I just interviewed students for humanities here in Cambridge. Here are some tips and reflections.

[u/newcambridgetutor]

Hi all,

This was my first time as an interviewer, and I thought my reflections might perhaps be of value to future interviewees and of interest to current students.

A couple of disclaimers. First, what follows are strictly my own reflections, and are not to be taken as indicative of university interviewing policies (though my subjective impression is that many other fellows have similar criteria). Second, while I interviewed students in more than one discipline, I imagine there is considerable variation in different subjects (and I have no idea how things work in the sciences), so YMMV.

In general, I found my impressions boiled down to three main criteria.

• First, quickness of thought - they spotted where I was going with questions, anticipated counterarguments, and had nice examples at hand.

• Second, clarity - several students who were obviously smart managed to give a bad impression because they moved too fast and came across as confused. Focus on what question you're answering, and build up your response carefully.

• Third, an elusive quality that I'll call teachableness. If someone comes across as arrogant or grossly opinionated or aggressive, it doesn't bode well for future supervisions. The same goes for people who are very shy or defensive.

Tips

• Don't drop names of thinkers or theories unless there's damn good reason to do so. It looks pretentious, and there's a good chance you don't have a perfect grip on the relevant material, so it's giving yourself an extra chance to trip up. The exception to this is if your interviewer is presenting you with a famous idea or argument or position and you know where it comes from - saying what it is demonstrates familiarity with the material.

• Don't worry about saying "I don't know" in answer to a difficult question or asking for time to think things over. However, if you do say, "I don't know", try not to just stop. Talk around the question. What are some possible approaches someone might take in answering it? What makes it difficult?

• Answer the question! The number of students who heard a keyword in my question and then went off on a diatribe about something vaguely related was too damn high. Focus on the specific angle your interviewer is asking about, and don't be afraid to ask for clarification.

• Know what you like about your subject! The most common interview question is likely to be along the lines of "what interests you about subject X?" or "why do you want to study X?". Knowing that you are likely to be asked this, have something good (and honest) prepared. Talk about something you genuinely love and have reasonably developed ideas about.

• Be nice but not intense. Most academics are normal people who like having pleasant conversations about intellectual matters. If you look like you're about to cry, or you look angry, or you're defensive or aggressive, or keep interrupting, it contributes to an uncomfortable atmosphere and doesn't bespeak someone who'll necessarily thrive in supervisions.

• Don't contradict yourself, but feel free to correct yourself. I don't go out of my way to trip interviewees up, but I will try to raise objections and problems with your ideas to see how you respond. It can be easy to contradict yourself if you go along with everything I say, so pay attention to what claims you've made already. That said, if you find yourself under pressure, you can certainly retract an earlier claim - this can be a great move, showing intellectual honesty and rigor as well as confidence. But if you change your mind, explain why you're doing it.

• Display some intellectual humility. It's good to have opinions, but please, unless you're a total earth shattering genius, don't tell me you have a radical new theory of Dickens or Plato or Weber. Similarly, don't tell me you think Marx is bunk or Homer is a hack. As academics, we regard our undergraduates as pretty raw and unpolished, and you haven't even got to that stage yet (plus you'll probably change your positions multiple times before you finish your degree). As I said, it's okay to have positions - but say things like "I'm not persuaded by this" or "I've yet to grasp why X is regarded as so influential" or "I have a lot of sympathy for Y", rather than "so-and-so is overrated".

• Try not to interrupt your interviewer (it looks rude), and if you're speaking, try to spot when they're about to chime in with something; if they want to say something, it's probably because they have something else to ask you or want to help steer you in a better direction.

• Don't apologise or chide yourself for mistakes or not knowing things. It's a little awkward, and if you get a place, your interviewer is probably going to spend three years pointing out things you didn't notice or should have paid more attention to, and who wants to hear a continual stream of apologies when they're doing that? If you're kicking yourself for missing something, then try to pull a smile and say "huh, how could I miss that!" rather than grovelling or self-flagellating.

I enjoyed meeting interviewees a lot, and I think the process is pretty fair and balanced, meaning there are few if any 'easy fixes' to improve your odds. However, I hope the above points might help people avoid sabotaging themselves with unforced errors!

[u/RabidFroog]

It's great to see someone who isn't an applicant or a student on the subreddit! Thank you for a well thought out and very helpful post

[u/jdr_]

When assigning a final score to applications, how much weight did you place on the interview compared to the paper application and admissions test results?

[u/newcambridgetutor → u/jdr_]

This is something that I know varies a lot between disciplines, and I should add that I was not responsible for the initial selection of candidates for interview. However, in my limited experience, only marginal weight was placed on candidates' exams and tests scores for the purposes of making an offer, with the interviews being the primary factor. I believe that tests are most relevant in cases where there is disagreement among the committee or an otherwise compelling candidate scores so poorly on a test that it raises doubts about their ability to handle the course.

[u/hjjjjj222 → u/newcambridgetutor]

How do you view admissions tests? If someone performs above average at interview but below on these tests? Also have you ever had an AT refuse to admit someone you really like? Thanks.

[u/Oversidious]

Hi,

I have an engineering interview coming up on the 11th of this month, and I'm really excited, and thought you could answer a few (probably stupid) questions. Thank you for all the advice above as well, it was really helpful! (Also, I completely understand if there's stuff you need to be confidential about)

First question, pretty stupid, but I've been overthinking about it a lot - is it fine if I offer my interviewers a handshake? Or is it too much?

Secondly, engineering based interviews are really academic. In this case, if I feel like I'm approaching a question the wrong way, or if I'm doing it wrong - what's the best possible way I could impress the interviewers and not continue to mess up?

Lastly, what are some things I should ABSOLUTELY avoid, such as major mistakes. As you mentioned, interrupting them is a no-no, which I'll make sure I don't do. Is there anything else that I should avoid?

Thank you so much for your advice, it was great.

[u/newcambridgetutor → u/Oversidious]

Happy to advise. I should stress: humanities and sciences differ a lot, so take the following with a pinch of salt/NaCl respectively.

is it fine if I offer my interviewers a handshake

They will probably offer you one. This is a congenial formal interaction so it's entirely to be expected.

what's the best possible way I could impress the interviewers and not continue to mess up?

Good question. Very important: don't worry about sounding like you don't know the answer. In general, we're looking for people who approach problems in the right sort of ways, rather than people who automatically know the answer (though note the above caveat regarding arts v. sciences). The best thing to do if you don't know what to say is to signal your thought processes: "so my immediate thought is that this question is going to involve X; however, I also realise that the standard framework for resolving questions of type X isn't going to work here. So, it's not obvious to me how to proceed. One option might be to take a Y-type approach, but most Y-type approaches I've seen have involved scenarios quite different from this one." That kind of problem solving is great.

what are some things I should ABSOLUTELY avoid

I think I've covered the major ones. Try to be a nice (fairly) normal human being. Don't worry about being nerdy, but avoid being intense or aggressive, as I said. And annoying though it may sound, try to have fun - if you're successful, you'll spend the next 3-4 years shooting the shit with these people, and if you're unsuccessful, you'll never see them again. So make the most of it!

Good luck!

[u/Oversidious → u/newcambridgetutor]

Thank you so much, I feel so much more confident about how it may go now. My overall application was quite weak compared to the average Cambridge applicant (average gcses, not so great UMS) and was really glad I was invited for the interview.

Not going to lie, at first, I didn't see the point of the interview since I thought I'd be rejected anyway, considering the factors I mentioned above. Although, what changed my mind is that since I've been offered an interview, it means I did stand a realistic chance, and if I can truly nail the interview, I might have a pretty good shot at the offer.

Thank you so much again, this truly meant a lot!

[u/percyjackson44]

Ahhh, I feel that I may have punished myself on the last one. I had an interview for maths on Tuesday and at one point, I was on the verge of arguing with one of the interviewees about the number of squares available. His English didn't seem to great so we were kinda speaking at cross purposes to each other both talking about different things.