Test taken: Arts-Humanities Admissions Assessment (AHAA)
Number of interviews: 2
Time between interviews: 1 hour
Length of interviews: 20-30 mins each
Online interview: No

- I had two interviews (both at Clare in Cambridge, two interviewers each, 20 mins each) in the same morning with plenty of time in between. 

- It was very cold in the waiting rooms/corridors but warm in the interview rooms (this might be applicable and worth noting more generally!) 

- First interview: reading a source beforehand for an hour (maybe 500 words, nothing too intimidating) and about half the interview was directly related to it, the rest indirectly. The interviewers were friendly and not ‘mean’ at all but also fairly formal and deadpan/inscrutable! They clearly had a list of questions prepared, so follow up questions tended not to be spontaneous. It was mostly general/theoretical history questions (some slightly wacky) - but with encouragement to draw on examples - and I was not expected to know anything related to the source content. I found this one really interesting but intimidating at the time and kept thinking of better answers afterwards! 

- Second interview: much more informal. One fellow and one post-doc student, clearly asking very spontaneous questions based largely on my SAQ (the topics I’d studied in sixth form) and personal statement, with a couple of questions on my submitted work at the beginning. It was mostly driven by the interests of the post-doc as there were overlaps here - the Fellow had a completely different specialism and so mostly watched, occasionally interrupting with questions. Both interviewers were friendly and engaging, also often deliberately contrarian to spark debate, but in an encouraging way. There were some general/theoretical questions at the end but these were conceptually linked to our earlier discussion. I really enjoyed this one!

Practice papers - about 5 beforehand, most done to time. Used the website to mark multiple choice questions and looked at exam criteria for essays.

Be early! Be yourself! Be interested!

More subject-specific for history:

- If you’re given a source beforehand: try to look at it from as many unusual angles as possible, as well as ones you think interest you less, as you might find these harder to discuss if asked. Try not to come into the interview with a preconceived interpretation/argument about the source (even though the allocated hour to read it feels long!)  -don’t be afraid to use really common examples to make points off the cuff - wide knowledge is less important than analysis and if you know more about an example, you can pick out details better. Also remember to use examples now and then for general history questions even if not prompted!

- For formal-style interviews (like my first one): it’s easy to be thrown if interviewers are inscrutable/don’t visibly react to your answers. Take as much time as you like (it can be quite helpful and grounding to briefly mentally plan answers before you speak) and use it as an opportunity to be flexible in your thinking and ‘think aloud’ - but equally don’t keep talking more than you need just because you feel you should!

- For informal-style interviews: engage with the debate, commit to your argument at first but don’t be afraid to modify it later if you want (this is a good, not a bad thing!). Disagreement is good! Be flexible! It can be scary if you’re corrected/contradicted by an interviewer but it’s great if you can use that to move the discussion forward. If you're not sure, suggest things; for example, outline different possibilities and discuss them.