Speaking of the British

That article is a bizarre caricature, chock-full of misleading half-truths. "You probably did school exams in just three subjects. At university, you only study one" -- that's glaringly inaccurate. The underlying feature of the British education system is that from age 16 if they're going to university students tackle 3-4 subjects at "A" level, rather than a whole slew of them. However, the depth of study for an "A" level qualification is supposed to be (or was, in my day) roughly equivalent to finishing the first year of a degree in that subject. The "at university you only study one" reflects the nature of the British university system: rather than a hodge-podge of courses culminating in a major, British students focus on a particular area from the start -- other subjects are studied, but they don't rate separate examinations or qualifications. It's a system based on specialization: narrow but deep rather than broad but shallow.

Finally, anyone who went to Oxbridge having read that article and taking "nor is workaholic study encouraged" at face value is going to be in for a very nasty surprise ...

Some of this resonates, but this does not:

Oxbridge’s teaching methods reward good talk

In my experience, Cambridge University Engineering Department rewards those who can at age 19 show on paper a sound grasp of all branches of engineering, from vector calculus, to materials science, to the physics of a transistor, to thermo dynamics.

Those who can do both that, and also speak well, are often 'poached' into consulting and banking, whereas those who can only do the former tend to pursue more technical fields. But to blame that on Oxbridge seems unfair.

On an unrelated note: I've worked with many Oxbridge graduates of Humanities, Classics (Greek, Latin) and English Literature - all of whom (by selection of my firm's hiring process) are very numerate. I.e. the two are not mutually exclusive.

>Makes them really hard to interview because they are so good at interviewing!

Hmm. In my experience interviewing Oxbridge grads, I didn't find that. Being good at talking around gaps in knowledge works very well in free flowing conversations, but if an interviewer ask a specific question, and the interviewee cannot answer it, then the ability to talk round it does no good. E.g. I used to ask a question relating to the amortization of a loan, and I would ask the interviewee to draw a graph of time vs. loan balance. You can't talk your way out of not being able to do that.

Learning how to speak and articulate what I am saying has been the most valuable skill I have ever learnt.

I am constantly blown away by how poorly grown adults converse.

It circumvents the paywall.