1

Selecting the best students

Undergraduate student selection

Aims

• To recruit those students best able to benefit from the education the College offers, irrespective of social background.

Intellect

Motivation

Application

• To secure the correct numbers of such students for each of our courses

The problem

Most departments are over subscribed with highly qualified applicants:

• Numbers have been difficult to control• AAA applicants must be rejected

» Must be objective, transparent and without gender/race etc. bias

» Test the candidate not the school

Some departments take students with lower grades:

• Is it possible to spot weaker school students who will excel in a University environment?

How can we identify the most able students

• Past achievementsProfile of academic achievements and activities

Multiple entrance qualificationsGrade inflationEquivalence of schemes?Do they test understanding?

Extracurricular activitiesSpecific references

• Potential Specific tests Interviews

Potential options

Raise the goal posts?

A-level module offers (e.g. A’AA, A’ = all modules A)• Objective, transparent, without bias • Available now • Could favour some schools X

A* offers• Objective, transparent, without bias • Could favour some schools X• Not available until 2010 X

Potential options

Introduce supplementary tests?

Subject specific entrance exams (e.g. Maths for scientists/engineers)

• Objective, transparent, without bias • Do they give the information that we need ?

Aptitude tests (e.g. thinking skills)• Objective, transparent, without bias ?• Claimed to be difficult to coach for • Do they give the information that we need ?

Selecting the best students – The TSA exam

Claimed correlation with University performance (probability of gaining 1st)

Aims of the study

• To build on existing data to explore the potential value of the Cambridge Thinking Skills Assessment Test as a measure of potential by correlating the performance of

»first year students with the examination results at school and their performance while in the College

»current 6th formers with their performance in school examinations, working with a wide range of schools (to start in Spring 2009)

Selecting the best students – The TSA test

A trial test was given to this year’s first year• Of 2103 students, 674 (32%) took part.• Very patchy across departments (e.g. Mech. Eng.

99%, Physics 2%)

Next steps

• Correlate results with School performance (by Christmas)

• Analyse data for bias (by Christmas)

• Review data and communicate

• Correlate data with assessment results in College (progressive with time)

Selecting the best students- Interviewing

Professor David Nethercot

Interviews

•What should we be looking for?•How do we recognise this?•How do we ensure (reasonable) consistency?•What to do about students resident overseas?•Can we defend our process?•If we wish to improve/develop, what do we do?

•Identifies entrants to Sandhurst – 95% “pass out”•Long history

We went to observe the 2-day process.

Ideas from the Army Officer Selection Board

Possible lessons for Imperial

Independent interviewers - personal background, achievements, motivation and aspirations

- academic background, intellectual ability

• Group task • Lecture to investigate readiness for selected subject• Mental aptitude profile test • Questions on a received lecture• Collation of matrix of assessments• Rigour of process screens out the poorly motivated

Possible to fit into a single day.

•Separate use of observed evidence and background information•Observers not provided with prior data•Observations assess current standing •Additional background information assesses potential

Features of AOSB- 1

Features of AOSB-2

•Use of multiple and independent assessors•Group assessed for :

- tasks and lecturettes

- tasks and interviews- Interview and background

information - Interviews, background

information and mental aptitude/intellectual profile

Features of AOSB-3

•Use of evidence Matrix•Different tests/tasks assess qualities in personality, practical and intellectual ability •Matrix of scores as input to discussion•Revisit evidence and scores in case of conflicting views

Possible Imperial Interview/Assessment Day

•Groups of 8 candidates – prior selection •Each group assigned a GTA and an Academic•Some tasks (A1-A3) could be run outside Departments more generally •Common template for scores/observations•Working lunch to maximise available time

Morning (Possibly outside Departments)

•Welcome•Assignment to groups, introductions, College tour•Meet Academic, group task 1, (“who am I?”)•A1 Written aptitude tests, possibility of assistance from GTA/Academic

Over Lunch

•A2 presentations, (“My views on…” specified by academic from information in personal statements) •A3 Group Task (“A taste of studying Engineering”) – problem solving, inference and planning, identification of required information, identification of required resources, current engineering challenges

Afternoon (Department Led)

•Tours and interviews to be run concurrently •Welcome •A4 Interviews - Academics (from morning)

focus on motivation, career aspirations, relevant experience and preparation

- Academics (from Department) focus on

academic background and achievements, discipline related questions

Post Visit

•Academic Board meet and consider each candidate •Academics involved on day and Admissions Tutor and Advisor on aptitude scores•Collate and discuss components and decide on candidates