The day started with a 90 minute, mostly multiple choice, test in the morning and then later in the day I had one 10-15 minute interview with two interviewers.

The interview was split into around 5 separate sections, the two interviewers varied in terms of who would lead each section while the other sat back and made notes.

The sections varied greatly. The first was logic questions with clear right or wrong answers. I got a few wrong but as I was explaining my reasoning I corrected myself so felt ok about it.

Another section focused on meta-ethics and was quite hard. With all of them I was given time to think things through before answering and I got the impression they were testing my thinking skills far more than my knowledge (nothing in my personal statement was mentioned at all!).

So I would say the preparation I did helped in terms of confidence and practicing thinking skills but didn't help directly. The questions were quite hard and I came out of it instantly thinking of better answers and kicking myself for not saying them at the time but that is the nature of a pressured interview.

None of my preparation directly helped in the knowledge sense as they purposely asked questions I wouldn't have studied. I think just talking through ideas with people and building confidence and communication skills was the best preparation I did. I was quite surprised by this as I had heavily revised my personal statement and expected that to come up more.

I thought my interview went quite badly but I think if you come out of it thinking that it shows they pushed you and so if anything is a good sign!