Hello all,
I need some feedback on one of the questions an interviewer asked her. She did very well in her subject based interview on history and Science. Then the interviewer asked about her favorite holiday and between it randomly asked if - "what are the differences between rich and poor countries?"
I am really confused as she has come out crying from it and now needs to be told she did well all the way home. Please could you suggest what could be answer to this question for a 10 year old.
Thank you,

Hi!

Don;t worry overly about this, and particularly don't let DD worry. The question is presumably designed to see how DC can think on their feet and what their wider thoughts/learning style might be. Specifically it is not something one can 'pre-learn' (assuming no advance notice) and therefore might be expected to provide an opportunity to see how an interviewee develops their thought processes/learns etc as opposed to how prepped they may be. I imagine there were some follow up questions to probe further?

Also, and please don't consider this unkindly, but we none of us know how our DC have done in interviews, be it academically or otherwise. It is harsh on those who have fared less well to see 'DD did very well' but also, and perhaps more to the point, you cannot know this. It may be that DD bombed the subject based questions and aced the others, our job is just to support and encourage them either way and not letting them think they did well or badly in any area is a good starting point for this.

Good luck.

_________________
mad?

Thank you Mad very encouraging and will tell this to DD as well.

The follow up questions were 'how can you reduce the differences between rich and poor countries?'. My DD has not touched this topic ever in our conversations as this is something we may have discussed over dinner but never to her. Although she did answer on the feet with 'government funding' 'charity' etc. I think it was smart answer and on the feet so I think she showed her natural IQ. But she is very confused as she wants this school badly and thinks she has done well in maths and english.

Let's see as we cannot assume and will wait for results.

Thank you once again for the reassurance.

Sorry but I think that is a ridiculous question to give a ten year old - most adults would not be able to say anything intelligent about that. There are lots of ways to get a child of that age to demonstrate some kind of creative or abstract thinking but trying to get them to opine on a complex political situation is not one of them.

One hopes the school has a better understanding of what is appropriate when it comes to the curriculum.

Yes I agree that it was a ridiculous question for a 10 year old. She has been reading but this would be beyond her scope. But I think she answered quiet sincerely so the interviewer should have been satisfied to see that she is naturally talented.

I am having second thoughts on the school now. Unfortunately, I don't want her to go into a school not suitable for her and be unhappy all her school life.

I wonder if the question wasn't completely random. It may have been a sideways follow-on from something related to History. As long as she said something appropriate without looking like a deer in the headlights, the school will know that she can cope with robust and wide ranging classroom discussions.
I think I can guess which school it was. DD2 was asked (not the school she eventually chose) who the political party leaders were and then what was the point of the LibDems. She actually enjoyed the conversation.

Interested by this discussion. I must admit this is exactly the kind of question I had been imagining the interviews would comprise. I was much more surprised when my eldest and her friends told me about how many maths/English type questions were included. Why would maths and english not be covered adequately in the entrance exams already? This would only be necessary in cases where the child didn't include her working?

My take on the exams/interview is the harder and more unexpected the questions the better - any kind of answer is probably OK as long as she didn't draw a blank.

I'm troubled if most adults wouldn't know how to answer this question - if so then perhaps the nation needs to have a long hard look at what we do spend our time thinking about.

I would be really interested to know your answer then, hertslady. The more one learns about things like 'fair trade' policies and the issues of the global south, the less clear it is what might close the gap between rich and poor nations. I don't think most governments in the north (or 'west') have any real desire to level the playing field. And I certainly wouldn't expect a ten year old to understand it. Perhaps kids in London are just much smarter than those round here.

I also agree that it's a rather pointless question unless the interviewer actually wants a proper, thorough answer which will address the inherent global inequalities which are fuelled by all manner of corrupt exploitation as well as more natural geographical hardships. Plus of course the lasting effects of colonialism (eg most of Africa) , landgrab (the ever shrinking Palestine ), entrenched racism and tribalism (Myanmar)....and so on and so on and so on..........

But yeah, Amber, us Londoners are just more...clever.

As I said on another thread, interviews for 10 year olds are, IMO, completely ridiculous.

I can understand ones about maths & English - if the poor children make silly mistakes in the exam (and most will, at that age), it gives them a chance to demonstrate that they can add 2 plus 2 or know where to use a semi colon. But yes, interviews for 10 year olds