I had two interviews in mid-December. They started at 10am, prior to which I waited in the JCR, and lasted 25 minutes each. Each interview was conducted by two History fellows at Trinity Hall.

Some of the questions were tailored to the written work I had already sent, including an essay on the Stuarts and my History coursework. Some were more abstract. First I was asked to explore transport in one of the periods I'd studied. This allowed for a little more creativity and originality than the debates I had brought up in my essays.

Some questions that followed were about general historiography and my thoughts on gender history, and women in history, as I told them this was an interest of mine. It was really challenging and I did not feel like I had done particularly well, but also gave every question a good shot and tried to articulate my thought processes and interests.

Reading widely - popular history books, newspaper articles on history. I used Jstor, and just read the most popular articles on history.

I found the practice interviewsat school really helpful, particularly getting used to the interrogative aspects of the interview. If these aren't offered, speaking to anyone and everyone - teachers, parents, friends, faculty on university visit days - about your subject is incredibly insightful. Just be curious. If you don't want to keep reading in connection with your subject, it might not be the one for you.

Don't dissect your interview afterwards. It really isn't worth it, and you cannot grasp how well it went because it's such a fast, new 50 minutes or so. It isn't about a 'correct' answer, it's about articulating how you think, so keep explaining and getting across your curiosity. I think the questions are either a) about subjects they know you are studying, which you can really prepare for or b) about abstract aspects of wider historiography or time. Believe that you have something interesting to say in answer to both forms of question because, more than likely, you do!