Tests taken: TSA, 90-minute prompt sheet prior to interviews.

Number of interviews: 3

Skype interview: No

Interviews spread over 2 days

Length of interviews: 15-25 minutes each

Philosophy: the interview focused on a problem sheet we did a day before in timed conditions. It was very fun I found, since I ended up in a long argument about one of the harder questions with one of the tutors, which the other tutor found quite entertaining (so I assumed that was a good sign); there was a question I had been thinking about quite obsessively for 2 days after seeing it in the pre-interview surprise test. It seemed they wanted to see if you could engage with the questions thoughtfully and how you would respond to criticism of your answers, an extension of the question or a slightly different version of the question. I would advise carefully listening to the prompts from the tutor and trying your best to incorporate them in what you say in the interview.

Economics: I found this interview far more worrying. I got asked a textbook Game Theory question, which I did not know the answer to. I got it completely wrong, but I did justify my answer as best I could. One tutor disagreed and prompted me to reason through the correct answer (backwards induction). I think I managed that, but still argued my version of the answer. The tutors found that interesting, but I definitely felt afterwards I completely messed it up. Always listen carefully to what the tutor says; it is fine to disagree with them, but you have to address exactly what they ask you or say in opposition to your view.

Politics: this interview was surprisingly unproblematic. I got asked to do some simple maths and talk about my personal statement. I was pretty comfortable talking about what I had read over the summer. It was good that I had a lot of Politics content in my personal statement, as this interview was highly focused on my personal statement. It is nice, if that happens to you, as you have some knowledge (hopefully) to appeal to in talking about books you have or have claimed to read. I managed to get Hegel into the conversation, as his political philosophy featured in one of those Oxford University Press short introduction books I had read. Read those! They are great.

I used practice papers for the TSA on the official website (I did all of them and saw improvements in my mark) and the TSA specification on the same website, which was very useful.

I used lots of books I found interesting related to my subject and online materials for the tests I knew about in advance.

I spoke to friends who had applied for PPE (I had one or two) for advice; they said I should do as well as possible on the TSA and read around my subject, which is what I focused on in the months before applying. It is hard to say what I did that was most important, but developing and exploring an interest in your chosen degree, preparing very thoroughly for the entrance test and making sure your grades to date are really good are all important. Without preparing, I do not think I would have earned a place.

If I were applying again, I would have read a textbook on Economics, as additional prep for the interview, and for fun. I thought the interview was going to be a really stimulating academic experience, which it was, but I now think that although the interview is certainly a chance to show your eccentricities and enthusiasm academically - and you should - there is no need to take as many risks as I did at interview. If your application is generally very good, all you need to do is answer the questions sanely, clearly, with enthusiasm, and by using some reading you have done, I think. I glorified it a bit too much. It is only a 25 minute test, at most; can you really be thoroughly assessed in that time? Just be personable, academically enthusiastic and as knowledgeable as an enthusiastic aspiring student of your subject (in the day of the internet and free eBooks) should be expected to be.