Tbf, the Oxbridge/Imperial interview process is only done for those three universities plus medicine/dentristry (not even LSE and UCL as a routine standard). That’s basically the equivalent of T10 US universities, and it’s not clear that most colleges would have the resources to dedicate to proper interviews that can sort candidates.
Also, interviews are still a bit of pot luck at the end of the day and not an exact science. I’d argue that for the very, very best, they’re more likely to be accepted to elite US universities as they have hard signals (IMO medals etc.) that Ivy+ unis will consider whereas Oxbridge/Imperial won’t really evaluate after you get the interview and you’re judged solely on your performance at that stage (certainly in the case of Oxbridge, Imperial is a bit less interview-reliant).
The APs/min SAT scores are still a relatively effective filter though and stop underqualified applicants applying, which despite the race for more applicants in the US, is ultimately a waste of resources.
I’m not suggesting all colleges should interview. That’s clearly unfeasible. But more faculty involvement in the admission process is doable.
US colleges can’t rely on APs because of the problem we have in K-12 education. SAT/ACT are now optional at most colleges and too many applicants have “good enough” scores because successive revisions of these tests plus test prep have made “good enough” scores easy to obtain for too many applicants.
There are plenty of people that regret joining demanding colleges like Princeton, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, and CalTech.
But almost nobody fails out these or other top 20 schools, and it’s not because every admitted student is academically strong, but because the support system is so extensive.
ETA: I see that @eyemgh said something similar. Great minds…
In terms of admissions, yes, but only because IMHO the academic threshold is often too low.
Now, the top decile of students in these schools can be pretty incredible. The middle group is also very solid. But a good percentage leaves other students wondering how this person got in.
I mentioned some top colleges that are known to be hard above, often because there is a set of required core classes that are difficult. In contrast, places like Harvard and Yale are known to be as easy or hard as a student wants to make it. But I think that’s still a disservice for the academically weaker students.
There are useful exceptions to the academic criteria. David Hogg was admitted to Harvard because of his leadership, not his scholarship. But exceptional leaders like him are rare, and others should be held to higher standards.
Remember though that this thread was predicated on the US schools producing too few and inferior STEM majors. I think that’s an incorrect presumption. There are many STEM jobs. Most don’t require people to be at the tippy top of creativity and achievement.
I am not so sure that we should accept the presumption that overseas admissions relies strictly on merit. Some overseas schools may focus less (or not at all) on ECs and aptitudes in off-focus subjects, but does that really mean that their process is more a meritocracy?
Or take a look at the changes in the rate for “Black Ethnic” applicants. In the middle of last decade there was quite a lot of negative press about possible prejudices in regarding admissions to top schools, especially regarding “Black Ethnic” students, and since then there has been an increase in admissions of these students. The admissions requirements didn’t officially change, but admissions seems to have changed.
It is unclear what is driving these numbers but it is at least suspect that the process is as less based on merit as some seem to believe.
But note that even if admission were focused on pure academic strength (or “merit” if defined in this way, however measured), past performance is an imperfect predictor of future results in school. This may be especially the case when the high school to college transition is a big one, both in how academic work is handled* and (for residential colleges) how students live while in college compared to high school. How the student handles this transition can be a big factor in college performance, but is not easily measured from any of the usual academic measures available for high school students.
So it is not surprising that admission at highly selective colleges makes some “mistakes”, no matter how it is done or what criteria or measures it uses.
*E.g. college requires the student to have much better self-motivation and time management skills than the much more supervised academic environment of high school.
STEM is not a monolithic category. Biology graduates are quite common compared to the employment demand for them. But the opposite is currently the case for CS graduates.
Personally, I don’t like the term STEM for just that reason. I didn’t start the thread though. I honestly think that the OP and most posters here are using the term to describe a subset of degrees that can practice autonomously with just a BS, mainly engineering and CS. I could be wrong though.
That is my operating assumption as well. This is largely an engineering/CS discussion and the implications (imagined or otherwise) of her theory in industry.
And Trinity College, Cambridge hosts the preparation camp for the British IMO team. If you are invited to that camp then they indicated (in the alumni newsletter a few years ago) that you are “encouraged” to apply and will be made an offer of admission to the college.
S19’s school does the same for their Physics major (but it’s still only worth 3 credits). Physics students are less likely to transfer to Business though.
There has also been an increase in applications from these students. Oxford has been investing in their outreach programs, including hiring graduates from under-represented demographics to talk to students from their old (& similar) schools and to develop better outreach programs. One of the less visible barriers to getting URMS to apply is their concern about fitting in. The system of ‘contextual’ offers is also becoming less opaque.
It may be part of why Asian students are less willing to want colleges where there are few Asian students that forum posters commonly suggest for them (e.g northeastern LACs). It may also be why non-Black students are commonly unwilling to consider HBCUs.
It is also possible and likely that prestige private schools in the US are leaning on ALDC type hooks to keep the White population from falling too much, because they do not want to be unattractive to future White students.
I’m sorry I should have been more clear. There has been an increase in the offer rate relative to the expected offer rate.
The necessary steps taken by Oxford to attract and enroll qualified underrepresented students seem a pretty good indication that the system was not the meritocracy that some seem to believe.
