On 27 March, Wellington College Education (China) - Hangzhou welcomed a distinguished guest – Mr Arhat Virdi, Head of Undergraduate Admissions in Economics at the University of Oxford and Professor of Economics at Saïd Business School.

Having long been immersed in the world's top academic environment, Professor Virdi is not only deeply involved in academic research but also directly participates in student selection, giving him a clear and concrete understanding of what top universities are truly looking for.

On this day, he engaged in one-on-one conversations with parents, small-group discussions with pupils, and a keynote session for a broader audience of families in the main theatre. 

Across all these settings, one phrase repeatedly emerged:

Throughout the exchanges, Mr Virdi kept returning to a seemingly simple yet profoundly significant criterion—Oxford is less concerned with how much knowledge a pupil possesses and far more interested in how they think when confronted with a problem.

This is not an abstract statement but a core principle repeatedly tested throughout the application and interview process. Many pupils tend to equate learning with approaching the "correct answer," but in Oxford's context, problems often do not have a single solution. Interview scenarios frequently present incomplete information, uncertain premises, or deliberately constructed tensions; the aim is not to check whether the pupil "gets it right" but to observe how they navigate uncertainty.

When faced with an unfamiliar problem, does the pupil pause for guidance, or do they attempt to break down the conditions, formulate hypotheses, and iteratively refine their reasoning? When their initial approach is challenged, can they adjust rather than cling to a fixed notion of correctness? These subtle reactions often reveal more about a pupil's thought process than the final answer itself.

In actual interviews, he noted, professors may deliberately "challenge" a pupil's viewpoint, steering the discussion in the opposite direction. This is not to contradict the pupil but to observe how a line of reasoning unfolds, adapts, and reconstructs under pressure. It is through this interaction that logical structure, judgement, and intellectual flexibility gradually emerge.

Consequently, a state of "I am not entirely certain, but I am willing to reason further" becomes highly valued. It signals an individual's capacity to navigate the unknown rather than rely on pre-existing answers.

When the discussion turned to applicants themselves, a more practical question arose: in a pool of individuals with outstanding grades and backgrounds, what makes some candidates genuinely stand out?

Mr Virdi's answer is straightforward yet points to a deeper distinction. He observed that Oxford pupils tend to possess three qualities: curiosity, openness, and sustained intrinsic motivation. These traits may not be immediately evident in grades or CVs, but they manifest over time in study habits and modes of expression.

In his interactions with Chinese pupils, he noticed a common tendency: many instinctively seek a "standard answer" and use it as a benchmark for decision-making. While advantageous in exam-oriented systems, this approach can be limiting in an open academic environment. When a problem lacks a predefined solution, pupils who do not engage in exploration or express uncertainty may struggle to develop authentic thinking.

Conversely, those willing to ask questions, articulate uncertainty, and revise their views in discussion are more likely to reveal genuine cognitive pathways. Top universities prize this evolving thought process, rather than a polished, "perfect" conclusion.

In essence, the difference lies not in who is more "excellent" but in who is willing to confront the unknown with an open mindset and construct their own understanding along the way.

When the conversation turned to the application itself, practical queries—how to write personal statements, prepare references, and plan exams—all point to a more fundamental question: universities want to see who you are through these materials.

According to Mr Virdi, a personal statement is not a list of achievements but a narrative of thought and choice. It reveals not just what you have done, but why you made those choices and how these experiences have shaped your interests and judgement.

A compelling applicant can clearly demonstrate the connection between themselves and a subject—whether sparked by a reading, an experience, or a long-standing unresolved question. Crucially, this interest is not externally imposed but formed through sustained exploration.

References and interviews complement this picture from different angles. Teachers familiar with a pupil can provide insights into their learning style and thinking habits, while interviews allow these traits to be displayed dynamically. Across these dimensions, universities aim to assemble not a "perfect applicant" but a real, multi-dimensional, developing individual.

For many pupils, interviews may feel like performance, yet at Oxford they resemble an extension of everyday learning. Its unique tutorial system habituates pupils to articulate and refine ideas in small-group discussions. Two pupils with one professor explore a question in depth, gradually approaching understanding through repeated questioning and responses. This method demands comfort with uncertainty and the continuity of thought.

Hence, interviews are not mere assessments of knowledge but real-time academic discussions. Professors may present conflicting viewpoints or deliberately complicate a logical scenario. The key is not "avoiding mistakes" but maintaining clarity of thought and expression despite challenge. Interviews, therefore, provide a window into whether a pupil continues to think when familiar paths are disrupted.

During the session, artificial intelligence inevitably became a topic.

Professor Virdi noted that AI-generated content is often fluent and structurally complete, giving the appearance of coherent logic. Yet this "reasonableness" is essentially a recombination of existing information rather than genuine understanding. AI can consolidate perspectives but struggles to question them; it can simulate argumentation but cannot assume responsibility for the judgement behind it.

As more learning relies on such tools, a deeper question emerges: if expression can be generated, is thinking being replaced?

In an academic context, this risk is acute. Universities seek not information regurgitation but insight into how one processes information—how evidence is evaluated, biases identified, and judgement formed amid incomplete or conflicting data. This process is inherently uncertain, iterative, and reflective, which is precisely the value of thinking.

By contrast, AI tends to produce a "sufficiently reasonable" outcome without questioning its validity or exploring alternative explanations. Learning without such questioning risks superficial completeness, lacking inner substance.

Professor Virdi also emphasised the potential biases inherent in AI information selection. Every technological tool carries tendencies shaped by its training data and algorithms. Without independent judgement, individuals may unconsciously adopt a "filtered world." True academic training cultivates the ability to remain sceptical and analytical even when content appears reasonable.

Thus, all materials submitted in an application must reflect the applicant's own thinking. This is not merely adherence to rules but a reflection of one's approach to learning. Expression divorced from thought, no matter how polished, cannot authentically represent a person.

Looking further ahead, in an age of easy answers, individuals need to cultivate the ability to maintain distance from answers—not accepting them prematurely, not relying on them unthinkingly, but forming understanding through ongoing questioning and verification. AI, therefore, does not diminish the importance of thinking; it makes it more irreplaceable.

When asked how to prepare for future applications, Professor Virdi offered a measured response. There are no "fast tracks" and no substitutes for sustained effort. Reading, thinking, and discussion—seemingly simple—constitute the most fundamental and enduring sources of cognitive ability.

Choice is equally critical. Whether regarding subject direction or specific courses, what merits investment are areas that sustain genuine interest. Only through prolonged exploration does understanding deepen, naturally reflected in expression and judgement.

He also noted that encountering difficulty or pressure need not be met with suppressed emotion. Learning is inherently variable, and a good educational environment should allow individuals to feel safe, respected, and able to continue despite mistakes.