LETTERS Tutors' rights
From Mr Hugh Price Sir: I am very glad that Mr Marozzi is `soothed' by the thoughts expressed in his article (`Rejects of the world unite', 8 July). However, the idea for a centralised system of admissions at Oxbridge is flawed. Of course, as a student of classics at Worcester College, Oxford, I can be smug about the system that allowed me to study at the finest university for classics in the world. But, prejudice aside, that system is the best.
The grievance of Professor Ryan, that `Different tutors in different colleges vary in what they are looking for in candidates' is in fact an advantage. In much of the recent argument about Laura Spence, it has been forgotten that Oxford is not a process- ing plant involving inputs and outputs of academic excellence. The tutors are people, not machines, and they are the ones who have to spend many hours a week dis- cussing a subject that they have devoted their lives to with passion. How boring and infuriating to spend that time with intelli- gent (as are just about all who apply to Oxbridge) but disinterested, disrespectful or just plain dull students whom they had not themselves selected. This is what the Ryan system would result in, and is in fact the whole point of interviews.
But before the cry goes up of 'Selfish tutors!' the system is advantageous to the applicant too. If only applicants would cease to choose their college of prefer- ence from the prospectus solely by the quality of its architecture or the size of its bar, and actually take the time to visit and talk to the tutors, they might feel this ben- efit more keenly. I did not choose Worcester for the beauty of its lake and gardens, but after I had met both the tutor of a certain other college and that of Worcester and gone from an extreme of boredom to one of fascination. And I am very glad that I made the choice I did. `Tutors are different.' Yes, that's a good thing; so are applicants. They both have the right, as best they can, to choose each other.
Hugh Price
London SW15