Is this the result of the gradual 'softening' of grades* since covid which has probably not done the universities any favours?
They can specify all A* requirements but if 20% more students are being awarded A* grades then there are going to be casualities.(* What used to be a C is now probably a B and a B has potentially become an A or even an A*)
I was the last year before A* became a thing. As a consequence, everyone at my university had three As (english A levels) as a minimum; and I'm sure nearly all the rejected applicants did too.
Luckily we had in person interviews, both subject related and a "personality interview"; and additional written tests to do.
That's why it's important that the 5 courses you are applying to are sufficiently similar that your single generic application reads well to all admissions tutors.
And also why the reason for rejection is annoying. If you want to discover/uncover/expose the applicant's desire (or lack of) to study at YOUR faculty, get them in and talk to them. They can't wax lyrical about you in their application for risk of alienating their back up options.
Oh, of note... one of my kids was going to apply for two different but similar degrees at the same Uni, but was advised not to on an open day. Pick one only was the message they got. While I'd have thought a double application shows extra keenness to be at that University, it doesn't seem to be seen as a positive thing... I don't know why. They got the place, and being made to be think about and choose the favoured course has worked out well for them in the end... lots of working out what and why well before starting.
I am a Guidance Teacher in a Scottish school, and our pupils definitely fall into the Widening Participation cohort. IMO her personal statement reads really well - if my kids were coming to me with that I'd be well pleased!
Her enthusiasm and commitment to Psychology are really clear, but I fear she has fallen foul of the Joint Honours trap. It definitely looks to me like she has been rejected by the School of Business. I am really sorry to read this. My best professional guess is that she'd be in if it were straight Psychology.
Having said that, competition is fierce. I heard the Vice Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh on Today on R4 the other day (Tues?). He seemed to indicate that the current intake was approx 1/3 Scottish, 1/3 English and 1/3 Chinese. The lure of foreign fees, especially when you have a good reputation, can squeeze out local applicants. Strathclyde definitely will be impacted by this.
Oh, something else... who did they speak to at open days at Strathclyde? What level were they? Did they ask questions? Did they share concerns? Did they join in with sample sessions? Did they glean anything to help with the application?
I would add that while it is true to say that the same Personal Statement gets sent to all 5 institutions, it is sometimes possible to submit a supplementary Personal Statement. Not all unis will accept these, but some do. This allows applicants to re-write their Personal Statement specifically for that course. We sometimes do this if someone is applying for Physiotherapy - there are only 3 courses in Scotland - and we look at Supplementaries for the other 2 applications.
I would advise anyone doing this to contact the Admissions Office of the uni in question directly, via email (so they have a record!) and ask. Nae cheek, nae chance!
Spoke to the head of the faculty when Jnr graduated from Cambridge. Factors they were looking for included great GCSE results from a poor state school and evidence from the personal statement and interview that he would contribute to college/uni life.
(Under no illusuons that going for a fairly niche course and Covid grading helped as well)
I still find it's wild that someone can overachieve academically but still be knocked back
Beacuse it's not all about academic excellence.
thanks again all, will send in an email to the Psychology faculty seeking further feedback while caveating the personal statement went out to 5 Psychology degrees with various joint honours and then peg on a supplementary personal statement targating the business skill set and see what comes of it
That's not how UCAS works - the same application goes to all 5 institutions you want to go to. You can't bespoke the application to each uni. That's why it's important that the 5 courses you are applying to are sufficiently similar that your single generic application reads well to all admissions tutors.
I was unaware of this. Every day is, somewhat appropriately, a school day. Ta.
I'd try a phone call to the person who handled admissions for the course rather than an email (you may need a very short email asking for a call). Its much easier to come across as contrite for having missed the mark and asking for advice on how to approach it on the phone, and I'm sure HER phoning and explaining HER difficulty has much more impact than an email probably drafted by a parent which could easily be misconstrued as entitled. Personally I think it would possibly resonate better if she were saying, "actually you are right, I really want to do psychology and psychology with business was an idea planted by my parents, how can I give myself the best chance of getting in at clearing / next year; because now I have offers elsewhere I realise I really want strathclyde" rather than "Here's the personal statement I wish I sent".
Do the uni publish the number of applications and spaces on each course? Even better if they publish the numbers filled now / at clearing.
@grantyboy in a previous job I helped (effectively co-wrote) personal statements for UCAS. That reads ok but it's what you'd expect.
I always said not to put you've always wanted to study....since an early age.
Never put anything without giving the skills and experience you gained. Try to stand out.
The last one I helped with was for chemistry and physics with a view to do astrophysics. It started with her saying at age 8 she read (insert book title) which was about a kid in space, ever since then she'd wondered how best to become overlord of the universe and astrophysics would definitely help with this......
@poly thanks for that. She has the confidence to handle this phone call herself so will try to setup a call first and her email as plan b. Agree getting the tone in written word isn't always balance correctly.
Poly has made a few good points.
Firstly, any approach needs to the uni needs to come from your daughter. Or the school. It would not be great coming from you.
But secondly - is this not a bit of a wake up call? The fact your daughter didn't think to mention half of the course in her application and none of you picked it up either - is that not a sign this is not the right course for her? She is so sufficiently unexcited about the business side it completely passed her by, but she had tons to say about the psychology.
Sadly though, they will have mostly likely given out all the offers to Scottish kids they can by this point for the year. They might not be in position to add another one even if they wanted to. I've never really understood quite how they come to a number of places they can offer - it seems a bit of a black art. They are honour bound to take anyone who accepts an offer and meets the grades but they know some of their offers won't be taken up in May and then results days changes everything again. It's a horlicks of a system which I hope gets reformed to a post results process soon.
None of the contact to the faculty will come from me, it's her all the way with my support. Hear what you are saying on the personal statement as it lacks talk of business. The guidance from her school was to focus on her achievements as an individual so she stands out as a person which is why it's heavy on personal achievements. It's just very unfortunate the Uni to reject her was the one she had her heart set on.
edit - It's an interesting point that someone might not take an offer on the course daughter is pursuing. Something may come of the clearing process, the next chapter I need to learn more on.
Thanks again!
UCAS is flawed as you can't really commit an application to a specific course or uni without ruling yourself out of others. Most kids end up applying for similar but different courses.
You wouldn't expect to apply for 5 jobs without tailoring your application for each.
It does feel a bit of a lottery. For context she's been rejected for Psychology with Business Studies at Strathclyde but has an unconditional for Business Management and Psychology at a different Uni, same personal statement etc
On her personal statement side she is a senior prefect, won school awards for her studies, works part time, has done summer work experience at Technip, does volunteer work and has also done a charity trip to Borneo all self-funded through fundraisers.
What was the degree course?
Did she clearly articulate how the things above were related to the course?
The latest info from unis makes it crystal clear that they're not interested in the standard pushy parent/ go getter offspring stuff unless it is directly related to that course at that uni.
So unless the uni course is learning Bournese or Charity studies they may well simply cast the last two points aside.
For some courses you will not get in as a Scottish student unless you come from a deprived area. University of Edinburgh for example
"Only priority applicants from more deprived areas were accepted to courses including law, business and philosophy."
It's ****ing ridiculous that Edinburgh Uni is excluding domestic students because it's holding places for English and Welsh and "proper foreign" students who can afford to pay higher fees!
On checking Strathclyde portal today, the course is closed to Scottish candidates but open to English and International still.
IIRC Scottish students have to apply by November so that could explain why that route is closed.
My son is at Strathclyde and his GF is studying business (second year): she did not have straight As at Higher.
The personal statement appears to be missing out on a motivation to study business so that could be a problem.
Definitely worth following up (your daughter - not you: she needs to show the motivation).
Anyway, I have no idea what my son put in his personal statement but he got offers at 5 Scottish universities in 3 different subjects.
It's ****ing ridiculous that Edinburgh Uni is excluding domestic students because it's holding places for English and Welsh and "proper foreign" students who can afford to pay higher fees!
I guess it depends if you are glass half full or empty. You design and fund a course around x number on Scottish funding, y on UK fee payments and z number on overseas funding. To give you an idea, unis make about £35k+ a year from an overseas undergrad placement. And university vice chancellors are not bathing in huge piles of excess cash. Like it or loath it - UK universities are propped up by overseas students. Their presence subsidises home grown student places and all the research we want our universities doing. And for that we need to reserve them some places. We 'could' do without them by massively hiking the cost to UK students or by the taxpayer footing the bill.......any hands up for either of those options?
IIRC Scottish students have to apply by November so that could explain why that route is closed.
No, only people who have the early November deadline are medics, veterinary and Oxbridge.
Might just be me but the one paragraph I read; Why do you want to study this course or subject?, just felt like either poorly written or just AI.
Odd sentence structures stood out: “In my life experiences I’ve found it intriguing how the brain works…”
“ I attended a psychology lecture at Strathclyde Uni where I took particular interest in modules that analyze the brain….”
“I also took part in the Scottish Schools Psychology Conference held at Aberdeen Uni where I attended workshops tailored to my interests within Psychology such as how the brain works”.
“Since Covid-19, I feel that Psychology is more appreciated due to people struggling to deal with being at home all the time as well as working from home, some of which still do which can have an impact on their work-life balance and therefore mental wellbeing. “
IANAFEperson
Med, Vet Med & Oxbridge deadline is 15 October every year, although I think this may shift if 15th is a Sunday. It is 6pm on that day though. If the time becomes relevant, you are in trouble...
@grantyboy - A high risk strategy is to consider using UCAS Extra - Google it - Essentially she can reject all offers and go all in on one new choice (Assuming psychology at Strathclyde is still available at that point).
No, only people who have the early November deadline are medics, veterinary and Oxbridge.
I've looked it up: 14 January 2026 (18:00 UK time): Equal consideration deadline for the majority of undergraduate courses.
My son kept telling me there was no point putting his application in before November but he was applying for physio and the like.
Many of his friends had offers before then :/
UCAS is flawed as you can't really commit an application to a specific course or uni without ruling yourself out of others. Most kids end up applying for similar but different courses.
You wouldn't expect to apply for 5 jobs without tailoring your application for each.
I'm not saying this is wise, and is not Scotland related, but both mine applied to Cambridge*, and the personal statements were directed at what they are supposedly looking at there. Because the application had to be in early and wasn't medical etc, the other unis presumably knew that the target was Oxbridge and all offered them places with no apparent problems. Might be a route to get round the "tailoring" of the personal statements.
*Daughter failed at the last hurdle, which is fine because I don't think it would have been as good an experience for her personality as it was for her brother. He has always maintained she is the clever one though.
14 Jan deadline is the DEADLINE. School like to get them in earlier as the run up to Christmas becomes silly-season. Good S5 grades will likely flush out Unconditional offers, and this puts the wind up the entire cohort. There should be no disadvantage to applying on 14 Jan, but it is probably wise to get in sooner. A November target is healthy.
Most kids end up applying for similar but different courses.
Isn't what they should be doing - within reason ?
A medic having a backup of accountancy would be a red flag.
My son applied for 3 different courses but there was an obvious connection. Chatting to him the biggest issue is students starting the course and then realising they're not actually that motivated for a very demanding workload.
For some courses you will not get in as a Scottish student unless you come from a deprived area. University of Edinburgh for example
"Only priority applicants from more deprived areas were accepted to courses including law, business and philosophy."
It's ****ing ridiculous that Edinburgh Uni is excluding domestic students because it's holding places for English and Welsh and "proper foreign" students who can afford to pay higher fees!
I think Edinburgh uni would probably say that’s a Scottish gov funding issue - but in fairness to them:
they get over 1000 applications from Scottish students for law each year, they offer roughly 300 of them places, which about half take up.
they get about 500 Uk & ROI applications which they offer less than 30% and less that 30 in total take up.
The get around 800 foreign applicants, less than half of which get offers and significantly less than 100 accept.
so the final cohort ends up significantly over 50% Scottish. The gripe that gets the headlines is that their selection criteria give added weight to students who have achieved the entry requirements in spite of their backgrounds rather than the stereotypical Edinburgh law student. It’s not ideal, and it’s probably not how I would set up Scottish student funding, but, I would rather that we find ways go get a broad range of people studying law at prestigious universities than reinforcing stereotypes.
You shouldn’t get a place at uni because you went to a school that has teachers who know how to play the UCAS system, because your parents could afford to pay for private tuition, because your parents could use their network to get you work placements or because everyone in your classroom is motivated to learn whilst those in other schools are trying to make it through the day without being bullied for being interested. That makes standing out from the 70% who will be rejected (and probably all had reasonable hopes of getting the entry requirements) harder - a DOE award and a well crafted personal statement aren’t enough because 500 of the other rejects have that too.
Unconditional offers seemed early this year. My AH class majority had unconditional offers before Christmas and they now all do. That's for Edinburgh U amongst others.
When I taught at an independent school in Edinburgh it was accepted that UoE wouldn't make offers to our pupils.
they get over 1000 applications from Scottish students for law each year, they offer roughly 300 of them places, which about half take up.
they get about 500 Uk & ROI applications which they offer less than 30% and less that 30 in total take up.
The get around 800 foreign applicants, less than half of which get offers and significantly less than 100 accept.
so the final cohort ends up significantly over 50% Scottish
In an annual cohort studying law at Edinburgh, there are 150 Scottish students, 30 rUK & Ireland students, and fewer than 100 proper foreign students? Foreign students get more offers than Scottish ones. The rUK, Ireland and foreign offers are not targeted at people from less privileged backgrounds.
And this seems equitable and sensible - to allow foreign and rUK/Ireland students to be allocated places that Scottish students wouldn't be eligible for just because they pay more in fees?
I don't have a problem with underprivileged applicants getting priority. I do have a problem with wealthier outsiders being given priority!
Is this the result of the gradual 'softening' of grades* since covid which has probably not done the universities any favours?
Surely "since the day after I graduated from uni with a 2:2"?
they get over 1000 applications from Scottish students for law each year, they offer roughly 300 of them places, which about half take up.
they get about 500 Uk & ROI applications which they offer less than 30% and less that 30 in total take up.
The get around 800 foreign applicants, less than half of which get offers and significantly less than 100 accept.
so the final cohort ends up significantly over 50% Scottish
In an annual cohort studying law at Edinburgh, there are 150 Scottish students, 30 rUK & Ireland students, and fewer than 100 proper foreign students? Foreign students get more offers than Scottish ones. The rUK, Ireland and foreign offers are not targeted at people from less privileged backgrounds.
And this seems equitable and sensible - to allow foreign and rUK/Ireland students to be allocated places that Scottish students wouldn't be eligible for just because they pay more in fees?
I don't have a problem with underprivileged applicants getting priority. I do have a problem with wealthier outsiders being given priority!
it is interesting that Scottish applicants to acceptance ratio different from Foreign and rUK applicant to acceptance ratio - that is presumably because those students are seriously considering all UK universities, and possibly other countries; whereas Scottish students (especially the ones who are making it through their wider access selection bias) are likely to only be applying to Scottish Unis. There is an inequality that if you are one of those Scottish students who do get an offer your options for going elsewhere in the UK or overseas are likely very limited.
I think it’s a logical manipulation to say that outsiders were given priority. If there were no outsiders at all there would not be any more Scottish places? no , in fact there would likely be fewer. Is it ideal? no. Could I see a better system? Yes. FWIW I believe* it’s possible to apply as a Scottish student to pay the fees yourself and so get into the rUK group.
if I was in charge, funding would be by scholarships awarded on a variety of criteria: technical need for the skills; academic ability; social mobility potential. It wouldn’t necessarily mean there were any more seats for studying law in Edinburgh!
* I’ve not tried but one of my son’s friends filled the form in wrong and got themself in a proper mess.
“Unfortunately your application demonstrates little or no motivation to study in this area. Demonstrates little to no motivation to study within the Business faculty”.
Sorry if it's been mentioned above, but that to me reads like a stock phrase they've misapplied due to laziness/an overwhelming number of applications.
An individual applicant can't demonstrate little OR no motivation, it's one or the other. A group of less motivated applicants may include applications with little and some with no motivation. This is the phrase they rather lackadaisically use for the group. Unfortunately I think they miss-allocated your daughter's application to this group.
“Unfortunately your application demonstrates little or no motivation to study in this area. Demonstrates little to no motivation to study within the Business faculty”.
Wow. I'm old and ugly enough to have been knocked back quite a few times, but that would have hurt me, never mind a teenager. Sorry for her experience.
Agreed. That is hurtful and shoddy feedback. The comments in the ‘feedback’ lack specific examples. If I was offered that feedback I’d counter with content from my application and ask for the evidence that supports it. However, if it is at all indicative of the way the course is run then this may be a lucky escape.
… but that to me reads like a stock phrase they've misapplied due to laziness/an overwhelming number of applications
It reads just like standard CS job sifting matrix used to provide a uniform process, if you don’t include x and y you fail and get a standard response. Having bulk sifted on a number of recruitment exercises, the idea of giving detailed or even personalised feedback out to each applicant is ridiculous and I’m pretty sure it would be the same in FE. In the CS feedback would also be given by HR who would only have score sheets rather than full notes so could only put stock phrases, is FE similar?
When I have run my own smaller, specialised recruitment exercises within CS I would give full and detailed feedback if requested but that was pretty much my own decision, in my own time. If someone countered with content from their application, honestly, I’d have as little to do with them as possible.
thanks again all, will send in an email to the Psychology faculty seeking further feedback while caveating the personal statement went out to 5 Psychology degrees with various joint honours and then peg on a supplementary personal statement targating the business skill set and see what comes of it
I dunno, if I was an admissions tutor I’d expect this sort of question to come from the applicant, not the parent.
The other thing - and I don’t think you’ll want to hear it - is that the Americanisms and structure of the PS gave me strong niggles that it has AI elements. It flips from being genuinely enthusiastic to generic and back again (also some American spelling, eg “analyze”).
Is psychology actually about how the brain works? It’s like applying to be a chef and justifying it by saying that you’re fascinated by ovens.
The solution is, as others have said, is for universities to interview everyone. I studied physics but all 5 of the unis I applied to insisted on an interview of one kind or another, ranging from an informal chat during an open day to a formal interview where we worked through problems on a board. None were Oxbridge, BTW.
but all 5 of the unis I applied to insisted on an interview of one kind or another, ranging from an informal chat during an open day to a formal interview where we worked through problems on a board.
I suspect you went to university in the helicon 'John Lewis' era. We have now passed into the age of the 'Home Bargains' institutions. I guess we get what we pay for.
There's probably a paper written somewhere proving that if the goal is attracting enough undergrads who are capable of lasting the 3 or 4 years of the course so they can pay their fee (when you are also in charge of the goal posts that impact on their survival), interviewing candidates does not make enough difference to justify the time taken to do the interviewing.
The solution is, as others have said, is for universities to interview everyone.
What's so good about interviews? They're heavily subjective and vibes-based. Also, you couldn't interview every single applicant or even every candidate with grades above AAB (or whatever), could you? You have to cut down the numbers somehow
I suspect you went to university in the helicon 'John Lewis' era. We have now passed into the age of the 'Home Bargains' institutions. I guess we get what we pay for.
Nope, I was fee-paying era.
Nope, I was fee-paying era.
How long ago - last 15 years?
What's so good about interviews? They're heavily subjective and vibes-based.
They've always been important, but will soon be the only way to be exposed to a candidate without them filtering their application through a LLM. Written applications are going to be increasingly useless.
but all 5 of the unis I applied to insisted on an interview of one kind or another, ranging from an informal chat during an open day to a formal interview where we worked through problems on a board.
I suspect you went to university in the helicon 'John Lewis' era. We have now passed into the age of the 'Home Bargains' institutions. I guess we get what we pay for.
There's probably a paper written somewhere proving that if the goal is attracting enough undergrads who are capable of lasting the 3 or 4 years of the course so they can pay their fee (when you are also in charge of the goal posts that impact on their survival), interviewing candidates does not make enough difference to justify the time taken to do the interviewing.
interestingly my daughter got an interview for one course, she also got offers from other courses without an interview - they missed the opportunity to sell themselves to her. The course who did interview her is undersubscribed and entry requirements not that high - but probably therefore gets a lot of “don’t know what else to do” or “filling up 5th space on application” students. Making offers people don’t accept is not a good use of anyone’s time. Having made it through an interview actually made it feel more like an achievement for her - and if you were paying your own fees that would perhaps make if feel higher value. Perception is important - and if you come across as open to anyone paying the fees with fairly achievable grades you dilute the value. The more prestigious your course appears to be to the market the more “top quality” candidates will apply.
The solution is, as others have said, is for universities to interview everyone.
What's so good about interviews? They're heavily subjective and vibes-based. Also, you couldn't interview every single applicant or even every candidate with grades above AAB (or whatever), could you? You have to cut down the numbers somehow
on average Strathclyde uni is offering 54-57% of applicants a place (that is not specific to the course the OP’s daughter applied for which might be much more over subscribed). It’s perfectly feasible to interview them all, or at least those who have met / expect to meet the minimum entry requirements.
they interviewed and probably correctly rejected my son for a course he never really wanted to do - 5th option, title looked like he wanted but details were not aligned to his actual personal skills, despite having all the requirements on paper; they also gave him an offer for the course he wanted - 1st choice.
yes an interview might be vibes based, subjective and therefore open to unfair bias but even before LLMs were able to “polish” your personal statement there was a bias for students who:
- went to schools who proactively help pupils refine their PS
- has a particular teacher with a keen interest in that pupil/their course choice/institution who may have more insight on how to appeal
- has parents who are “very supportive” v those left to fend for themselves
Even on this thread we’ve seen teachers with different opinions on the personal statement that triggered the thread. I’ve seen with my own children, at the same school two different guidance teachers give pupils quite different levels of input.
If all your applicants have the required grades, and all your applicants have pretty good personal statements (which may or may not have been all the students own work) then how would you distinguish candidates?
would you rather interview twice as many people and eliminate the ones who exaggerated their personal statements, or save interviewer time and fill your course with less able candidates? Obviously if the numbers are high enough you do still need some way of prescreening.
interviews aren’t necessarily perfect either - everything that a great school/parent can do for a personal statement can also be done to help a student prepare for an interview whilst other possibly better students are left to their own devices.
there are no easy answers and even if teenagers think it is the most important thing in the world - getting accepted to your “ideal” choice probably isn’t actually critical to life.
If all your applicants have the required grades, and all your applicants have pretty good personal statements (which may or may not have been all the students own work) then how would you distinguish candidates?
Do it on academic results alone - if you have 150 spots, then take the applicants with the highest scores. You can give extra points to eg people from deprived backgrounds. Or just do it by lottery - whoever meets the admission criteria gets a ticket.
Everyone thinks they're a great interviewer and that interviews are a great insight into applicants. It's rubbish. I don't know if the research has been done in academia but in the private sector workforce there was no difference found in the performance etc of interviewed and non-interviewed workers. (I don't have the link so take that as you will).
if you have 150 spots, then take the applicants with the highest scores
If you think that gives you the best candidates, that will complete and benefit most from their years with you, I'm going to assume your exposure to undergrads is next to zero.
If all your applicants have the required grades, and all your applicants have pretty good personal statements (which may or may not have been all the students own work) then how would you distinguish candidates?
Do it on academic results alone - if you have 150 spots, then take the applicants with the highest scores.
im not sure that’s a particularly great criteria - do we want doctors who are incredibly good at passing exams, or doctors who are smart, have an interest in people and the confidence to communicate?
- if you are a maths course how would you separate out all the presumably very high maths scoring students? Based on similar subjects which may or may not have been available at all schools, breadth of subject, or a decision made three years before on what to study?
- do you accelerate the race for grades even more; ignoring creating rounded students and encouraging students to pursue subjects that score well?
- do you benefit those who (can) pay for tuition more to coach them to get a better grade without actually understanding?
but one of the criticism levelled at doing that is it’s based on fairly arbitrary criteria: your postcode; your school; if you were in care etc.You can give extra points to eg people from deprived backgrounds.
there is some merit in that until you think - do you want your surgeon to have won his training on luck? Or the person prosecuting rapists to have been the least suitable candidate at law school? Or even the other candidate on your chemistry degree who you get as a lab partner to really have no interest in chemistry?Or just do it by lottery - whoever meets the admission criteria gets a ticket.
Everyone thinks they're a great interviewer and that interviews are a great insight into applicants. It's rubbish. I don't know if the research has been done in academia but in the private sector workforce there was no difference found in the performance etc of interviewed and non-interviewed workers. (I don't have the link so take that as you will).
that study would be interesting - I can see for some roles it is certainly true that interviewing is probably not useful, but if the job involves face to face human interaction simple paper based selection will be poor. I don’t know that I’ve ever hired someone because of the interview but I’ve certainly rejected some and I’m sure they were good calls. There may be other ways to sift out the exaggerated CVs, the arrogant ****ers who wouldn't fit the team, etc. I’ve also made some bad hires that made it though interview but they had also gone through some sort of paper based screening. Depending on that study it may also have an inherent bias - eg if you were hiring teachers with 5 yrs experience then I can see that interviews might not be the be all and end all, every candidate has already proven their capabilities, they’ve already made it through university selection and at least one job selection process to get their 5 yrs experience. That’s not the same as working out who at 16/17/18 is actually a good candidate for becoming a teacher. Really good academic grades would be a bad criteria (or at least on their own). The same will be true of many jobs - evidence of real relevant experience will be better than 45 minutes sitting in front of a panel but school qualifications and references are unlikely to give you the same insight.
