“Cambridge has opened up the admissions process to give a clearer picture of the effort that goes into the assessment of each candidate,” the Guardian tells us. Well spare me.
The article in question, where Jeevan Vasagar is admitted into the top-secret workings of the Cambridge admissions system makes interesting reading. Leaving all prejudice aside, one would come away with the notion that it’s a gruelling admissions system, but ultimately a fair one.
But you can’t help but wonder how accurate a portrayal this is. I’m not suggesting the Guardian is in the pay of the university vice-chancellors. But would academics behave exactly the same when discussing admissions in the presence of a journalist?
One is reminded of the countless stories of public bodies holding heart-to-hearts to predetermine decisions, so that controversy escapes the gaze of the Freedom of Information Act.
There is some revelatory reporting here. This must be one of the first times that the rather-indulgent antics of the Cambridge ‘winter pool’ have been described in such detail. But when Vasagar comments that it is “surprising” that race does not come up in conversation, in spite of accusations of racialism levelled at Oxbridge, it rather smacks of naivety.
Does he really expect that in the presence of a Guardian journalist, academics will reveal what is the most frowned-upon prejudice in our society?
Even with the self-regualation that a journalist’s presence imposes on such discussions, there are some real scorchers in this piece.
The pace is swift, despite the meeting lasting five hours. It is occasionally leavened with a touch of humour, or avuncular kindness. One of the academics, looking at a file photo, sighs: “Oh he’s young – he looks like one of the Bash Street kids.” Another remarks, of a different candidate: “You could conduct a biology study in his hair.” Recalling an over-caffeinated and under-dressed teenager, one says: “The T-shirt, oh yes, the T-shirt …”
So no questioning of why it is necessary for Cambridge, uniquely among British universities, to request a photograph. “Avuncular kindness”? I’m not sure that’s how future applicants, reading this article, will feel when they discover that their looks are being patronisingly assessed and laughed at by those who proclaim to judge on academic capacity alone.
Cambridge is my university and for much of the year my home. I applaud any efforts to redress the current gross imbalance in favour of those from private and selective schools. But I’m not convinced that an article which reinforces the notion that two of this country’s universities naturally need to have a different admissions system to everywhere else. We have some great university courses all over this country, some of which are more over-subscribed than any at Oxbridge.
Maybe admitting more students from comprehensives would encourage more students from comprehensives to apply? Now that would be very original.
