5 ms·

Interesting that the questions and the "right" answers select for a particular political perspective, notably the question about banking. It's particularly pert

by wfo 11y ago

Interesting that the questions and the "right" answers select for a particular political perspective, notably the question about banking. It's particularly pertinent but also very politically charged and any answer will be controversial. I like the idea of having open-ended thoughtful questions like this in an admissions process instead of uninformative bland standardized tests which say nothing but they come with their own pitfalls -- it's very hard to avoid discriminating based on political affiliation, culture, etc. Knowing the political attitude of the reader of your answer would give you a huge edge in the admissions process and I think that's not ideal.

rahimnathwani 11y ago
"the "right" answers select for a particular political perspective, notably the question about banking." No they don't. The article gave two nuanced answers from different perspectives: "A simple answer might be ... just the outcome of a competitive labour market...." “An alternative story is that the banking industry is not competitive ..." My Oxford interview (>20 years ago, mind) had a mixture of technical-ish questions (calculate the equilibrium point of these two demand/supply curves) and more open-ended ones (is inflation good or bad, and why?).
- wfo 11y ago
  They gave two simplistic answers from the same perspective, and I think you have to share their perspective to think there's a difference between them. And neither actually answered the question, which was "On the question of bankers’ pay, and whether the government should do something to limit how much they get" -- it's clearly a question about where and when and why government interference in economic matters is appropriate, and whether or not this situation warrants it -- an ethical/philosophical question not simply an economic one. Though I may be misunderstanding since I don't know the Oxford process very well -- from the way you're describing it, correct me if I'm wrong, applicants to Oxford are already very specialized and the question would be asked in a very specific economics-only context, in which case they've already filtered out anyone with a different perspective and the question is entirely appropriate.
  - rahimnathwani 11y ago
    Of course, those aren't the _only_ two good answers to the question but, remember, they're trying to make a distinction between 17-year-olds. They're not looking for a particularly perspective, but for some instinct to go deeper than gut feel. I'm sure they'd be impressed with someone who thought about it from a philosophical perspective, talking about ethics etc., as long as there was some structure/foundation to the answer. My interview was with two people (at the same time), one specialising in philosophy and the other in economics. Regarding the questions being specialised, I don't expect this is generally the case. At the time of my interview, I was studying Economics, Maths and Further Maths. So, the questions were challenging whilst still being within reach, given only things I had already studied at school. (e.g. in Economics I'd been introduced to supply and demand curves; in maths I'd been introduced to calculus; answering the question was simply a matter of seeing the link and putting the two together.)

by wfo 11y ago

rahimnathwani 11y ago

"the "right" answers select for a particular political perspective, notably the question about banking." No they don't. The article gave two nuanced answers from different perspectives: "A simple answer might be ... just the outcome of a competitive labour market...." “An alternative story is that the banking industry is not competitive ..." My Oxford interview (>20 years ago, mind) had a mixture of technical-ish questions (calculate the equilibrium point of these two demand/supply curves) and more open-ended ones (is inflation good or bad, and why?).

wfo 11y ago
They gave two simplistic answers from the same perspective, and I think you have to share their perspective to think there's a difference between them. And neither actually answered the question, which was "On the question of bankers’ pay, and whether the government should do something to limit how much they get" -- it's clearly a question about where and when and why government interference in economic matters is appropriate, and whether or not this situation warrants it -- an ethical/philosophical question not simply an economic one. Though I may be misunderstanding since I don't know the Oxford process very well -- from the way you're describing it, correct me if I'm wrong, applicants to Oxford are already very specialized and the question would be asked in a very specific economics-only context, in which case they've already filtered out anyone with a different perspective and the question is entirely appropriate.
- rahimnathwani 11y ago
  Of course, those aren't the _only_ two good answers to the question but, remember, they're trying to make a distinction between 17-year-olds. They're not looking for a particularly perspective, but for some instinct to go deeper than gut feel. I'm sure they'd be impressed with someone who thought about it from a philosophical perspective, talking about ethics etc., as long as there was some structure/foundation to the answer. My interview was with two people (at the same time), one specialising in philosophy and the other in economics. Regarding the questions being specialised, I don't expect this is generally the case. At the time of my interview, I was studying Economics, Maths and Further Maths. So, the questions were challenging whilst still being within reach, given only things I had already studied at school. (e.g. in Economics I'd been introduced to supply and demand curves; in maths I'd been introduced to calculus; answering the question was simply a matter of seeing the link and putting the two together.)