Test taken: CAT

Number of interviews: 5

Skype interview: No

Interview spread: 1 interview each of first two days, 3 interviews on third day

Length of interviews: about 30 minutes each, with (usually) 30 minutes reading time

My interviews were mostly either literature or philosophy based.

For literature ones, I was usually given a passage beforehand of poetry or prose, always with the English translation, and asked to have a think about it. I was not given the context of the piece. In this preparation period I annotated the passage with whatever I could think of, looking at literary devices (e.g. How is the language used? Are there any cool structuring techniques in the poetry like ring composition? What is the tone of the passage like?) and any themes I could think of. For example, in one interview I had a love poem where the author compares his own situation with his lover to that of a hero in a mythical story, which I found odd at the time because the mythical story did not seem to match up very well to the real life situation the author was in. In the interviews, we then discussed my thoughts on the passage, with the interviewers leading me through what I had come up with and then going in new directions. There were lots of times when I was confused and did not know exactly what they were asking, but they encouraged me just to say when I did not understand the question. Most importantly, they encouraged me to think aloud even when I was unsure and to talk through my reasoning even if it was incomplete (e.g. 'if I knew [x], or had more information about [y], then we could say this...'). Then in some of my literature interviews I was then asked about some of the things I had said I'd read on my personal statement, e.g. I was asked to comment on themes or issues from a certain play I had put down.

My philosophy interviews were fairly similar to the literature ones. I was given a passage of philosophy in English before the interview, and was asked to think about the issues it raises. It was on both occasions fairly short, a small paragraph (maybe a third of a page of A4). I was quite nervous, since I had not been confident in philosophy and had not studied any, so I just tried to work out roughly what the sorts of issues at stake were, and what kinds of things were being talked about, even if I couldn't quite see through it all and clarify exactly what was going on or what my personal position would be. Then in the interview, we would talk through what I had thought on the passage, and again the interviewers encouraged me to 'think aloud' and talk through my reasoning even if I was unsure or did not have a fully-thought-through answer. The conversation ended up moving in different directions and we did not stick solely on the passage the whole time, but we talked through other various issues that connected with the sorts of things we were discussing. They really encouraged me to ask questions or interrogate them when I was unsure, which was helpful in making it a more 'conversational' experience and helped me understand my own position and the issues at stake.

For half of one interview I was also asked about history. I was given a picture of an ancient coin, and asked to identify what it said and describe the image. For this, be as precise and clear as you can; don't jump to conclusions, just describe in full what is going on, and if unsure just say 'there is something here, I can't quite see what it is or says, but my best guess based on context would be...'. In general, don't be afraid to say you don't know to a difficult question, but always do set out how you might go about answering the question if you had more information and what your best guess, on the evidence you have, would be. We then ended up talking about the motivation for the coin, e.g. why a certain ruler might want to depict himself like that or in this way on a coin, or if there was anything surprising or odd about it. After this, I was asked a couple of questions about an ancient historian who I'd put down on my personal statement as having read some of his writings. I was asked about what I had thought about certain themes in his writings and what work I had done on him.

Doing any practice papers you can find is definitely very helpful, but once you've done them make sure you go back over them and write down separately a list of your mistakes and common errors, or complex bits of language you might find tricky, so you can sit down and learn that.

Similarly, just learning thoroughly a range of vocab is really useful. Stepping back and looking at the context, or what you would 'expect' the passage or sentence to say, can also really help you if you're stuck.

For preparing for these Classics interviews, one of the best things to do is to practise the sorts of activities they ask you to do. Find a short piece of literature or philosophy (no more than half a side of A4), and make yourself sit down with it for a short while (20 minutes maybe) and think through what you can come up with. It's absolutely okay to feel like you can't get to the bottom of a passage in such a short time, just practise thinking through what sorts of things you might want to raise or ask at the interview.

Secondly, if possible practise some mock-interviews with people (family or friends, it doesn't matter if they don't know much about the subject you are applying for). Interviews are a really difficult skill, and everyone feels rubbish at them when you first start. It can feel very tough to answer questions on the spot and to think through complicated material while someone is sitting there with you. Any practice at all of this you can do, even if it's just once, will help a bit. This is especially true for things you might be less familiar with, like philosophy; make someone ask you a few philosophy questions so you can get used to thinking through this sort of complex material on the spot. It will probably never feel perfect, so don't get demoralised if you feel like it's really tough or intimidating coming up with answers on the spot or having someone watch you while you think. Everyone feels like this, but even just doing a little bit of practice will help!

Thirdly, make sure on your personal statement you only say you have read bits of literature (or history or philosophy) that you have actually read. They may well ask you about the themes or issues of a certain work, so only put down things you are comfortable talking about. It's absolutely fine not to put much down, the interviewers will know that you won't have had much chance to read lots of things by this stage. For the things that you do put down, when preparing for interview go through those things and know them as well as you can; the interviewers won't be looking for something really sophisticated, but if you know what happens and can talk about some of the issues they will help lead you into an interesting conversation.

When in the interview, the most important thing is to think aloud and talk through your reasoning even if you don't know everything or don't have the exact answer to their question. They want to see how you do with tough questions, so if you show you can approach them with cautious reasoning even if you don't know much about the subject that will be really helpful. Don't forget to interrogate them on their views or positions, especially if you don't quite understand what they are saying. They will want to see how you engage with them, and it will make it more of a conversation.