Nearly all students find the interviews a daunting prospect and the interviews vary greatly between subjects and sometimes even between colleges. We've compiled interview accounts from current Clare students to give you some idea of what to expect on the day. There is some very good interview advice on the cambridge student union website and lots of practical information about Clare interviews on the Clare College website.
Archaeology and Anthropology - Guy Jacobs - 2005
The interview process consisted of a timed essay followed by two interviews, the first with two interviewers (Social Anthropology and Biological Anthropology) and the second with one (Archaeology). I had no idea what to expect for the essay and had never studied anthropology before, so it was a nice surprise when I found a choice of 12 questions on a really broad range of subjects. In the end I answered a question on an archaeological topic I knew very little about - but I imagine that the examiners look more for logical thinking and the ability to argue a point than prior knowledge, which may vary so much between candidates. The first interview was almost enjoyable - the faculty members were very nice and really tried not to be intimidating! We discussed my personal statement, what I had read on the subjects and current/global affairs for about 40 minutes. I misread the timing of my second interview and arrived 15 minutes late. The interviewer was again very nice about this, and we discussed both my essay and some theoretical issues in archaeology for 30-40 minutes. I think my point of view on these issues may have been at odds with that of the interviewer, but I stuck to and argued my point. In all, the interviews themselves were not very formal and there was plenty of choice for the essay question. The essay I answered was more theoretical than factual, and though I had done some background reading had limited prior knowledge of the subjects.
Archaeology and Anthropology - Emily Parker - 2006
I had two interviews: a general and more personal one, and a subject-related and more formal one. Two interviewers questioned me in each, so I was interviewed by four different people overall. The general interview was very friendly; they asked me about my interests outside of academia, and focused on the things I was passionate about. I was worried that the subject interview would be hard because I hadn't studied Archaeology or Anthropology before, but again the interviewers were friendly, and focused on books I had read or things I had written about in my personal statement. They also asked me some questions about the essay I had written in an exam I took the night before. The exam paper consisted of about twelve questions covering topics ranging from women, to pyramids, to chimpanzees. We had to chose one question and write an essay in an hour.
Architecture - Morgan Lewis
The interview was quite demanding from the first question. The interviewers do not have much time to ask you questions and to look through all of your portfolio, so don't be surprised if parts of your portfolio are moved through quickly. They didn't seem to mind when I paused to think about answers, or when I admitted I was not sure about certain things. It began with some questions from my personal statement, but only the parts that related to architecture, and then moved on to the task I had completed for the interview, and finally to a look at my portfolio. They ended with some slightly more tricky and general questions about the role of architecture. It was much more enjoyable and interesting than it sounds!
Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Russian and Persian/Spanish - Mark Brinkley - 2006
I applied for Post A level Russian, with Spanish ab initio. I had two interviews and an aptitude test. My first interview (Russian) was in a comfy kind of attic sitting room, sitting in comfy chairs with a man and a woman around a coffee table. I was a little surprised, as I was half-expecting a scary old man/panel of scary old men on the other end of a big oak table in a cold oak panelled room, asking odd questions like 'what is a banana' or throwing a rugby ball at me, and then ripping me to shreds in a bear pit or something like that, and it wasn't like that at all.
They gave me a passage in Russian, about one side of A4, to read through for five or ten minutes out in the corridor. When I went in they asked me to read some of it out - I was so nervous I could hardly say anything. Then I was asked some fairly basic questions about the text in Russian, mostly just comprehension of what was going on, and then I was asked to pick out whether it seemed a typical Russian scene and why, and something about stereotypes. Again, I was very nervous and not very satisfied with my performance but I managed to say something in grammatically alright Russian in answer to each question, which is all they needed. I found later that this basically simulated the first year Oral exam.
The second half of the interview was in English, and a bit more relaxed and personal, the lady asked me a couple of random things about a school society I'd mentioned on my personal statement. They also asked me about my application as I didn't have the opportunity to do Russian A Level at my school, but this was an obvious question and I'd researched language courses for my gap year, so I told them my plan of how I intended to get up to standard (my Russian at that time was prob only a bit better than GCSE but spoken Russian was alright). The whole thing was about 20 minutes and seemed to be over very quickly.
The second interview was also in a relaxed kind of setting, again with a man and a woman. I was given a piece of Spanish to look at outside, about half a side of A4. They asked me to read a bit of it out, just to see if I knew what Spanish sounds like, and asked me to pick out a couple of words and guess what they meant. I was studying Latin and had done French GCSE so I had not a bad rough idea of what 'escalada' might mean and things like that. We moved on to a general discussion, they asked me what my favourite poem was, I had no idea, so they asked what my favourite book is, again, I said that I don't really read very much but told them the kind of things I like in literature in general, which I think they liked.
I came out feeling that the interviews were far too short for them to really know anything about me. I also felt that maybe I'd failed to pick up on the interesting issues that they were getting at, because the questions seemed quite basic, I gave a basic answer bracing myself for being completely picked to pieces, and then it was dropped and they moved on to something else.
Both interviews didn't test how much I know, but rather tried to gauge my enthusiasm for the subject, and the way in which I think things through. Interviews simulate the supervision system of teaching, which is fairly unique to Oxford and Cambridge - this system doesn't suit everyone, and the interviewers are looking for people who can engage with what's in front of them, who are good to work with, and who would benefit most from the Cambridge style of teaching.
The aptitude test was one hour long. It had a passage in English of about a side and a third of A4. Ours was an article about one man's opinion on how global warming and climate change are rubbish, or something like that. You had to summarise it in the language of your choice - I struggled through in Russian. Then you had to write two short essay style questions - one was on the author's style, the other on the content of the passage, I think. I ran out of time badly and hardly wrote anything for the second question. I decided to move from Spanish to Persian in September before I came up. A few emails went back and forth to see if this was possible, and I had interviews with the Asian and Middle Eastern Studies faculty the day before my Freshers' Week started. I was grilled by first the Clare AMES Director of Studies, and then by the acting head of Persian, both of whom are actually very nice and just wanted to be sure that I was serious.
With A levels AAAB in English Lit, Maths, Biology and Latin, Cambridge was the only university of six to actually accept me, and one of only three that gave me an offer. My application for Russian and Spanish and eventually Russian and Persian didn't look great on paper because of no Russian A Level, and later because of my B in Latin, but I was able to write to Cambridge, and the personal nature of the interview system and smallish departments meant that it was very accessible for me. I'm very happy here now and would encourage you to apply if you have a genuine interest in your subject.
Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic - Clare Bristow - 2006
Interview day for me was short and sweet. I had one twenty-minute interview in the ASNC Department and didn't go to Clare at all. Two people interviewed me, beginning and ending with some general questions about my interests and studies and my personal statement. I was asked questions about relevant texts I had read, about the languages I had studied, and about different types of evidence - all totally relevant to ASNC. I was given a short passage to read, and we discussed the content and wording, with no background knowledge assumed. The questions were a mixture of specific and abstract, and I didn't have an answer to all of them (neither do the experts, in some cases!), but the interviewers threw in some hints to get my thought processes going, which was probably the point.
Classics, Four Year Course - Lucy Aldous - 2006
I had three interviews for Classics which I think is about average. The first was at Churchill and was based mainly on my personal statement, answering questions about books I had read etc. The second was in college with the classics DoS at Clare. This was more general and challenging; talking about themes in classical texts. This also involved discussion of the essay I had written before the interview on the nature of love in the Classical World. Some discussion was also based on the two essays I had sent to Cambridge as part of my application. My third and final interview was after a latin test I had taken in the faculty. This was very brief and informal, just a discussion of translation and only lasted about 10 minutes. The interview process for Classics is quite extensive because you are interviewed and tested by both college and faculty but no part of the process was overly daunting and the college interviews in particular were interesting and creative.
Classics, Three Year Course - Anthony Williams - 2007
The process for me involved three interviews on one day and a written test the night before. The first two interviews were with Clare and the third one was with Gonville and Caius. An interview at a second college of Cambridge’s choosing seemed to be the case for classicists across the board. However, the written test was specific to Clare. The written test lasted an hour and involved a translation (Cicero) and a short essay on a broad topic (imagination). The first interview was a general one. It began with a brief discussion of the previous night’s written test and moved on to a broader discussion of university. The second interview involved more subject-related questions as well as some direct grammar questions on a passage of Greek. The third interview involved discussion of an unseen piece of poetry (Martial) as well as more general subject-related questions.
Economics - Priyal Mulji - 2007
I had two interviews, each with one interviewer. In the first, it seemed I was very much able to set the agenda as I was told to talk about current economic affairs. This one wasn't very technical, and only basic knowledge on terms like "inflation" was required. Twenty minutes prior to my second interview, I was given some passages to read. The time wasn't sufficient to get through everything, and some articles were quite theoretical with new, abstract concepts which weren't so easy to grasp. I wasn't actually asked about anything I had read in the subsequent interview, but after talking to other interviewees, this wasn't always the case. This second interview was a quite a bit more mathematical, with tasks such as differentiation and questions on statistics. It was also more theoretical as, for example, I was also asked to explain the underlying logic behind the shape of quite a well-known economic curve (which I had never actually seen before), but it was obvious that no knowledge above A-level was required and hints were often given to help me along. My first attempt at each question certainly wasn't always correct, but it seemed as though the most important thing was to apply existing knowledge with common sense and making your thought process known.
Economics - Ravi Tanna - 2006
I had two separate interviews at Clare, and each of them was with an Economics Professor from the college.
About 30 minutes prior to the first interview, I was given a short article to read and was told to be prepared for questions about it. This made me quite nervous and I spent the half hour frantically reading and making notes. But, when the interview eventually came around, I was surprised by how relaxed and informal it was. It didn't feel as though I was being tested at all, and instead of expecting me to recite facts and figures, the interviewer was far more interested in my opinions about the article, so it was not nearly as difficult as I had imagined.
During both interviews I was also asked questions about various Economic issues I had mentioned in my personal statement. Although these topics were ones that I was familiar with from studying Economics at A Level, the style of questions was very different. Questions were posed in a way that challenged my views, rather than testing my knowledge. I found that the best way to answer was to explain the reasoning behind my opinions, and to back these arguments up by referring to things that I had read about in the Newspapers or the Economist. You might be asked some technical or maths questions during the interview, (though I wasn't), but don't let these worry you, as they are likely to be about something you will have studied at A Level.
Overall, my interview advice for any prospective economist is: relax, be confident and really try think about why you enjoy the subject. Don't worry if you can't answer all the questions (I certainly couldn't), just show what you know, and explain what you are thinking; more often than not, the interviewer will guide you towards the right answer.
Good luck!
Education Education with Mathematics - Zuzana Masarova - 2006
I had three interviews, one in education and two in maths. The education interview started with talking about my personal statement and I was asked to describe in more detail my motivation and/or experience with working with children. Afterwards they asked me a couple of more theoretical and moral questions related to education. These were complex issues, so I believe there did not exist right or wrong answers and they were only looking for the way I was thinking. This interview also contained a more general element, where they asked me about my free time activities, or, for example, what kind of music I like. In maths interviews I was given altogether four problems to solve. Two logic-based riddles, two analytical. I could not solve them all on my own, but their questions and hints gradually led me to solution. Again, I think they were more looking for the way in which I was approaching problems, the specific knowledge played a minor role.
Engineering - Shahen Dalia - 2007
The interview day involved two interviews and a multiple choice thinking skills paper (called the 'TSA'). Before the first interview, I was given a set of questions and asked to look over them in the library for half an hour. The interview that followed started with a few general questions about my interests, but most of it was based on my response to the questions - in a way it was structured like the supervisions that take place throughout the year. My second interview involved some more abstract questions, but focused on why I wanted to study at Cambridge, and what I could bring to college life. In hindsight, it was a really good idea to have gone over some of the physics course before the interview day since a lot of the things that cropped up had been covered early on in the 1st A-level year. I felt comfortable taking the TSA because I had looked over the sample paper that is posted on the engineering website - so I had an idea of what to expect. One of the good things about the interview day was most of my time in between interviews was spent in the common room, and so I got a chance to speak to some other prospective students - and that really helped calm my nerves!
Geography - Will Blackshaw - 2007
I had 2 interviews, both one on one. Before the first interview I had to collect three articles and read/analyse one of them, to be asked about it during the interview. I was a bit nervous about it and was expecting some horrible questions, but I think they were more trying to see how I took things in and how I thought about things and more that I had an opinion on things I'd read, rather than just accepting whatever it said at face value. The rest of the interview was stil subject specific, with the emphasis on me leading the conversation from questions asked.
The second interview was again specific to Geography, and at one point I was shown a graph and asked to give possible reasons for the 2 anomales, which wasn't too hard either.
In neither of the interviews was I asked the 'standard' questions of why Cambridge, why Geography etc, nor was I asked about anything I had put in my personal statment such as articles I'd read etc. In hindsight this makes sense as they knew full well that I knew those articles very well and were more interested to see how I tackled things that were new to me.
History - Amy Carter - 2007
Interviews are incredibly daunting. I know it is clichéd, but honestly remember to keep perspective, and if possible, enjoy your interview! It isn't the inquisition some of the rumours make it out to be: when applying for history at Clare you will have two interviews, each with two fellows or admissions staff. You will be asked to send in two essays (from your school work, not specially written) which will be the focus of your first interview, as well as some more general questions on which periods you are interested in (if there is a period you'd really like to talk about, send in an essay on it and/or mention it in your personal statement- play to your strengths!) The second interview includes a small test, where you will be given a short source before your interview, with some time beforehand to study it. During this interview you will discuss the source and history in general. DO NOT BE AFRAID OF THE TEST. Your interviewers will not expect you to know everything about an unseen source! What they are looking to find out is how you think, not what you know, and how you use facts and ideas. They are also simply looking to you as a person, to see whether you would be happy at Clare! The best advice to interviews therefore is honestly just to be relaxed, yourself, and confident when you go in. Read your essays and feel assured discussing them; actually read any books you have name-dropped in your personal statement (!) and show as much genuine and sincere enthusiasm for the subject as is appropriate to you!
History of Art - Georgie Plunkett
I had two interviews each with two interviewers during my application to Cambridge and was fairly nervous beforehand. However, my interviewers relaxed me and it was not the terrifying ordeal I had expected. The questions asked were designed to get the best out of the applicant and highlight strengths rather than weaknesses. The interviewers picked a few areas of interest from my personal statement and expanded their questions from these. In both interviews I was shown various pieces of art and asked to compare and contrast them using the knowledge I had. The interview process is designed to allow the interviewers to find out about the applicant on a more personal level and engage with them in discussion, to reveal potential rather than to test knowledge.
Law - Jason Connor - 2007
I had two interviews, each with two interviewers, both lasting approximately 20 minutes. The first of these was with my, now, Director of Studies and another Law Fellow from Clare. The interview was fairly informal and conversational and involved reading and discussing various legal texts. For example, I was given an extract from the EC Treaty and was asked to explain each section in my own words. The interviewers would frequently interject, asking, say, whether I thought such an approach was morally correct, or how such a measure might work in practice.
The second interview was with two Law Fellows from other colleges, one of whom would be my Constitutional Law supervisor in my first year. The interviewers asked me to pick a number between one and ten, and gave me a corresponding piece of paper with a hypothetical scenario written on it. For example, "A businessman hails a cab to take him to a meeting on the other side of the City. He informs the driver that, if successful, the meeting will result in a £1 million deal. He asks the driver for a guarantee that he will get there on time, to which the driver agrees. In fact, the driver gets lost, and the businessman misses the meeting and the lucrative deal. Can the businessman sue the driver?" Upon responding, the interviewers might change the facts: "What if the driver did not get lost, and was merely stuck in traffic? What if the businessman paid the driver £100 in addition to the fare? Is it relevant that the £1 million deal was not a sure thing?" There is no expectation of you to know the relevant law. In fact, as I write this, now in 2nd year, I've only just begun to deal with contract law. The important thing is to reason your way through the question, even if your conclusion is, strictly speaking, incorrect. Expect to answer several of these types of questions in the interview.
In addition, you will have to sit a separate college-administered law exam. I was given an extract of the judgment in a case concerning Conditional Fee Agreements involving Naomi Campbell and was instructed to paraphrase each section in my own words. Again, no knowledge of this area of law is expected; the emphasis is on your ability to understand and distill complex ideas with which you are not familiar.
Land Economy - Zainie Jamali - 2007
I had two interviewers (my DOS and another prof from the department) so it was both the general and subject interview rolled into one. It was a good cop-bad cop situation where one of the interviewers was very docile and the other one a little more intimidating (ended up liking him better, he was definitely cool). Literally after the first 30 seconds they completely put me at ease and it was just like having a normal conversation. I was asked some of the predictable questions: why land economy, why Clare etc etc. They asked me about what I did at the internship I had mentioned in my PS and I told them about it in detail. I remember one specific question where bad cop gave me this situation and said you're governor of this very high-consumption oriented island and you have to solve 3 problems: waste disposal, pollution, and one other thing i can't remember (which I blanked on during the interview too and he had to remind me). It was pretty obvious that they didn't expect me to know all the answers; they just wanted to see my thought process and prompted me to help me arrive at certain conclusions, or any sensible conclusion for that matter. Other things we discussed were what I thought was the connection between Law, Economics and the Environment and why I wanted to study them together.Certain questions were a result of stuff I had mentioned in my PS like how the environment isn't given any importance where I come from etc. They also asked me about my experience playing national softball (proves Cambridge cares about stuff other than academics too). At the end they asked if I had any questions, and while I didn't have any prepared I remember bringing up something they hadn't mentioned from my PS and we ended up having a long chat about random stuff like Calvin and Hobbes (random comic) and Clare bridge.
Maths - Shona Gibson - 2006
I had two interviews, each with a single maths fellow. In each I was posed a maths question and then had to try and solve it as best as I could. I wasn't expected to be able to solve it all myself and was given helpful hints along the way. The questions were generally on the sorts of things I had done at school but involved a bit of 'thinking out of the box'. I didn't get asked any questions about my personal statement, why I wanted to come to Clare or anything like that. They just wanted to see how I approach maths.
Medical Sciences - Snigdha Reddy - 2007
For medicine, the interview structure consisted of two interviews, each half an hour long and with two interviewers. The questions generally tested logic, some requiring basic science knowledge. Stimuli for the questions included data, graphs and images as well as a question about my personal statement. The interviewers seemed more interested in your thought process rather than getting the question correct. When I had difficulty with a question hints were given - the interviewers made the experience as undaunting as possible. There was a break between the two interviews in which there was time to talk to the other applicants within my group. There was no questioning about the system of the NHS, medical education or the politics around medicine as there usually is in other medical interviews. It is not a scary experience as I expected it to be!
Medical Sciences - Tristan Withers - 2007
When I applied for medicine I had two interviews, each with two interviewers and lasting about 20 minutes. Whilst I expected one to be subject-based and one to be a general interview, this wasn’t the case and both interviews were a mixture of questions.
I didn’t get very many questions about my personal statement or things that I’d done at school. I got a couple of questions about some work experience I’d done and a couple about why I was interested in Medicine as a subject and a career.
Most of the interview time was spent asking me questions about pictures or graphs or tables which I’d never seen before. This was a bit off-putting at first as it’s not really possible to prepare for that kind of thing, but I think that was kind of the point. Your interviewers are trying to ask you about stuff you have never seen before to see how you react and think about it. I realised later that everyone must have found those questions as random and unexpected as I did. To give an example, the first thing I was asked about was a graph showing suicide rate in men between 1935 and 1950. I was initially asked what the graph showed, then I was asked about specific points where the lines went up or down and my interviewers asked me what I thought that meant and why (for example there was a big peak around 1940-1945 and I suggested that possibly it was something to do with World War II.) Then they showed me another graph with the methods of suicide used by men during the same period. I was asked a few more questions about this graph such as which points of interest there were, why they were interesting / what they showed and whether they were related to the first graph (There was a huge rise in the use of guns around 1939 and I suggested that this might also be related to the World War.)
Looking back on my interviews I think that my actual answers weren’t very important, it was more to let the interviewers see how I thought and arrived at a conclusion, and how I revised that conclusion when new information was presented. They never really tested my knowledge about anything, and I can see why now, as we have to learn so much new material once here that the interviewers are more interested in how you learn. I needed a lot of prompting and the interviewer corrected me on some things I suggested which were wrong.
Perhaps most importantly, the interviewers have to decide whether they get on with you enough to spend time every week teaching you in supervisions. I tried to be really smiley and enthusiastic the whole way through and look open and interested. Even though you’ll be pretty nervous, I think it helps to see it as a kind of conversation rather than a test. That will help you relax and make the whole thing less stressful.
Finally, I’d advise that you don’t spend days after the interview trying to analyse how you did. I came out feeling that it hadn’t gone that well. I didn’t feel like it was a disaster, but I just didn’t feel like I would have any chance of standing out compared to all the other people who were there that day. There are friends of mine who felt their interviews went well and some who felt they went badly, and some people in both groups got offers whilst others didn’t. It doesn’t really help to spend ages agonising over every hesitation during your interview. I don’t think the interviewers really mind about anything like that- they’re trying to get an impression of how you think and communicate.
Modern and Medieval Languages Russian and French - Louisa Long - 2006
The interview process for MML students is slightly different to that of other subjects in that, rather than having one subject specific interview and one more general interview, an MML student will have one for each of their languages. For me this meant that there wasn't much discussion of any extra-curricular interests or reasons for choosing my college- My interviewers were purely interested in my knowledge and interest in their subject.
For my post A-level language (French) I was given a poem to read about 10 mins before the interview, which I was then asked to read aloud and to discuss. The questions were quite open rather than specific, and they seemed to want to test my ability to interpret texts in different ways, since I planned to do the literature instead of the linguistics paper. We also talked more generally about other literature I had read. On the same day I also had a half an hour comprehension test where we were given a passage to read and then had to answer a few questions on it. Once again the questions allowed you to show what you did know rather than trying to catch you out on what you didn't. My second interview was for studying a language from scratch (ab initio Russian) and so the questions were more broadly about my reasons for choosing Russian and what knowledge I had of the culture and history. We spoke about why Russian might be complimentary to French and what grammar I had already covered (which, at that stage, was minimal). We also discussed a couple of books I had read by Russian authors.
Music - Jeremy Coleman - 2007
When I applied to Clare College in 2007, there were two interviews for Music, each lasting about 45 minutes. In addition, on the previous day, I sat an hour-long harmony and counterpoint exam, which consisted in a four-part harmonisation of a Bach chorale.
The first interview was oriented more towards the practical side of things than to the academic. For the first interview, I had been asked to prepare a five-minute performance, and I had chosen a pair of movements from Bach’s French Suite No. 5 in G. There were also aural tests, including dictation of a four-part Bach chorale (hello again!). Interspersed with these tests were conversations about music and academia in general, usually taking as a starting point those interests I had mentioned in my personal statement. Following this, I was given to identify several extracts from scores, among them Beethoven and Michael Finnissy (!). My last task was to read and respond to a short article about some musicological issue (something to do with Historical Performance, if I remember). For the second interview, I had to prepare an analysis of some Haydn String Quartet movement. This was straightforward enough, though I was introduced to new theories of analysis along the way. My script from the exam the day before, now marked, made a surprise reappearance and we discussed ways in which it could have been improved.
My experience of being interviewed at Clare was a rich and rewarding one. If you have a genuine interest in studying music, I urge you to apply for Music at Clare; at least I wouldn’t want the interviews to put you off.
Natural Sciences, Biological - Matilda Hay - 2006
I had two interviews and also had to sit a short exam called the Thinking Skills Assessment (TSA). This tested my critical thinking and problem solving skills and there wasnt really much revision required for it, I only did a few practice papers (provided online by the college) to familiarise myself with the format. Of the two interviews my first was with only one interviewer and was the more general interview. I think similar questions were asked to all candidates and mostly geared at getting me to think through some biological problems, like how organisms might overcome certain difficulties created by their environment, or describing the features of a skull I was given, or how I might test a certain hypothesis experimentally. The second interview had two interviewers and was quite varied. There were clearly some set questions they asked everyone but then the direction of the discussion very much depended on you. Some topics were about the bigger picture of biology and important discoveries whilst others were much more detailed and definitely testing your knowledge of the A level. However, you're not expected to be able to answer all your questions, and some things even they didn't know the answer to they just wanted to see my views and thought process. This was also the interview where they asked me a few things related to my personal statement.
Natural Sciences, Physical - Jon Hannah - 2005
I had two interviews; the first one was physics with just one interviewer, and the second was chemistry with two interviewers. In my physics interview, he started off by asking me to tell him what I knew about an area I had expressed an interest in, in my personal statement. There were then a few different questions to do with estimates and graph-drawing. I made a couple of mistakes, and went completely down the wrong track with one of the graphs. In one case he pointed out where I'd gone wrong, and in the other I worked it out for myself. The important thing is not to lose your cool! Everyone's nervous and you are allowed to make mistakes. They are looking for potential and the way you think, not the finished article.
I found my second interview a little more intimidating, as there were two people interviewing and they took it in turns to ask questions and make notes while looking very serious. In fairness, they will be interviewing potentially hundreds of people, so keeping notes is essential; just try not to let it distract you. You can't see what they're writing and trying to second guess won't help you, so I would focus instead on the questions being asked. Also, try not to be flustered by surprise questions! As my final question, I was asked what I thought 2005 would be remembered for as a year. My mind was focused on the preceding chemistry questions and went completely blank... I took a few seconds though and managed to find an answer. So relax, take your time and good luck!
Philosophy - Madeline Dixon - 2006
I arrived the day before my interviews to take a written test. The test consisted of some questions about basic logic, or reasoning, and an essay. No specific knowledge was required, you just had to be able to write reasonably well, think of some points to make for the essay, and follow arguments for the logic questions. I’ve since realised that I got most of those questions wrong anyway. The next day I had two interviews, each with two interviewers. In both, I was asked a couple of questions about my personal statement, especially about topics in philosophy I said I’d found interesting. Then they presented me with philosophical problems and asked me to respond to them. Again, I didn’t have to have studied any particular subject to answer the questions. When I gave an answer, they’d point out some problems with it and see how I responded. It didn’t matter that there were problems with my answer - I think they just wanted to see that I could recognise the problem when it was pointed out to me, and try to get round it. The second interview followed a similar structure, and I was also asked some questions about the essay I’d written. Sometimes I changed my mind or took back something I’d said, but that didn’t seem to matter.
Politics, Psychology and Sociology - Alix Martin - 2007
I had two interviews with one interviewer in each.
First interview: I was given a short article (about 1 and a half A4 sides) from a newspaper to read before the interview. The interview started with a discussion about the themes in the article. It seemed very open and I got very few direct questions; I was made to feel like I could just discuss the things I found to be important in the passage. Looking back, it was arranged very much like a supervision. The second half of the interview was based on my personal statement. I was asked to discuss and give examples of a small comment I made in my personal statement. This interview lasted 20 minutes.
Second interview: When I was called to interview I was sent a form asking me to describe in more detail the things I had covered in my A-Level subjects and asked to send in a marked school essay. After a couple of questions about my reasons for choosing PPS, the majority of the questions were based on the things I had sent in, or my personal statement. This made me more relaxed and although the questions were much harder than anything i had covered before, I felt more willing to stretch myself. Once or twice I couldn't come up with an answer but my interviewer either gave me some hints or phrased the question in a different way. During the course of the interview I was asked some questions based on current affairs and more general questions about things I had read. This one lasted 30 minutes. Overall, the impression I got both before and after the interviews was that there was no point in trying to pretend I knew something I didn't, or that I had read something I hadn't, because I definitely would have been caught out and would have been made to look really stupid. It worked out much better to be honest and say I didn't know and show that I was willing to learn.
Politics, Psychology and Sociology - Theo Zhang - 2007
All PPS applicants to Clare get two interviews. In my year, one was with the director of studies, who interviewed me about politics, and my second was with a social anthropology fellow who interviewed me about sociology and psychology.
I hadn't received much preparation from my school but an English teacher gave me a very helpful mock interview which helped me prepare for the situation. The real thing was totally different though, and I came out of the process thinking it had been extremely tough. In my first interview I was asked why I wanted to study the course, and which components I was interested in. Then we discussed my essay - one I had written about American political parties as part of my Politics A2 course. I was asked who I thought would win the primary elections and the Presidential election. Funnily enough my suggestions were both wrong, and the interviewer's prediction came true (that Obama had a good chance because of the new strength he was gaining at the time). I was also asked about why I thought the Republicans had won the last two elections. I think this was all because I had submitted an essay about this.
We then talked about my A level subjects. The interviewer was particularly interested in what I was doing in A level history and she asked me which parts I was particularly enjoying. I said my favourite part of the course was the Cold War module, so she asked me when I thought the Cold War started and ended (not an easy question!). I gave an answer she disagreed with, but we moved on.
For the final part she asked me to talk about the political situation with Iran's (civilian or otherwise) nuclear program. Other people I spoke to were asked to talk about different current affair issues, and I know someone who was asked to talk about feminism.
Overall I thought I performed well in this interview, but I had only 20 minutes to relax because I had another one straight away!
In my second interview I was given an article to read. The article was a 5 page article about Belgium and the ethnic/nationalist issues. Belgium is interesting because it has two official languages and a number of nationalities contained within. This is not unlike Britain. I was asked to talk about the difference between nationalism, ethnicity, racism and other concepts. She asked if there's a difference between being English and British and I told her I prefer to describe myself as British. She asked me why, and I talked about the different heritages involved in the creation of a British nationality. We talked about other issues to do with identity and ethnicity in the UK. We also talked about my personal statement at the end. I thought I performed better in this interview, but in many ways it was much 'kinder', because I was allowed to direct the conversation rather than in my first one where it moved quite quickly at my interviewer's discretion.
Overall the process was daunting, but I enjoyed it.
PPSIS - Beth English - 2006
I had one interview with my potential Director of Studies and one with two other tutors from my course. The first interview was politics specific since that was my rea of interest. I found it really difficult and I couldn't answer a lot of the question. For the questions that I couldn't answer we worked through them together and even on those I was confident with, my views and logic were challenged to see how well I could hold up my arguments and take other view points on board. The second interview was about more general social sciences issues and we were given a passage to read outside that we had to discuss in the interview. I found that one less scary because i had something to refer to that I'd seen before. I also hadto take a critical thinking exam and submit a sample essay from my A level work.
Theology and Religious Studies - Eleanor Cramer - 2006
If you get called for interview at Clare you'll have to write a timed essay first. There's a wide of choice in the questions, and I seem to remember that most of them were very open-ended and free anyway, so that you could make of them what you wanted, so just have fun! I wasn't asked anything about the timed essay in the interview. It was mostly open-ended questions about a few theological topics that I had mentioned in my personal statement, trying to get me to think beyond what I'd been taught at school, or to spot new connections between different topics. They also asked me about a religious issue that had been in the news but didn't mind that I hadn't heard about it. I seemed to 'dry up' more often than I said anything relevant, so don't lose heart if your interview is tricky. For Theology and Religious Studies you automatically get given a second interview at another college as well, which for me was at Gonville and Caius. That one started off by giving me a biblical passage to read beforehand (you get to choose whether Old or New Testament) and asking me to think about its context and message. The rest of the Caius interview was similar to the Clare one.
Veterinary Science - Anonymous - 2006
I had two interviews, two interviewers in each. My first was fairly formal, while the second felt more like a relaxed chat (sitting on sofas and even the odd joke!). Apart from the obvious "why a vet?", most questions involved telling me something I didn't know (and would never have been expected to know), and asking me to think, using GCSE and AS-level knowledge, why that could be. There was also a graph to interpret using fairly basic AS knowledge, and a couple of questions were asked about something I'd mentioned on my personal statement and work experience. Prompts were used when I was going down the wrong route - I felt they were out there to help.
