interview questions

Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Scroll to see replies

zanejamal

I think 'social standing' would be better terminology. So they would ask 'Do you have a good social standing?', as apposed to 'Are you cool?'.

:biggrin:

Probably. But maybe the interviewer was keen to convey the impression he was down with da kids and all that. :p:

Reply 21

Chrisateen

I bet that Oxbridge give the press those questions so that they could have a good laugh, put people off applying to Oxbridge so they have less aplicants to deal with or/and they want those who are going to have an interview to pankic and think that they are a bunch of weriods that are going to tear the student to pieces. LOL :rolleyes:

Reply 22

Alexander

3232

The only questions I can vaguely see being actually asked are these:

Why don't we have just one ear in the middle of our face? (Nat Sci)
Are you your body? (Philosophy)
What percentage of the world's water is contained in a cow? (Nat Sci/Physics)

Actually, almost all the questions are perfectly plausible, but they are taken massively out of context. And with no note of what subject they were for.

Reply 23

steelmole

3232

Why don't we have just one ear in the middle of our face? (Nat Sci)

Isn't that bleeding obvious? it's because it would get in the way of seeing.

Reply 24

hobnob

steelmole

Isn't that bleeding obvious? it's because it would get in the way of seeing.

Not really, considering most people manage just fine with having a nose in the middle of their face and it doesn't obstruct their sight. Except in very extreme cases, perhaps... :wink:

The only answer I'd have been able to come up with would have been that if we only had one ear in the middle of our face, we wouldn't be able to locate sounds outside our view as easily, so the two senses wouldn't complement each other as well. Which could lead to recognising dangerous situations too late, so there'd be far more road deaths etc.
(OK, it's probably just as well I'm not a NatSci... :p:

)

Reply 25

steelmole

hobnob

Not really, considering most people manage just fine with having a nose in the middle of their face and it doesn't obstruct their sight. Except in very extreme cases, perhaps... :wink:

)

Seeing and hearing both work in stereo, you need 2 to triangulate. You hear things at different times (either in the air or attenuated through your skull). I suppose that's sort of one answer. I always wondered why they didn't put another ear at the back out of the way for error checking. The position of the ears is about as far apart as they can get in the plane of the ground, that's gotta be part of why they're there. Also a person with an ear in the middle of there face would never get a date, so it'd be pretty handily selected out.

Reply 26

Craghyrax

3232

Are you your body? (Philosophy)

Social Anthropology, actually. I did an essay on it this term.

Reply 27

hobnob

Craghyrax

Social Anthropology, actually. I did an essay on it this term.

So are you? :biggrin:

Reply 28

Craghyrax

hobnob

So are you? :biggrin:

Er..varying different degrees of yes or no depending on the cultural context.

Reply 29

Chrisateen

Can't you argue that the mind is you and your body is just a matter that contains the mind ???

Reply 30

The Solitary Reaper

Craghyrax

Er..varying different degrees of yes or no depending on the cultural context.

That's such an anthropolanswer, I love it. :p:

..so much so that I'm going to do philosophy. :cool:

Reply 31

Craghyrax

Chrisateen

Can't you argue that the mind is you and your body is just a matter that contains the mind ???

Mmm yes, but you're given set reading, and need to use the arguments of other people primarily and be subtle with your own conclusions. So really..argue what you wish if you can find a notable academic who agrees with you, and who you can put forward as holding a superior argument to relevant contemporaries.

Reply 32

Craghyrax

Hmmm, really? With History it's pretty much the complete opposite, you find your own argument and stick to that, but in SPS you have to hide behind the words of other academics? That's a fairly interesting difference between two of the arts subjects, SPS essays sound fairly similar to A Level History coursework in structure.

Reply 33

Craghyrax

3232

Hmm.. might be why some of the Historian friends I know appear to get away with doing so much less work :hmmmm:

Reply 34

Craghyrax

Hmm.. might be why some of the Historian friends I know appear to get away with doing so much less work :hmmmm:

Not really, constructing your own argument is generally more complex. A Level history takes the form of using other historians' arguments to construct an essay and involves much less work. Reading all the other arguments around and then deciding what you think, and then arguing that, is more complex and less 'safe' than simply saying 'so and so thinks x, but so and so thinks y' as you can't hide behind another person's work.

It may simply be the difference in the basis structure of SPS in comparison to History, and those kind of essays may suit the subject more than they do for History. I just found it interesting.

Oh, and I think we've already established that you seem to work a hell of a lot more than any general student, let alone historians. :p:

Reply 35

HCD

I know someone applying for Cambridge who got typical "weird Oxbridge" questions. He was applying for Economics. I don't think I'm allowed to post any details here, so I won't.

Reply 36

Craghyrax

3232

Reading all the other arguments around and then deciding what you think, and then arguing that, is more complex and less 'safe' than simply saying 'so and so thinks x, but so and so thinks y' as you can't hide behind another person's work.

I don't understand you. We get told off if we do that in SPS so perhaps I miscommunicated earlier on. Its a balance. Also, in SPS there are four different types of essays. Different things are encouraged and punished in each of Psychology, Soc Anth, Sociology and Politics.

3232

Oh, and I think we've already established that you seem to work a hell of a lot more than any general student, let alone historians. :p:

If I was doing History I'd probably find it similar, which is why I am hesitant to generalise about historians, as I'm sure individuals work as much as they feel the need to, whatever the subject.

Reply 37

Lottia

That's quite a funny joke. I had my oxford interview for english on monday. The first interview was disucssing two poems I'd been given an hour before hand, the second was about my personal statement. Yes we discussed Shakespeare, because I'd mentioned him in my PS. I do not know anyone, i repeat ANYONE that has ever been asked any of those bizaare quesions out of context. I suppose some people have indeed been asled those but not randomly. I can't for the life of me imagine why an English tutor would want to know what someone thinks of the placement of a nose. :smile:

Reply 38

Bumblebee3

The Solitary Reaper

That's such an anthropolanswer, I love it. :p:

..so much so that I'm going to do philosophy. :cool:

Lol, I originally had my heart set on philosophy and then I discovered anthropology and applied for that instead!

Here's a fantastic, genuine, anthropology question for all to enjoy:

' Pigs have arms and shells have legs. Discuss'.

(However, that was an exam question.) The point is that none of the questions here are unrealistic, provided one looks at them in context.

Reply 39

the_alba

A good friend of mine at Oxford is on the MFL interview panel for a college that will remain unnamed. He almost poked his eyes out with embarrassment when his colleague told some poor applicant to 'Proove to me zat you exist!' He thought that kind of question was such bull**** that he was determined to give the girl a place just to make it up to her. Some tutors use their powers for good.... some for evil.