I choose to respond to a the following quote extracted from the above article by interviewing a colleague:

There is often an assumption that these are qualities (creativity, inventiveness and innovation) that students either have or haven’t got – which explains the common practice of using interviews and entry procedures as a filtering process – resulting in a tendency towards exclusivity rather than inclusivity. This picture is changing – not always because there’s a genuine wish to be more inclusive, but because of increased competition to attract and maintain student numbers.

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE

Several positive feedback regarding the performance of IPF students in their
undergraduate studies have been provided by peers teaching on undergraduate
courses and students themselves over the past years. The selection process of
IPF students relied on the interviews conducted by the international team. This
insured that only the most capable students in terms of those three qualities
(creativity, inventiveness, and innovation) were selected for the course.

Recently the interview process has been removed from the selection process
of international students applying for the International Preparation for
Fashion (IPF). I was wondering what would be the consequences of this on
students, teachers, and the institution at large?

I have interviewed a colleague from the International team and below is a transcript of her answer to my question:

‘I worked as an International Academic for nearly 12 years and whilst
this role was multi-faceted, the core aspect of my daily work was focused on
the selection of international students for UAL. Most of my work focused on
interviewing students for courses at UAL. For LCF this was across all levels
(FE / UG / PG) and for other UAL colleges this was for FE and UG courses.

The context of working internationally was a very layered and complex and required knowledge of varied education systems as well as awareness
and sensitivity toward economic, political, and cultural factors. Every
situation presented unknowns, and my role was to respond with knowledge and insight, and this was something I worked very hard to do authentically.

The ultimate point and purpose of the interview was to work diagnostically to identify the most suitable level, course, college (where possible) and in most cases an outcome was given during the interview. Often there was a need to manage expectations and potentially the outcome might be very different to the original aim.

As number management has become more critical, and as systems and
processes evolve, many aspects changed. But in my experience the interview
proved to be a very positive experience for nearly every individual because my
aim was for each individual to understand the outcome (in the best way possible).

I am a believer that ‘creativity, innovation, inventiveness’ are within all of us and it’s about finding the best situation to develop this. In my experience, it was rare to reject students although sometimes it was necessary to give more time, develop an action plan and other advisory support.

Rejections have become a much bigger reality over the past few years
where numbers of applicants have exceeded places significantly.

I believe the loss of the interview, somewhat dehumanizes the university
and the way we work with students before they potentially join. I totally
understand that interviews are nerve wracking for many but made it my daily
mandate to ask everyone their name and how they were. In most cases they would
say ‘nervous’ and I would approach the interview / conversation with empathy
and respond to each individual to try and make the experience comfortable.’

As we now see digital portfolios only, I also have concerns about the authenticity of some portfolio content. The interview allowed time to talk about a project or piece of work in the portfolio which I
normally asked the individual (potential student) to select.

The interview provided a space and time to also talk about specific
course information, plus any other relevant news.

As a lecturer that has continued to teach during my international role, I have noticed some really significant changes in students, specifically communication and group situations and can see ongoing impacts from the pandemic on this. So, the journey for many students (internationally)
to IPF / LCF / UAL is likely to be even more daunting without some of the interventions
such as interviews.

UAL is also a very expensive university (international fees are very high) so to ensure we have more diverse and inclusive approaches we have to continue working as globally as possible and developing support systems for individuals to apply to study with us from less exclusive situations.
The aim of the international teaching that I have delivered was about reaching out, knowledge exchange, creative exchange and so much more.

So personally, I do think there is a lot that is lost without the interview / conversation, but I am also opened to seeing if there are impacts, changes, shifts and I believe we should be open to
reflecting on all of this to consider the next steps after this.’

I conclude from my colleague’s input that interviews were actually already very inclusive as attention and time were given to students in order to manage expectations ensure that everybody was given a fair chance in their selection process. I do agree that each individual possess creativity, inventiveness and innovation and that those qualities need to be nurtured and given the right environment to flourish.