[naturalgradient]

>They try hard to let in disadvantaged kids, but it's a crap shoot deciding who has potential and who doesn't. They rarely care about anything other than academics. (I'm not sure how they recruit the rowers.)

They don't try that hard.

Being vaguely involved with the Oxbridge undergrad admissions process in CS/Math i can tell you there is very little trying. A fuss is being made about coming from a disadvantaged background but in practice sadly the people running it only care about one thing: how well you can grind out an answer to a math olympiad style question in 15 minutes. Yes, extra-curriculars and well-roundedness don't matter which I think is a good thing because I believe in focusing on being great at one thing.

What it comes down to nonetheless is preparation and school support, e.g. via training for math competitions. Saying the interviews are about 'evaluating the thinking process' of the applicant is a fantasy when most applicants come from schools where they have been trained to do them for years. Oxbridge are not forthcoming about this but ultimately they take people who are already well groomed Math olympiad winners, not raw potential.

It's probably still better than opaquely selecting for race and like-ability and if this means many math undergrads are Asian, why should that be a problem? It's still unfair to disadvantaged children and this sucks, but at least the criteria are clear.

Ps: on your question how they recruit rowers: They let them study land economy, that's the joke at least.

[jvvw]

I have interviewed maths applicants at Oxford, with the caveat that it was 20 years ago.

The things that struck me were that a lot is dependent on the individual interviewers. I tried hard to look for potential as did most of the interviewers I spoke to did but can be easier said than done. The exam wasn't a big factor in the decision making I found, unless somebody did really well or really badly, as the marks were all very bunched up and we couldn't see the scripts to see what people were getting right and wrong.

Also, the course is really hard for somebody who hasn't done double maths A-level, so if somebody only has single maths, you have to pretty confident that they will be able to basically teach themselves further maths A-level. There is obviously some support from tutors with that, but the set-up is aimed at people with double maths.

They definitely don't only take groomed Maths Olympiad winners and the questions are much easier than Olympiad questions (in my undergraduate year there were only two of us who had made it to the top 20 country in the British Maths Olympiad stuff for example - Cambridge filters them all off!)

I also don't think even the top schools train up for the interviews as much as you say - I went to a school that was top ten in the A-level league tables nd only had one mock interview.

[lozenge]

The questions in the admissions exam and interviews are fairly straightforward, they are nowhere near any math olympiad level. Math olympiads normally require a host of advanced techniques, each of which is quite accessible but never gets taught in schools. Interview questions just need what gets taught plus some understanding of what a proof is.

[naturalgradient]

I am aware, PhD students design and mark these questions, and can interview :)

The point is that if you go to a target school doing Math olympiads throughout your school life, the admissions exam and interview is a walk in the park. The applicants who didn't have any of this preparation can still do well but will fare relatively worse against that group, and I think this is very obvious in the ultimate intake.

[Ntrails]

It's incredibly hard (impossible?) to come up with a system which cannot be prepared for by a subset of students with access to top tier tuition. You can do some score normalisation based on background but I expect you'd agree that isn't going to help if people can't get through the first years course content?

I don't believe anyone wants the course to be easier. So how do you enable people who are underprivileged to catch up with a shitload of additional tuition which has been offered to other applicants? How do you distinguish effectively between the two, whilst also accepting high aptitude students?

It's not that I think any elite university does this brilliantly - but as someone with a decent level of exposure do you have a feeling on whether there are complete solutions?

[arethuza]

Are those interviews by PhD students in addition to or replacement for interviews by proper dons?

[naturalgradient]

Each applicant receives multiple interviews and I can perform one of these as a PhD student, and have received the same training any faculty member would have.

The interview process is relatively standardized, and if my results were to differ starkly from what more experienced interviewers do they would be disregarded, and the director of studies for that college would simply not invite me back to help.

I would add that asking PhD students to do this is not the worst thing because via supervisions and other teaching efforts, we have a good picture of what undergrads here need to be able to do. An interview is a like a short supervision.

[arethuza]

Thanks - that actually sounds fairly sensible.

[stordoff]

> Being vaguely involved with the Oxbridge undergrad admissions process in CS/Math i can tell you there is very little trying. A fuss is being made about coming from a disadvantaged background but in practice sadly the people running it only care about one thing: how well you can grind out an answer to a math olympiad style question in 15 minutes.

It varies a lot between colleges/interviewers. I initially interviewed at Trinity (Cambridge), and there was an admissions exam (roughly STEP I/II level) and the interview was solely focused on that. I was then pooled to Selwyn, and there was no admissions exam and the interview was much more general (split into three parts - NatSci DoS-barely even about the subject, more about yourself generally/why Cambridge; CompSci DoS-more general questions, it was more about coming up with an idea, or how you would implement something, and broader CS concepts, than being able to chase down a specific answer to a set question; Physics DoS-focused around a particular question, but was more interested in you being able to come up with a viable method, and explain your reasoning, than being able to do every single step there and then (I needed _a lot_ of hints, and was still admitted for CompSci, and that DoS later said that wasn't an issue - I could see the broader idea, and would have got there with time/being able to look things up)). Someone who interviewed directly with Selwyn said they had the same experience.

[saagarjha]

> What it comes down to nonetheless is preparation and school support, e.g. via training for math competitions. Saying the interviews are about 'evaluating the thinking process' of the applicant is a fantasy when most applicants come from schools where they have been trained to do them for years.

I'm from the U.S., so take my input with a grain of salt with regards to applying it to the English school system, but in my experience the majority of mathematical talent comes from outside work, with next to zero support from schools.

[fjsolwmv]

That's because you didn't go to an elite math school.

[saagarjha]

What kind of school are you referring to when you mention “elite math school”?

[naturalgradient]

There are schools in various countries, e.g. Romania, which are known for producing extremely well prepared applicants. They select for these schools from the entire country and have them focus on sciences, math and computer science early on. They practice Oxbridge style interviewing/math olympiad questions to death.

This results in for instance there being proportionally many more Romanians at Oxbridge Cs/Math/Physics than you'd expect by population.

[saagarjha]

Ok, sure, but there are very few schools like that in the U.S. outside of homeschools.

[hyperfallible]

most recruited rowers do one of the cash cow masters courses.