to the same criteria', Somerville College operate an admissions process that is NOT used by other colleges, and which they do not even apply consistently to all applicants to Somerville College.

The 'independent' process involves an oral test - not conducted under exam conditions, and not applied consistently across candidates - from which Somerville College will derive a 'score' (which in the past has been spurious), with an 'independent' cut-off of 30/40 - under 30 means you're rejected - even if you have fulfilled the 'published official selection criteria' in the other interview!

NO OTHER COLLEGE OPERATES THE TEST USED BY SOMERVILLE.

Unfortunately, for candidates, the changes in the system mean that even where you state a preference of college on your application form (i.e. anywhere but Somerville!), you still run the risk of being sent to Somerville College for interview.

However, if you are sent to Somerville College for a 'second' interview (i.e. having had one or two interviews at another college initially) then you will be luckier than those sent to Somerville initially, as Somerville have been shown not to apply the same selection criteria to 'second' interviewees as they did to 'first' interviewees. That is, they have rejected 'first' interviewees on the basis of their 'independent' marking criteria (30/40), but have then made offers to 'second' interviewees who have not been required to undergo the oral test in full and who, therefore, could not possibly have fulfilled the 30/40 cut-off from the oral test.

All of those sent to other colleges - by chance - can breathe a sigh of relief!

Regrettably, the University of Oxford are not willing to address such matter with the degree of probity one would expect - choosing rather to turn a blind eye to such blatant procedural irregularities that clearly seriously disadvantages some candidates.

Good luck!

[sunny]

Where did you get your info about the oral test? Is it something you sat yourself? And did they tell you it was a test at the time or was it just an interview which you later found was marked?

I guess when it comes to interviews colleges are always going to give you some sort of mark on your performance otherwise how are they going to satisfactorily differentiate you from the next person? When I was interviewed for my undergraduate degree they gave a mark out of 10 on various aspects of the interview - the worst thing was that I could see the interviewer doing it at the time!

I know the point here is that it's unfair for one college to use a selection process on some of its applicants and not others and that outright rejections on the basis of this just open the way for interview pool candidates to get given the places at the college. But how are you so certain that other colleges don't use a similar system for grading people?

At least they give you the chance to get to interview - I'm still bitter about the strict MSAT cut-off scores enforced by some of the London places with no consideration to first (or higher) degrees, references, personal statement etc etc.

[Scrutiny]

Where did you get your info about the oral test? Is it something you sat yourself?

Yes, I have.

And did they tell you it was a test at the time or was it just an interview which you later found was marked?

No, they don't tell candidates that it is a scored test. It was only later when the documents were 'eventually' revealed (after considerable obstruction) that one could see what they had been up to.

I guess when it comes to interviews colleges are always going to give you some sort of mark on your performance otherwise how are they going to satisfactorily differentiate you from the next person? When I was interviewed for my undergraduate degree they gave a mark out of 10 on various aspects of the interview - the worst thing was that I could see the interviewer doing it at the time!

Yes, some form of mark is usually attributed to an assessment.

However, the documentation reveals a structured oral test, scored on a question-by-question basis, which points per question and candidates score per answer, with four sections (each worth a total of 10 marks), with 'bonus marks for speed', from which they then derive a test score (out of 40 max), which is then used to produce a formula (also not used by other colleges) to rank candidates.

It is not disclosed to candidates that this is a test, and is not administered under test conditions, resulting in not all questions being asked, and not asked consistently across all candidates, and not even all sections being covered. Though they still generate a score (out of 40), which is used to determine who is offered places. Less time has been given to complete the test in at least one case, and the final score out of 40 merely contrived from spuriously adding an additional figure at the bottom of the form to make up a section not questioned during the 'procedure'.


The 'published official selection criteria' (three sections) is also scored, BUT this is done on a standard form issued to ALL colleges by the Medical School. Each section of the published official selection criteria (to be found in the Prospectus) is scored from 0 to 4 (4 = excellent). My form shows that the sheet was initially scored '4', '4', '4' (i.e. max score for each section). It is evident that one section has then been changed to '3/4' (3 stroke 4). However, Somerville then recorded an 'overall' score of 3.5, which ranked me equal first candidate. Exactly how one can get from '3/4' ('4'!!), '4', and '4' to an overall of '3.5' is another interesting trick.

I know the point here is that it's unfair for one college to use a selection process on some of its applicants and not others and that outright rejections on the basis of this just open the way for interview pool candidates to get given the places at the college. But how are you so certain that other colleges don't use a similar system for grading people?

You are right. Candidates pooled by other colleges who have NOT used the independent marking criteria used by Somerville College can then find themselves being interviewed (only once) by Somerville and admitted by Somerville having not been required to complete the test that was used by Somerville to reject earlier candidates who had fulfilled the published official selection criteria to a greater standard!

I am certain because I have specifically asked each of the Admissions Tutors at the other colleges. None of them use this test. The use of such a test would be 'preposterous' according to one Admissions Tutor! I have a string of replies - with names and colleges - that highlight what a complete farce the selection 'procedure' is.

At least they give you the chance to get to interview - I'm still bitter about the strict MSAT cut-off scores enforced by some of the London places with no consideration to first (or higher) degrees, references, personal statement etc etc.

'At least' I got to interview where I was then cheated! Some consolation!!

But I fully understand your frustration at being rejected due to test cut-offs being used to filter candidates, without due consideration of other relevant - and more important - factors. This arbitrary cut-off in preference to more important factors is precisely what Oxford are continuing to do with the reliance on the graduate entrance test scores to primarily filter candidates for interview, as noted previously above in the thread.