3 ms·

If he thinks exams are a bad indicator... why does Oxford assess its students with... exams?

by murkle 11y ago

agripa2 11y ago
One on on interviews don't scale. I feel like it's the biggest problem in any admissions process; the best metrics are one's that don't scale, so you're forced to rely on less optimal ones.
- mathetic 11y ago
  It's not a problem of scale, it is a problem of fairness. I went to one of the two and I can tell you people lose their minds over everything being anonymous and fair even when it is as anonymous as it gets. When human assessors are involved, it becomes more subjective. Imagine having your assessment with the instructor of your strongest subject vs your weakest subject.
fjmubeen 11y ago
Very fair question - alas, I did not have the authority to change the system (and, for selfish reasons, would not want to as my exam scores flattered my actual ability). Worth noting that written exams do not feature at all in research. There's a recognition at this level that mathematical understanding can not be captured through blunt testing instruments.
- harry8 11y ago
  Do you think you're confusing existing "bad exams" with all possible exams? I don't recall ever sitting an exam with 10 questions where if you got 2 of them out you'd come first. You'd mark such a "hard" paper based on "this is a reasonable avenue of exploration", "this is a good idea that won't work", "this approach will prove ultimately futile but given the student hasn't seen anything like it before it's definitely worth some points." Why are you trying to achieve just that in an interview? Research isn't done in interviews any more than research is done by sitting exams. However sitting down and exploring ideas with a pen and paper by yourself is likely closer than "creating an impression" in an interview. An interview where you, the interviewers, are saddled with the irksomeness of having to roughly account and adjust for your bias as much as you can be aware of it (does she really look like a mathematician? I didn't like sportsman Ben's approach as much as bespectacled whoever - is the impression based on the maths alone or is the form of it's presentation fairly important). The huge advantage of grading an exam is you can exclude all of that gumf we all carry (with differing expressions of it) by simply not knowing who wrote it. Not their name or anything. The other big win is that if you publish the blessed thing you can make such exams more normal. Budding mathematicians might practise such skills and get better at them, younger. As it is you're selecting for the children of mathematicians who get such practise at home and excluding the very smart who honed their exam skills alone because that's all they encountered. I also got very flattering scores on mathematics exams but I wouldn't mistake that for anything beyond my ability to act the student performing seal at that particular game. Any exam where it is remotely possible to get 100% does not test anything like creativity - creativity is the thing that is most important, no?

If he thinks exams are a bad indicator... why does Oxford assess its students with... exams?

by murkle 11y ago

If he thinks exams are a bad indicator... why does Oxford assess its students with... exams?

One on on interviews don't scale. I feel like it's the biggest problem in any admissions process; the best metrics are one's that don't scale, so you're forced to rely on less optimal ones.

mathetic 11y ago
It's not a problem of scale, it is a problem of fairness. I went to one of the two and I can tell you people lose their minds over everything being anonymous and fair even when it is as anonymous as it gets. When human assessors are involved, it becomes more subjective. Imagine having your assessment with the instructor of your strongest subject vs your weakest subject.

fjmubeen 11y ago

Very fair question - alas, I did not have the authority to change the system (and, for selfish reasons, would not want to as my exam scores flattered my actual ability). Worth noting that written exams do not feature at all in research. There's a recognition at this level that mathematical understanding can not be captured through blunt testing instruments.

harry8 11y ago
Do you think you're confusing existing "bad exams" with all possible exams? I don't recall ever sitting an exam with 10 questions where if you got 2 of them out you'd come first. You'd mark such a "hard" paper based on "this is a reasonable avenue of exploration", "this is a good idea that won't work", "this approach will prove ultimately futile but given the student hasn't seen anything like it before it's definitely worth some points." Why are you trying to achieve just that in an interview? Research isn't done in interviews any more than research is done by sitting exams. However sitting down and exploring ideas with a pen and paper by yourself is likely closer than "creating an impression" in an interview. An interview where you, the interviewers, are saddled with the irksomeness of having to roughly account and adjust for your bias as much as you can be aware of it (does she really look like a mathematician? I didn't like sportsman Ben's approach as much as bespectacled whoever - is the impression based on the maths alone or is the form of it's presentation fairly important). The huge advantage of grading an exam is you can exclude all of that gumf we all carry (with differing expressions of it) by simply not knowing who wrote it. Not their name or anything. The other big win is that if you publish the blessed thing you can make such exams more normal. Budding mathematicians might practise such skills and get better at them, younger. As it is you're selecting for the children of mathematicians who get such practise at home and excluding the very smart who honed their exam skills alone because that's all they encountered. I also got very flattering scores on mathematics exams but I wouldn't mistake that for anything beyond my ability to act the student performing seal at that particular game. Any exam where it is remotely possible to get 100% does not test anything like creativity - creativity is the thing that is most important, no?