After staying over at the college the night before, I had a 25 minute ‘general’ interview, an hour long admissions test (essay), then a 25 minute ‘Law’ interview. Each interview had 2 interviewers- 2 Law fellows for the Law interview, and 2 fellows of different subjects for the general, though this does not make the latter any less capable of testing you.

The ‘general’ interview was just as Law focused as the ‘Law’ interview. In the general interview, we discussed my interest in Law and we spoke about an aspect of law.

Before the Law interview, I was given roughly 30 mins to study a ‘problem’ question, where I had to try and match a set of scenarios to clauses of a fake statute where the Law might have been broken. Once in the interview, I was asked to say and explain my findings- all the way being pushed and questioned. Don’t let this questioning damage your confidence - they are just trying to get more out of you. Then I was asked about a section of my personal statement regarding a decision where I got a chance to talk fairly uninterrupted. Then I was given a tricky passage of legal philosophy from a different era. Overall, the difficulty and intensity of the Law interview was noticeably higher, so everyone I talked to came out of it feeling a bit down, but often this meant they were tested more. The more difficult it gets, the more you’re impressing!

Practising past essay/problem questions which one of my teachers had compiled. This gets you cutting to the chase (finding the crux) so you don’t waste time in the interview, which is vital. The more you get done in the interview, the more you can impress - if they want more detail, they’ll ask.

Nope!