You live...

...you learn.

So here I am, annoyed again. This time the culprit is some poor guy who had the misfortune to fail to gain an Oxford place, and to have his letter of complaint published in the Times, exposing what should be private disappointment and upset to the full scrutiny of the assembled masses. Or at least the readers of the Times. Presumably this august publication hopes that a bit of Oxford-bashing will help it sell papers. It's the politically correct thing to do after all, right?

Well, no. It's not. Let's look closely at Mr. Roberts' complaints:

"I must have spent more than a thousand hours, over five years, sat at my desk trying to learn the facts, figures and phrases that would allow me to get the best marks and grades in the best subjects."

Firstly, let me ask what the "best subjects" are? Of course, some of the practical A levels are less highly-valued than others simply because they don't develop skills which are helpful in studying at degree level. But choosing your courses with a utilitarian, I might even say cynical, eye towards what will gain you material advantages doesn't suggest a genuine enthusiasm for them. Now, barring the odd aberration, everyone who gains an interview at Oxford will have been working their socks off in preparation for exams and tests. They will all have clocked up this kind of mileage during GCSEs and A-levels. They are all generally diligent and deserve a lot of praise for the effort they put in. Mr. Roberts is exemplary, but not unique.

"On top of that I read a small library’s worth of books..."

Yes, I would really hope so. Reading in the subject should ideally be something a candidate does with appetite and enjoyment if they're going to get through a demanding degree course. That said, it's not all about coming to University already knowing all you need to know, but about your potential to absorb knowledge when you get there. Not every candidate comes from a background where they have liberal access to appropriate reading material, the money to afford hundreds of books, or the guidance on what to read in their area of interest. Reading a lot is a wonderful thing to do, but again it isn't something that's unique to any single candidate.

"...spent three summers making coffee on work experience placements..."

There is some kind of myth that work experience is necessary for an Oxford application, as it shows responsibility, diligence, reliability, and that kind of thing. Maybe it does. But the kinds of things that you learn on work experience are not usually applicable to your degree course. With the utmost respect, how does experience in making coffee add anything to someone's qualification for University? All it does is allow you to put something in the "work experience" box on the UCAS form, and I'm afraid that it almost certainly doesn't register very strongly on admissions tutors.

"...and did my absolute best to win prizes and captaincies and the like at school."

Again, I don't want to be disrespectful, but I don't think admissions tutors necessarily want to rely on whether the teachers at your school think you're good at playing cricket or at art. It shows that you have other interests, sure, but there's no requirement that someone who comes to University has to be a good sportsman. In the end, there are plenty of Oxford students who are really not interested in much other than their chosen subject, and to penalise that kind of passion would be an odd thing to do. Let's also remember that, on the whole, school prizes, captaincies, head-boy or -girl positions, prefectships and such things are more characteristic of grammar or independent schools than of state schools. For a tutor to value a head-girl over a non-head-girl would be hugely discriminatory. It's admirable that someone is well-thought-of by their school, but it speaks more to their personal character than their talent for a subject.

"What is the point of toiling away trying to get top grades in GCSE, AS level and A-level exams only to be told afterwards that they do not mean a thing?"

Well, may I risk saying that the point of working at something is that you really like it and enjoy it? I'm sorry to say that it isn't enough to put the hours in when you're competing against candidates who have all done exactly the same. You need a genuine passion for your subject and a love of study for its own sake if you're going to get the most out of a degree course. Your grades aren't meaningless and absolutely no-one is saying that they are. What the emphatically do not mean, though, is that you have a right to an interview at Oxford.

"I am more than happy to concede that A levels are a bit soft — so make them harder."

I'm not sure that the average Oxford admissions tutor would be so crass as to say that A-levels are soft. They're a lot of hard work, and not everyone is capable of getting the top grades in them. A lot of people are capable of that, though, and a lot of those people will apply to Oxford - often five or ten times the number that a college can accept.

"Whatever you do do not follow the current line of duping young people into thinking that hard work, dedication and genuine interest will be rewarded with a place at the university."

Where exactly is this "current line" exemplified? Who has told Mr. Roberts that hard work, dedication and interest will guarantee him a place at Oxford? These characteristics are shared by 99.9% of the applicants and I doubt the University would ever claim that there are specific attributes that will be "rewarded" with a place. What they probably do say is that there are certain attributes that are relatively essential if a candidate is going to have a good chance of having their application considered.

Here's the problem: school teachers think they know what admissions tutors are looking for. They don't. This can't be stressed strongly enough. Most teachers have no idea what an Oxford interview is like or what qualities are being assessed. So they drive their pupils into extra-curricular activities, work experience, and all other kinds of things that are largely irrelevant. They decide that talented young people are "not the Oxford type" and discourage them from applying. They give pre-interview “advice” that is often, at best, unhelpful, and at worst hugely harmful.

I’m not saying that all teachers are like this, of course. I was very, very lucky at my sixth-form college - one of those “bog-standard” ones, allegedly, which had an indifferent socio-economic profile, and an anything-but-indifferent teaching staff. We were given intelligent advice and teaching that I would rival any public school to beat. But even that didn’t “guarantee” me my place at Oxford. With so many applicants for so few places, there simply has to be an element of luck. It’s tragic, but it’s real life. Oxford is not the birthright of anyone – not the rich, not the powerful, and not even the head boy and cricket captain. Maybe Mr. Roberts will one day see this. I hope so. I hope that he won't remain bitter and angry forever. But regardless, he should have been left to mourn his lost dream in private.