This article is taken from the February 2025 issue of The Critic. To get the full magazine why not subscribe? Right now we’re offering five issues for just £10.
Covid presented a once-in-a-century moment for change, and British universities pounced. Not one has retained its full pre-pandemic offering. This column will chart varsity folly, and will start from the top, and at the beginning, with Oxbridge admissions.
The traditions of two institutions with 1,750 years between them defy easy simplification. But their basic practice was to call the brightest school applicants for interview and, after written exams and mock-supervision/tutorials with dons, offer the strongest a place, conditional on A-Levels — or not.
When Covid obstructed in-person interviews, the universities pivoted online as a temporary necessity. Yet now, only 7 of 59 undergraduate colleges interview applicants in person; all those are in Cambridge, as Oxford is likely never to see physical applicants again.
It’s a tale of two cities and of two systems. The centralisation of Oxford’s admission processes last decade means colleges must uphold university-wide uniformity. In 2023, the Admissions Committee asked eligible colleges to vote on whether to extend online-only interviews for five years, which required a special two-thirds majority.
But since the authorities had already made up their minds, a bizarre amalgam of specious arguments emerged: it was too expensive, both for student travel and college hospitality; the confluence of sharp-elbowed applicants created an intimidating environment; 17-year-olds were at risk overnight; Covid, or flu, could crop up; carbon will be emitted; besides, where was the evidence that in-person interviews were better (no one having collected it)?
The unspoken reasons weren’t hard to intuit: an easier life for admissions tutors and academics keen to spend December interviewing from home, whilst bursars could rent out college rooms to tourists.
Dons who demanded in-person interviews — normal human interaction, wherein applicants experience the environment they are applying for and display their talents more naturally and fairly — were told they couldn’t prove their claims quantifiably.
As Cambridge’s deputy head of Education Services declared: “Candidates might believe one format held an advantage, but this view was to be discouraged, since it really was only a personal preference.”
The seven Oxford colleges who sought in-person interviews fell disgruntledly in line
Most importantly, it’s good for “access” — though no-one was told how a nervous applicant with patchy WiFi staring at a phone in a crowded flat could thrive just as much as a well-heeled, well-prepared applicant dialling in from papa’s study.
Applicants saw through the sham: in 2022, Cambridge asked 1,200 Open Day attendees whether they wanted in-person or online interviews. The preference for in-person was three times larger than for online; for those with “widening participation” criteria, 58 per cent favoured in-person versus 11 per cent for online. Alas, the self-appointed experts had already spoken.
In 2023, 24 Oxford colleges voted to extend online assessment, despite some serious intra-college strife. The seven who sought in-person interviews fell disgruntledly in line. Nobody believes 2028 will see the return of the complex, multi-day, in-person interviews that built Oxford’s brilliance.
Over in Cambridge, individual subjects were asked to make a “clear academic case” for returning to in-person interviews: musicians, say, might want to experience music in the same room; archaeologists might want to hand candidates physical objects for analysis.
But, no: the authorities ruled that no subject reached the threshold for restoration. Since most admissions tutors, and two thirds of senior tutors, wanted Cambridge colleges to share one uniform approach, there was minimal university-wide debate.
From the outset, Trinity refused to be bound by the Admissions Forum and was the only college to hold in-person interviews in 2022. Five more joined them in 2023, with King’s and Peterhouse rebelling against their seniors. Two more revolted in this academic year.
It’s easy to see why. Those with experience remotely interviewing overseas students know the scope for cheating: substitutes appearing for interview, help coming from whiteboards off camera, hidden earpieces; the tales go on. Now all Oxford, and most Cambridge applicants can use voice-activated AI bots to help them answer questions in real time.
Both universities are rife with reports of these abuses. Some academics lament that the wealthy can afford higher-quality, paid-for versions of ChatGPT, which leaves underprivileged cheaters behind; others argue that it’s so hard to police online deception that we should abolish interviews entirely. Let the wheels of progress turn!
