Drawing on the Guardian article on the sorts of interview questions being deployed by Oxford and Cambridge to "identify intellectual potential" in prospective undergraduates:
How do you organise a successful revolution? And, given the present political climate, why don't we let the managers of Ikea run the country instead of the politicians?
As a university professor (and one paid by the people of the State of California), I'm pretty sure if I answer the first question my name will go on some list that will make me an unattractive prospect for palling around, at least for those who aspire to elected office.
If Ikea managers run the country, will they be delivering political and social goods that are more or less easily assembled with the included allen-wrench, but which break within a few years? (Will there be a cafeteria with lingonberries? Maybe we could live with less durable political and social goods if everyone gets lingonberries.)
What would you do if you were a magpie?
What wouldn't I do if I were a magpie?
Would you rather be a novel or a poem?
Are you saying I'm short?
Talk about a light bulb.
OK, but I might need to start by talking about the kind of audience I'm presupposing when I talk about the light bulb.
Should we have laws for the use of light bulbs?
Hey, I wasn't calling for censorship of talk about light bulbs, if that's what you're suggesting.
If I were a grapefruit would I rather be seedless or non-seedless?
We've only just met. I would need to know you better before I would presume to understand your preferences.
Hat-tip: Inside Higher Ed.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If I were a magpie, I'd build a new nest every year, whether I needed it or not. Because that's just how I'd roll.
Ah, but there are revolutions and revolutions. Quantum theory, relativities, evolution, plate tectonics, social constructivism (now fortunately abandoned by a chief creator.) I can't think of one in modern philosophy - do you think it needs one?
Off topic, but in response to leigh:
One important revolution in mid-twentieth century philosophy is what they call "the linguistic turn". (The Wikipedia article has some useful information, but also leaves a lot to be desired.) Another revolutionary development in mid-twentieth century philosophy comes from the work of Ruth Barcan Marcus and Saul Kripke, clarifying the ideas of modal logic and thus the distinctions between analytic, a priori, and necessary propositions and the role these different concepts play in our philosophical theorizing. I suppose I could add the early twentieth century development of positivism, and Quine's restoration of metaphysics.
I think you should turn this into a meme...I usually hate memes but with the plethora of really smart and intellectually diverse people on your blogroll I would be very interested in other people's responses.
I'm in my first year at Cambridge (studying Spanish and Russian), had three interviews last year before being offered a place, and didn't get any questions I'd consider to be off-the-wall. (Challenging, sure, but you're supposed to be challenged.) For one of them, I was even invited to specify in advance one or two topics that I might like to discuss.
I really think the hype about Oxbridge interviews is totally overdone, and I'm very suspicious of the claims made by expensive interview-prep courses. I came from a comprehensive/state school and I certainly wouldn't have had the money to go on any course like that. I had a couple of interview practice sessions at school, and that was enough to take the nerves off a little and give me some idea of what was going to happen.
I think the media would really do prospective Oxbridge students (particularly the ones who can't afford to go on expensive courses) a favour if they calmed down a bit with these silly stories. They're amusing enough, but I feel that they really could scare some people off totally unnecessarily.
Several answers to the first one:
The South Park (now that Prof. DeLong has clued in all the people who didn't get it the first time):
1. Organize Revolution
3. Success
The Woody Allen:
"We don't? ... Uh-oh!"
Of course, the correct answer is
"Afterwards."