I had two interviews in the morning (both about half an hour long) with two academic interviewers in each, and then a test (one hour long) in the afternoon. Before each interview I had 20 minutes in a room by myself to read through a text that we would discuss. In between these we were sat in the College bar with lots of students there to be supportive and keep us organised.

In the first interview I was given a poem to read beforehand, so we started with me basically just offloading all my thoughts about that. Then they asked me some more generic technical questions about poetry (e.g. rhyme and meter). Then they asked more specific questions based on the texts I’d mentioned in my personal statement. The interviewers were very impassive and didn’t really give away anything in their responses, which was unnerving.

In the second interview I was given (what I now know to be) an extract from a psychology textbook. We had a discussion about what it was and incorrectly inferred that it was a piece of non fiction, which led to some discussion of what it means for something to be ‘literary’. Then the interview became somewhat more interrogative as one of the interviewers picked holes in things I’d said in my PS and kept pushing me further and further in my arguments.

Largely both interviews were very focused on my personal statements and the texts they gave me.

I think the most helpful prep I did was practice interviews (often just with other friends who were applying) and talking about my subject a lot. It’s not really about ingesting loads of specific information, but more getting comfortable with thinking reflexively and talking in an academic way!

Not really