I had two interviews of about twenty minutes on English literature, each with two interviewers, all English fellows and all but one employed by Christ's.

At the beginning of each interview I had to analyse an unseen poem (I had about three minutes of reading time for each), which I then had to read out. I thought at the time that how little time we had to analyse the poems was probably intentionally unnerving, designed to see who responded well under pressure. We also had to read the poem out loud.

I felt that many candidates, like myself, might have been thrown by having to read a poem aloud only a couple of minutes after encountering it, for which we had not necessarily been prepared. However, I was fortunate enough to enjoy the challenge of this part of this interview, and subsequent questions I answered on texts mentioned in my personal statement in the second half. I did receive a few questions which were clearly intentionally provocative, based on world choice in my personal statement, but I felt, on balance, that these were good ways of seeing how intellectually flexible I was by making me think on my feet. However, these questions again made me consider how a less confident, but equally skilled, candidate might have responded under the pressure of provocation from an academic authority.

My best preparation was probably the practice interviews my Sixth Form College did with me (I attended a state-run Sixth Form College with a very small, but very good, Oxbridge application programme).

I felt that it was also important that I re-read some of the key texts I talked about in my personal statement, because forgetting key details would have left me floundering when pressed with complex questions.

Whether you agree or disagree that the interview process should give such an advantage to learned confidence, humanities interviews do seem to favour confidence in your convictions and an assertive arguing style. The most important thing in an English interview is not to let the pressure get to you; always be ready to defend your current position, even if you change your mind about it, and say so, under questioning.