Test taken: History Aptitude Test (HAT)
Number of interviews: 2
Time between interviews: 1 day
Length of interviews: 30 minutes
Online interview: No

Politics interview: I was given some graphs and charts to look through for 20mins. They seemed to be about different countries and their electoral systems. When I went into the interview they asked me about them. There wasn’t any assumed knowledge about the different electoral systems but they asked me to make links and connections between voting habits and the wider politics of a country. There were two interviewers and one took the lead on this first half whilst the other made notes. When the second interviewer took over she gave me a classic ethical dilemma (something fairly simple). They didn’t really care what answer I gave I think they were just interested in how I justified it, and how I responded to their criticisms/ challenges to my argument.

History: I was given a source beforehand to read. It was so complex and abstract I had no idea what it was about! When I went in they asked me about it: they wanted to know my reading of it, what I thought it was about, and what I thought the wider context of the source might be. I took quite an analytical approach in dissecting it (again I’m not sure how much they cared what my interpretation was but how I evidenced and justified it). Then they started talking about my submitted schoolwork. Unfortunately, it became clear I didn’t know much about the particular topic beyond what I’d written- one of the tutors said ‘Did you not cover this bit in school?’ And when I said No he just moved on to talking about something else. From there a lot of it was just very general discussion- it was a conversation more than a question-and-answer setup. It was very much like the tutorials I’m used to now! I think that’s probably what they were assessing…

I recapped everything I had already given them: my personal statement and my written work. I made sure I had something to say about each of the things on my statement if questioned so that it looked like I’d read and thought about them.

I wish I had thought more about the essay I submitted because my history interview spent a bit of time discussing that topic!

The biggest help was practising vocalizing my thought process and justifying my answers to things out loud. I was lucky I could have political discussions with my dad, but I also spent a long time in front of the mirror having imaginary debates…

Lots of past papers! There were a couple of good videos aswell going through papers with current students. Once I had done a few I took one to my history teacher. She’d never seen the HAT before but, using the mark scheme, she was able to mark and talk through it with me.

I started to realise it was just about looking at a source you’d never seen before/ had no background knowledge of, so it was easy to find more practice: I would just open a history textbook at random and pick a source to analyse.

Make sure you’ve thought about the books/podcasts/essays you’ve consumed or produced in the run-up to your application. This isn’t a test of memory it’s about thinking.

Don’t think of it as an interview! The whole point of Oxbridge interviews is to simulate a tutorial. It’s not always about getting the right answer, it’s about how you respond when you don’t know: Are you ‘teachable’? If you are given new info can you roll with it? Phrases like ‘Oh I hadn’t thought about it that way before, I think I might revise my answer to this…’ are perfectly valid and good to use. It’s also ok to say you don’t know! As long as you’re willing to have a go.

Practice talking about your subject as much as you can. I’m a big one for keeping answers in my head because I’m worried they sound too obvious or stupid. You can’t get points for all the good stuff in your head if you don’t say it! Even in a STEM subject, practice vocalizing out loud the steps you’re taking to solve a problem as you are doing them.