Test taken: LNAT

Number of interviews: 3

Skype interview: No

Interview spread: two days - 1 on first day, 2 on second day

Length of interviews: 25-30 minutes each

My first and second interviews were each conducted by a different pair of tutors, so the format remained the same. I was given part of a case to read half an hour before the interview in a quiet room, and allowed to take notes. Each case contained two judgements, which were 5-7 pages long.

During those interviews, I was first asked a question about my personal statement before the tutors launched into the case I read. I was then asked to summarise the case facts, and was asked guided questions regarding my opinions on what the judges said, what I thought about the existing law, etc.. Those questions mainly tested my reasoning ability, and no pre-existing knowledge about law was required.

Candidates have a third interview if there is a significant disparity between their scores for the first two interviews. My third interview was in front of all four tutors; in front of them, I was given a minute to read a short piece of legislation. I was then asked guided questions which got progressively more difficult about interpreting that provision, e.g. I was given hypothetical situations and was asked what the law would do or should do, and why.

The tutors all went to lengths - e.g. through their body language and facial expressions - to make the candidates feel at ease. I was still nervous but knowing they made that effort made me feel a lot better. As the interviews were held in the tutors' offices, there were comfy armchairs and couches to make it feel far less clinical than I thought it would be.

I did around 5 practice tests, and reviewed the answer explanations from the book, 'Mastering the National Admissions Test for Law'.

I tried to prepare for my interview by reading up about the court system, and also read some of 'What About Law?'. 'What About Law?' was great as an introduction overall, but in the end no preparation was really necessary. As I didn't have anyone to speak to (only one person in the years above me at school went to Oxford, and I didn't know her very well), I went on forums to read advice. The best advice was the bit about humility -- while I think it's not humility per se but more about being teachable, ie not insisting on your opinion if the tutors are suggesting that you consider other lines of thought. There were some useful takeaways but do not let what people say scare you!

I expected the tutors to be less warm, more clinical. This didn't happen as most of them went to lengths to make us feel at ease (they're teachers in the end, after all). I would have been less worried about preparations, and would have just gone into it as a unique way to gain insight into Oxford and gain interview experience. They will ask hard questions, but on purpose! It would waste their time to ask knowledge-based questions that don't give rise to any of the dilemmas so present in the study of law. If I could do anything else differently, I would have been more vocal about my thoughts - the tutors want to see how the connections in your brain are being made; don't be afraid to walk them through how you're reasoning the problem out right as you're actually reasoning it out.

I now understand that the tutors are looking for curious students able to think critically, from a number of angles, who aren't afraid to vocalise their thoughts, what difficulties they're facing with the question, and why. They're also looking for teachable students who are receptive to new alternative ideas and who aren't stubborn.