I'm trying to get my head around the purpose of the interview process which entrance to many (all?) independent schools requires.
Is it to filter-out children who reach whatever academic standard the school has set, but are deemed unsuitable for other (non-academic) reason? Or is it to filter-in
children who have not met the academic standard, but have some other quality which means the school would be happy to accept them? I suspect that it might be a mix of the two.
Assuming it's the former, what characteristics would the interviewer deem undesirable? A guess a kid sitting there picking their nose and flicking it at the interviewer would probably count.
An entrance exam results in a mark, a score - which, when compared to some target standard results in a pass or a fail; an offer or a rejection. Plain. Simple. But an interview is much more subjective than that. So if a school has 250 applicants for 100 places would they take those with the top 75 scores, plus 25 who missed the cut-off but impressed at interview? Or would they be looking to the those with the top 100 scores, but reject a few nose-pickers?
I guess what I'm trying to work out is, which is more important: the interview or the entrance exam?