Schoolgirl Elly Nowell hit the headlines last week when she sent a mock rejection letter to Oxford University, criticising its traditions and interview techniques and saying that she would not be choosing to study there. Much has been made of the girl’s audacity in the press, but when you look more closely at her letter, it reveals a rather awkward and defensive attack that is as stereotypical and biased as the traditions it criticises. This is unfortunate, as it is quite true that the Oxbridge admissions statistics are hopelessly skewed in favour of private school pupils, and a well-researched, specific and targeted attack pointing out bias in their interview process would not go amiss. Sadly however, Miss Nowell was not the one to deliver it.

The letter begins by criticising Magdalen College’s “decision to hold interviews in grand formal settings”, claiming that this disadvantages state school pupils as they are likely to be intimidated by these surroundings, whilst their private school peers will be at ease. This stereotypical idea that all private schools boast buildings as lofty and impressive as an Oxbridge college is nonsense, and one can’t help wondering how much Nowell knew about Oxford before she applied – she makes it sound as though the college deliberately hired such surroundings for the occasion instead of simply holding the interviews in the environment in which students would be educated, if they were offered a place. Surely when one applies to a university and to a specific college, they expect the interview to be held…in that college? Indeed, if Nowell felt so particularly put off by impressive surroundings, one can’t help wondering why she chose to apply to Magdalen, perhaps one of the most grand and architecturally impressive of all Oxbridge colleges, in the first place!

She then goes on to attack the “traditions and rituals” of the university, claiming that they are tantamount to “teaching your students to blindly and illogically do whatever they are told”. But rather unhelpfully, Nowell does not identify any specific traditions she might be referring to, making it difficult to understand quite what her point is, or how it might have been relevant to her interview procedure. It is true that Oxbridge colleges maintain some traditions such as formal dress and grace when dining in hall, and hold traditional matriculation and graduation ceremonies. But these details are an affectionate nod to the academic past of the institutions and should in no way preclude a student who chooses to avoid them from benefitting just as fully as any other from the academic teaching of the university. Most candidates who apply to Oxford and Cambridge Universities presumably find these peripheral aspects of the colleges quirkily appealing, so it is rather strange again that Miss Nowell wasn’t deterred by them at the point of application, rather than thinking of it later on, after her interview.

The third point the letter makes is certainly the most valid, as she points out the “embarrassing” gap between “minorities and white middle class students”. Unfortunately, Magdalen College has been able to roundly refute this accusation by releasing figures showing that of the seven students offered places on the course Nowell was applying for, six were state educated. And whilst it is true that the private: state school ratio at Oxbridge is appalling, it nonetheless corresponds closely to the ratio of qualified students who actually apply, suggesting that the problem is with the secondary education system itself, not the Oxbridge admissions process.

Her final point, that it is “rude” to “torture guests”, is a petulant and rather wild reference to the fact that she was not offered a glass of water – a fact true of most university interviews! Most candidates probably have the initiative to bring a bottle with them.

It is a shame that Nowell ruined what might have been a significant critique with this overlay of panicky, defensive petulance. To address such a prestigious institution with the sweeping and illogical “frankly, I feel humiliated for both you and your students” is misguided at best. Given that she rejects the university mainly on grounds that were quite clear to her before she submitted her application, it is awkwardly implicit that she felt the interview did not go well and acted somewhat peevishly in an attempt to hit out before she was rejected. If she was bright enough to have been accepted, it is a shame that she chose to flick spit balls at the university from afar instead of working to change things from within. Her acceptance in itself would have been one small percentage point towards improving those admissions statistics. Once there, she could have taken action by helping with access schemes, or gone back to her old school to give talks about how everybody should have a chance to go to Oxbridge. Instead, she has only reinforced the stereotypes and myths that prevent state school pupils from applying there, compounding the admissions figures that force Oxbridge to select such a large number of private school pupils in the first place.