If you haven't read it already, read my first post on preparing for a Cambridge interview which covered the first part of the interview which usually involves questions such as "why Cambridge", "why this subject" and so on.
So once you've prepared for all the generic questions I talked about in that post, you can move on to preparing for other things you might be asked about such as your personal statement or A levels.
After the generic introductory questions, there are several different directions that the Cambridge inteview could take. One of the things you might be asked about is your UCAS personal statement so you need to be prepared to talk at length about that and expand on all the things you've mentioned in it. If you've mentioned outside interests, books you've read or parts of your subject that interest you, expect to be asked about those and be prepared to talk about them, give examples and back up your points. I was not asked about my personal statement at all and it seemed like the 2 interviewers hadn't actually read it prior to interview but other people have been asked about theirs sot you need to be prepared to be questioned on it. It should be quite easy to prepare for and if you are asked on it, it shouldn't be too hard to answer the questions if you've prepared well and thought about what you're going to say.
Apart from your personal statement, you might be asked about your A levels such as why you chose them, what you enjoyed about them and so on. They probably won't go into that much depth on your A levels but you might be asked a few things about them. You are unlikely to be asked about your GCSEs unless there's something particularly notable about them (like a really bad grade or they're amazingly good, by which I mean at least about 11 or more A*s, or straight A*s). Otherwise they probably won't ask you about them.
Apart from personal statement, A levels and general questions, the bulk of the interview will probably be based around testing your knowledge and thinking skills. If the subject you've applied for you've already studied, such as maths, then the interviewers will probably give you problems to work though related to that subject. However if you've applied for a new subject like computer science then they might give you general thinking skills problems to work through. This is really what you'll be judged on and what you need to be best prepared for.
You need to have done lots of outside reading around the subject, be up to date on any relevant current developments and news stories related to the subject and most importantly have a very high level of knowledge in your subject. This last point is something I hadn't really realised when I applied and is the most difficult to prepare for. If you are doing the subject you apply for at A level, I'd recommend at least learning the material for the whole A level prior to your interview. The interview will be in December so you need to know the rest of the year's material before the interview which won't have been taught yet. This might seem like a lot of work but if you really want to get into Cambridge you need to do it. It might be possible to get in without it but you'll be chancing it.
In fact I'd also recommend having a look at the first year Cambridge course material in your chosen subject. If you can read through some of this, it will help a lot. Some subjects have the lecture notes available online whereas others you might need to get the course text books and read through those. Doing this will really help to get you up to speed for the interview and give you the best chance of getting in
I would disagree with a few elements of the above. Firstly, interviewers are aware of how much of the A-level/equivalent course you have covered, they won't ask questions which cannot be answered using what you've been taught as a basis. Yes, its perfectly likely you won't have ever considered the kind of question asked - they're designed to stretch your thinking - but the foundation of *knowledge* required is based on AS/ the beginning of A2 or equivalent. You are merely applying it in a more sophisticated way.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if you have the time to read course text books or can get your hands on lecture notes and enjoy reading them, by all means go for it, but there's no use trying to predict the course an interview will take. Out of a huuuge heap of first year notes I can think of one interview problem question which was anywhere near *directly* answerable on lecture notes alone... and they happened to be the notes the interviewer lectured, so y'know chances aren't high. Of course one could answer interview questions more easily now after a year or two of studying the subject, but that's just like going back and doing your year 9 SATs after A-levels. Interviews test the way you think, not facts you know. Cambridge want to teach you, they want to accept someone they can teach, someone who will adapt and pick up new ideas quickly in the learning environment Cambridge boasts. They look for you to demonstrate this, not be a rigid encyclopaedia.
I would agree with this blog that the bulk of the interview is academic-based; problem solving for a "science" subject, a discussion perhaps for an "arts" subject. Your personal statement may form a basis from which a discussion starts though, be able and willing to elucidate on anything you've mentioned. Questions such as "Why X College?" aren't supposed to be asked (you could have come via an open application), though I guess something like "Why Cambridge?" may be used as an icebreaker - or to check you have properly researched the course you've applied for. Medicine at Oxbridge is very different to Medicine elsewhere, for example. I note this has been nicely covered in the blogger's "part 1" - but I'd add that interviewers can tell a scripted speech a mile off. Think about why you're applying, know what it is which makes you passionate about your subject and the course - this answers any ice-breaking kind of questions they ask.
Regarding questions about extra-curricular activities - these are also of an ice-breaking nature, or perhaps leading onto academic discussion. It doesn't matter if you're not grade 57 at the trombone and instead you had a part time job in Burger King - these don't bear any relevance at this stage other than what they've done in your personal statement which is show you've spare capacity to cope with the additional strains of Oxbridge workload.
I really would refer people to the website - for Cambridge example its: http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/interviews/
I don't know about Oxford but Cambridge have, in later years, become MUCH more candid about what used to be a murky admissions system. They genuinely do inform you about as much as possible. There are, of course, little unquantifiable and unpredictable differences which stem from personality of interviewer, for example, but the vast majority is very standardised. Do check out the website, and associated facebook group etc - any questions are professionally answered by those paid to answer them in an honest and candid fashion.
My comments are not in disrespect to this blog, student views are, of course, massively important but individual cases may be inadvertently misleading and it is wise to use them along side officially produced information, which is as accurate as possible, being written largely by the Head of Admissions.
Thank you for the comment. I'd be interested to know, are you a student or someone affiliated with the university?
ReplyDeleteIt might be true that all questions can be answered from A level knowledge as a basis but what I'm saying is that it will be a lot easier to answer the questions if you've acquired a higher level of knowledge in your own time. Think for example about solving GCSE maths quadratic equations without knowledge of the quadratic equation formula. It is possible but it is a lot quicker and easier if you know the formula to use.
It is misleading to say there is "no use" trying to predict the course of the interview. People are desperate to get into Cambridge and every little they do can help to improve their chances. So you've an example of where learning first year material would have helped answer an interview question. Whilst it might require a lot of extra work, learning the material would have helped with the interview. I'm trying to give advice that maximises people's chances of getting in, regardless of how much effort is required. If people don't want to bother and just have a go and hope for the best, that's fine but they need to accept that there will be other people who do whatever it takes to get in. If this means spending hours reading and learning from notes, that might be what it takes to get that person into Cambridge and they likely will not regret it.
Yes you shouldn't memorise pre scripted answers but preparing a few points to talk about for common interview questions helps a lot.
Yes extra curriculars are not as important as academics but having them will only serve to strengthen your application.
I would advise all applicants to read the official information. However people from top schools will be getting a lot of extra help and information from their schools and teachers. I'm trying to level the playing field by providing extra unofficial inside information that the university cannot or chooses not to provide officially to all students. An example is that the university has to remain impartial to colleges so cannot, for example even tell students things like Trinity having a good reputation for maths, even though this is common knowledge among students and faculty at the university and among applicants from schools with a history of sending people to Cambridge.
Personally I am a current student and ex-JCR Access Officer, but I'd point out that despite all the "anonymous" comments they're not all written by me.
ReplyDeleteBy your logic we should all wait until we turn 18 and sit some Year 2 Sats/Year 9 Sats/GCSEs and A-levels all in one hog... in order to make sure we maximise performance. Having a wider viewpoint from which to attempt a question is hugely helpful, key probably - but whether you know something specific like the quadratic formula exists or not, its the demonstration of the thought process which wins over an interviewer, not speed of reaching a correct answer because you know the short-cut. They will simply ask a different question in order to see how you think.
On the contrary I believe Trinity College's website makes a fair representation of its "relationship" with Maths. Also it is worth remembering that Cambridge student perception of Cambridge isn't always all that more accurate than a potential applicant's given that most of it is based on heresay from others. Christ's having showers in the library meaning their college is more academically forcussed/ that members of John's are ALL stuck up idiots/ Mathmos are all at least borderline aspergers/ those at King's are all commies etc. All that stuff, all the generalisations and stereotypes we play up for fun, could easily put someone off applying for completely the wrong reasons. By perpetrating misrepresentated stereotypes they are just reinforced.
The university also tries increasingly and extremely hard to "level the playing field". I say this as somebody who also came from a school from which nobody had ever applied to Oxbridge before. To suggest this blog does a better job rather undermines the work of Admissions Tutors, Schools Liaison Officers, and all those involved in Access at a student level, be that within CUSU or colleges.
You clearly have a passion for ensuring students from schools or backgrounds without a long-standing history of going to Cambridge, receive the advice they need. I would suggest you get involved with the Access work done in your college in order to hear first hand how admissions works. Check out what is already done, see if you agree with it, and only then produce a blog which counteracts and potentially undermines it, should you still feel the need to.
It is completely untrue that by my logic we should "all wait until we turn 18 and sit some Year 2 Sats/Year 9 Sats/GCSEs and A-levels all in one hog". I never said anywhere that taking exams late is a good thing actually the complete opposite. In my post on A levels I recommend doing exams early to help you to stand out and strengthen your application.
ReplyDeleteYou admit that "Having a wider viewpoint from which to attempt a question is hugely helpful, key probably" which I agree with. This is why I recommend going beyond what you'll have been taught in school, doing A levels early and doing extra outside reading. This all helps with your understanding AND helps to improve your thought processes. This will help you to perform better in the interview.
Yes it might be true that Trinity mention their relationship with maths but the point I was making was that the University (not individual colleges) has to remain impartial to colleges. The admissions office is part of the university and so cannot recommend colleges for subjects to potential applicants whilst this sort of information would be common knowledge to people from top schools and less accessible to those from comprehensives.
Yes it is true that unfounded college stereotypes might not be helpful but I think it is better for all applicants to have access to the same information and then make up their own mind as to where to apply. As it is currently, there is a lot of information about colleges that is well known amongst students and pupils at schools that send a lot of people to Cambridge but is completely unknown to people at worse schools. I think it is fairer to inform them of things that applicants from better schools will already know.
(comment continued below)
(comment continued from above)
ReplyDeleteI think it's great that you managed to get into Cambridge without going to a school with a history of sending people to Cambridge. However I think it is a lot more difficult to get in in comparison to people from top schools such as Eton where between a quarter and a third of all pupils go to Oxbridge which is above the overall success rate of getting into Oxbridge which is around 1 in 4. I am not suggesting this blog does a better job but what it does aim to do is provide information that the University does not provide. It is providing additional information and advice to help applicants, especially from non traditional backgrounds, get in.
In my opinion, the problem with Cambridge access schemes is that they work on the assumption that the only reason that there are not more pupils from non traditional state schools is that they don't apply. So their only focus is on getting more pupils to apply. The other problem is that the university combines grammar schools and comprehensives and talks about "state" schools. Most areas in the country no longer have grammar schools and so a lot of people do not know that they still exist and so incorrectly equate comprehensives with state schools.
The success rates for pupils from comprehensives are much lower than for private schools. 1 in 3 applicants from private schools is offered a place whereas only 1 in 5 from comprehensives are. So clearly it is not just that not enough apply from comprehensives otherwise the success rates would be the same.
Talking about "state" schools instead of "comprehensives" covers up that fact that the majority of pupils who attend Cambridge went to a selective school. Pupils from comprehensives applying might think that since over half of people at Cambridge went to state schools, they went to schools like them. However this is not the case since most actually went to grammar or private schools, not comprehensives.
These are the problems I think exist with current access initiatives and I think they would be better off if they admitted that people from comprehensives were statistically less likely to get in, and then work on ways of rectifying this instead of denying the facts and blaming the comprehensive/private/grammar balance on not enough people applying from non traditional backgrounds.
Those involved in Access are *well* aware that figures need to be broken down into comprehensives and grammar schools. It is constantly a topic of contention - your views would be well aired working *with* Access schemes rather than contradicting much of the advice we give. Part of the problem, I believe, is actually UCAS based information, but I'm not sure if that's still the case. Perhaps someone else will clarify.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you were involved in Access you would see the numerous initiatives to support comprehensive school pupils through the entire application process, not just the decision to apply. Try the head of admissions in at 10:30pm reading and discussing personal statements for 6th formers. This is why we work with the university in Access, not as a force against it.
It is good that the Access schemes know that it would be good to break down state into comprehensive and grammar but I do not see why this is difficult to do. The figures are available: in 2009 only 22% of home student acceptances to Cambridge were from people from comprehensives whereas 57% were from independent or grammar schools.
ReplyDelete(Figures from:
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009-10/special/15/table1_2.pdf
)
I think the reason that state is not normally broken down into comprehensive and grammar is that it exposes how few people at Cambridge went to comprehensives despite the vast majority of pupils (around 90%) being educated in comprehensives.
I think that it is good if there are Access initiatives to help comprehensive school pupils make stronger applications and increase their chance of getting in. I think that more of this should be done as well as getting more people to apply. However as I mentioned before, there still are very few people at Cambridge from comprehensives in comparison to the number educated in comprehensives and moreover the success rate of applicants from comprehensives is significantly lower than for those from independent schools.
I am not working as a "force against" Access. I'm providing additional, complementary information to applicants. I think that applicants should read official information from Cambridge, I am providing additional information to help them.
Do you know anything about how the interview will be for Economics course in Cambridge?
ReplyDeleteDO I need to know EVERYTHING that is going on in the world? I get a bit nervous while answering and speak so many things together, it becomes all a mess. What are the interviewers looking for? I really like Cambridge and want to get into it. can you suggest something for me.
Hi. I do not know the specifics for interviewing for Economics. You could try searching online for past interview questions or if you know anyone who interviewed for economics previously you could ask them what they were asked.
ReplyDeleteBut I do not think you need to know everything that is going on in the world. The best thing to do would probably be to have a look at what is taught in the first year at Cambridge for the economics Tripos. Read some of the textbooks or lecture notes if they are online (they are for some subjects, I don't know about econ).
I would say that the interviewers want to see that you have got a good knowledge of and aptitude for the subject you are applying for. That is the most important thing. They don't really care about extra curriculars and stuff not related to your subject. Cambridge is just looking for one thing: the best people for that subject. They do not care about being well rounded or anything like that.
So my advice would be concentrate on having a good knowledge of economics and the stuff they teach in the first term at Cambridge and that should give you a good chance.