Some of this is fair criticism of Oxbridge, some not so much.
The 'grand formal settings' for interviews are the buildings most of the colleges have -- and one of things that make them such incredible places to live and work. Yes, you could erect a small, casual prefab to conduct your interviews, but that would be kind of dishonest.
On the other hand, Oxbridge probably is unhealthily attached to some of its weird old traditions (gowns, Latin, port, etc.). These things also vary widely between the colleges -- but in ways that are hard to find out unless you are (or you know someone who is) on the inside.
I went to Trinity College from an inner-city, state school background and always oddly enjoyed the weird traditions I experienced when studying there. These experiences coupled to the history and the grand buildings always made it feel as though I were studying in a museum which, in turn, really fed my imagination/curiosity to explore what else was out there (in terms of odd rituals/behaviour e.g. announcing exam results on the steps on Senate House). I doubt that was their intention but it was an interesting side effect.
What's unhealthy/weird about it? I've been at several Universities and each of them has their own 'traditions'. Also, I wouldn't really call the examples you gave as 'oxbridge traditions' (you're right that things vary a lot by college).
One wonders what she'll make of the place she wants to go (UCL) where they keep the body of the founder on display in a glass case in the main hall, and he's wheeled into meetings and listed in the minutes as "present but not voting"?
Not to mention that UCL is just as "elitist" as Oxbridge, and aspires to be more so...
* "If the Proctors consider you not to be dressed correctly they reserve the right to refuse you entry. Any infringements involve the Praelector in paying a fine of a bottle of Port!" (http://www.clare.cam.ac.uk/Graduation-2011/)
-- which serve no obvious purpose, but can potentially make people feel that Oxbridge students are strange and different (and maybe posh or snobbish), and not the kind of people they'd like to be around or become.
I'm not saying this is always an easy call, though. Once you're there, a bit of harmless tradition can of course be fun.
I can see your point but academic dress is used at many institutions. The only difference here seems to be there are more occasions in Oxbridge where people are required to wear it.
You also say ...but can potentially make people feel that Oxbridge students are strange and different..., which I completely understand. However, I get the impression that Oxbridge gets a lot of attention and people almost look for the idiosyncrasies so they can point them out. I've never heard of anyone being fined bottles of port at Cambridge but I wouldn't be surprised if there were such rule written down somewhere in the last 800 years. It's akin to strange rules like commoners not being allowed to drive sheep through London. It might still be illegal but no-one pays it any attention (nor can they be bothered to repeal it).[1]
(Disclaimer: Grad school at Cambridge)
[1] I have no idea if that's true and I've heard variations that involve tolls and geese. My point is that although such outdated laws exist, no-one really goes looking for them.
A dress code is a dress code. If you go in short, no shirt and flip-flops to a club they wont let you in. Why will the most historic/renowned/respected university in the world does not have the right to impose 'admission criteria', in this case clothing.
As someone who went through the Oxford interview process this year (and rather surprisingly received an offer) I do wonder exactly what she was expecting when she applied to Oxford. For me part of the attraction (aside from the academical reputation) was the history and, it has to be said, rather grand buildings.
It's also worth pointing out that this was sent on December 10th, before any replies from the university, meaning that she didn't actually have an offer to reject, it was technically a withdrawal of her application, and probably only preempted a rejection letter from the university.
Personally, while I didn't enjoy the interview experience as a whole (much of the conversation was awkward, and having to wait 12 hours while you 'might' get called for another interview is incredibly stressful) I really enjoyed the interviews I had - the opportunity to discuss aspects of CS/Maths with experts in the field, particularly talking about areas that interest me is something I've not really had chance to experience through the UK education system - although I can't say I had any of my interviews in 'grand formal settings', just the tutors offices.
For those interested in the full text of the 'letter', it can be found here [1], as kindly posted to the 2012 Oxford Applicants group on FB by one of her friends who did get an offer.
It makes me angry that this even got into the news.
Getting into Oxford is a difficult process and not many make it. Those that do have been selected based on merit, obviously she did not meet what the admissions tutors were looking for.
It's childish that she replied with such a letter to be honest, she just sounds like a spoiled child throwing her toys out of the pram.
I thought the last quote was a little odd. "Being a successful student should depend on the student, not on whether or not a couple of academics have deemed you to shine in a twenty minute interview."
I'm not sure what system she would propose instead.
Edit: Seems a few people don't like the above comment. The application process anywhere will take into account grades, supporting statements, references etc. Not everywhere will do interviews but for those that do, it'll (presumably) be an additional point in all of this.
That's a system that Oxford explicitly rejects. They even give a test for science candidates, and then don't really care about the results (they're just there to check that you're not completely ignorant).
Oxford selects for potential, not for test results. How do they judge that potential? Well, they have developed detectors which are really advanced, carefully calibrated, extremely sensitive and incredibly difficult to game.
Those detectors come in the form of "professors" who have been teaching for 20+ years and know how to judge a student's potential from a 20 minute interview.
You need to take into account that test scores don't tell you enough. Currently roughly 8% get the top grade (A star) at A level, per subject [1]. I can't find a number for what %age of students achieve all-A star grades, but I expect it's still greater than the number who apply to Oxford or Cambridge.
It's the job of the interview to distinguish between those who have the potential to go beyond what's needed for A levels. For the most part, if someone has had to work extremely hard to achieve the top A-level grades, they're going to struggle at Oxbridge where the level is that much higher.
I'm not saying the current interview process is perfect, but test scores alone don't tell you enough to distinguish the best students.
As a current graduate student at Oxford Uni (CS) I can only feel sorry for this girl. While the interview process is really serious (how else should it be?) I doubt that in any way she was treated differently in a negative way.
People know that Oxford and Cambridge have a social status to defend and maintain, as well as traditions that have been carried for hundreds of years, that need not to be change - or will be changed, because a goofy looking teen says so.
And just for the sake of demonstrating how full of shit this girl is have a look at this letter (originally from reddit) where an almost identical letter was used for a _job_ application. The only thing this girl did was ammend it to be address at an academic institution.
----
Herbert A. Millington
Chair – Search Committee
412A Clarkson Hall, Whitson University
College Hill, MA 34109
Dear Professor Millington,
Thank you for your letter of March 16. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me an assistant professor position in your department.
This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually large number of rejection letters. With such a varied and promising field of candidates, it is impossible for me to accept all refusals.
Despite Whitson’s outstanding qualifications and previous experience in rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at this time. Therefore, I will assume the position of assistant professor in your department this August. I look forward to seeing you then.
> People know that Oxford and Cambridge have a social status to defend and maintain
Isn't a school supposed to be teaching you things? What's "respecting" a social status got to do with anything school-related whatsoever? And anyway, I wish those Oxford guys had "respected" Giordano Bruno when they had the chance.
19 yo writes funny letter. It's not much of a story. The sad thing is the BBC interviewing her because they heard about it.
She does have a point about Oxbridge being very traditional and it's great that she recognised that it wouldn't suit her. Many students go with the 'best' university they can get into even if they are not appropriate for them.
I'm amazed how many people actually complain about that funny letter. To me this proves just how right she is. Apparently making fun of Oxford is off-limits for some...
The 'grand formal settings' for interviews are the buildings most of the colleges have -- and one of things that make them such incredible places to live and work. Yes, you could erect a small, casual prefab to conduct your interviews, but that would be kind of dishonest.
On the other hand, Oxbridge probably is unhealthily attached to some of its weird old traditions (gowns, Latin, port, etc.). These things also vary widely between the colleges -- but in ways that are hard to find out unless you are (or you know someone who is) on the inside.