The 'Head Boy' Discrepancy at Interview
A candidate's application says he was 'head boy' of his school. At interview, the panel has a school letter stating he was deputy head boy and that the head boy was another student. The panel asks: 'Your form says head boy. Explain.' The candidate actually led a major charity drive and was acting head for one term when the head boy was ill. He is nervous and considers saying the letter is wrong. The interview is 20 minutes, and the panel will also ask about teamwork and a time he failed. The candidate has strong grades, plays cricket, and has volunteered for two years.
1. What is the panel most likely assessing with this question? Distinguish between the factual issue and the behavioural issue.
Read the worked answer
The factual issue is small: deputy head boy versus head boy, with a term as acting head. The behavioural issue is larger: how the candidate responds when a claim is challenged. The panel is assessing honesty, composure under pressure, willingness to correct the record, and whether he can distinguish a formal title from actual contribution. They may already know the letter is accurate; the question is a probe, not a trap.
A strong answer corrects the title, gives the context briefly, and does not blame the school or the panel. A weak answer defends the wording, attacks the letter, or over-explains. The panel also learns whether the candidate can keep a 20-minute interview on track after an uncomfortable moment.
2. Draft a 60–90 word response the candidate could give. Explain why it works.
Read the worked answer
Draft: 'Sir, I should correct my form. I was deputy head boy, not head boy. In my final term the head boy was ill, and I acted in the role for about ten weeks. I also led the school charity drive, which raised funds for a local clinic. I wrote head boy because I did the job for that period, but the accurate title is deputy head boy. I apologise for the ambiguity.' (72 words)
Why it works: it corrects the record in the first sentence, gives context without making an excuse, states the accurate title, and redirects to a concrete contribution. It does not blame the school or challenge the panel. The apology is brief and specific. It also leaves room for the panel to move on to teamwork or the charity drive.
3. Afterwards, the candidate asks whether he should have argued that the letter was wrong. Advise him.
Read the worked answer
He should not have argued that the letter was wrong, because it was not wrong. Arguing would have turned a minor wording issue into a credibility problem and used up interview time. If the application can still be amended, he should ask the admissions office to correct the title in writing and attach a short note explaining the acting role. If it cannot be amended, the interview correction is enough.
The lesson is to write future applications with exact titles and to describe acting roles as 'acting head boy for one term' rather than 'head boy'. Panels generally value a clean correction more than a perfect record.