I hope to study History at Oxford or Cambridge - current undergraduates please help !

I'm not a current student, but I have an offer (history at Ox), so I might be able to help.

Any tips for a current year 12?

Read as much as you can around the subject, it will make A level exams easier (and the HAT if you apply to oxford), and will significantly aid your personal statement and performance in interview. Take notes if you can too. I started reading around this time, or a bit before this time, last year, for my interviews which were in dec., so start now! Everyone I know that got an offer for History had done at least a bit of reading (i.e. 4-5 books), and had a genuine interest in the subject.

Do I have to be the very best at history in my year to apply? I know this ONE guy who's better, rawr.

That's not really important, it's whether or not you're of a standard for the uni, not the best in your school. 5 of us got into Oxbridge for history from my school, all of differing capabilities and interests, so it doesn't matter.

What are some good books for further reading? (I have a particular interest in political history 1700s onwards, but just put what you like )

Other people will be able to better recommend books. Although what I would say is that purchasing more analytical books can be helpful, i.e. not purely narrative history, as it provides an argument, and opposed to just a narrative. I.e. read Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, not just Schama's Citizens, for example.

Are the interviews really that scary?

Dependent entirely on your temperament. I was extremely nervous, some friends weren't. What I would say though, is that the interviewers in mine and my friends' experiences did their utmost to relax us, and it is in no way an interrogation, more an enjoyable, academic discussion/debate.

What extra-curricular activities may bolster my chances ?(not like tennis, but debating perhaps?...)

Don't think it matters **** all, include a few (1 or 2 maybe), in your PS. E.g debating society, but don't do so arrogantly - they're more interested in interest and potential in your subject.

Why did you choose one university over the other?

Oxford gives, it would appear to me, more potential for candidates to differentiate themselves due to the fact that you have to sit the History Aptitude Test (HAT), and thus isn't as grade-focused as Cambridge, perhaps. Also, I prefer the city environment, and AAA offers.

By the way, all the past HAT papers are available online.



Dunno if that was helpful, let me know if you have any queries, I'm quite tired atm hence the brevity of my response.

That was enormously helpful thanks!!
Dont mean to intrude too badly, but what did you get for GCSEs and what are u studying are a-level?
Also, what books did you read? And did interviewers talk about the books in your interview?

Thanks!!

Not a current undergraduate but given my interview was only a month or so ago I think I can probably help you.

Firstly, let's talk about the courses. You're more limited at Oxford than Cambridge; you can't pick and choose between two many other papers (e.g. politics or classics etc.) because you're expected to pick between Modern History, Ancient and Modern History or History (Modern) and Politics. Sadly the two that give you more bredth have a much more difficult entrance percentages (15% I believe, 30% for the general history).

That to me was the big negative. I'm picking my papers now for Cambridge, and have a choice between stuff going all the way back to 800BC to the present day, which is pretty exciting. Have a look at the papers on offer here: http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/part1/index.html

As you can tell, you can make it as 'new' or 'old' as you wish. I will be doing the most modern British History and British Social/Economic papers but be mixing that most likely with the European History paper which is 31AD-800AD, which other than a spot of Augustus which I did in Classic Civ is largely new. I won't explain the whole choosing paper system to you, but I can tell you there is lots of choice particularly in your final year (Part II).

Oxford I know less about, just know from dismissing it last year. However, be aware that Cambridge remains A*AA; Oxford I believe will not be requesting A* for your year, so lucky you; if you feel you won't match the A* then bear that in mind.

This person who you compete against might get better grades, but who loves history more? Which one of you will do better in independent study, who will react to new ideas better? Don't really bother to compare yourself to other people. Although saying that I was pretty much the only Oxbridge level candidate in my school for history, but my school's not that great so hard to tell. Basically, don't worry.

Extracurricular largely doesn't matter. I mentioned debating society which I helped run in my old school and my school magazine, but they don't really care. Show that you're a normal human being, and then talk about your love of history and nothing more in your personal statement; it's three things all put together: how you found history, how history found you, and why everyone should have history. That's basically your entire personal statement, with the odd example of particular interests.

The interviews aren't scary, they're incredible fun. I walked in, they were so nice, my first one I came out of so buzzing about what I discussed and exploring new ideas. No one can divulge individual questions, but the majority of the stuff was off the essays I'd submitted and general history questions such as the best way to write history, where to base oneself, how far one can eliminate bias etc. etc.

Further reading is YOUR choice, no one elses. However, the philosophy of history needs to be an important consideration. If you're completely new to this, Josh Tosh's The Pursuit of History is like a textbook which is the perfect beginners guide to knowing your cultural history from your intellectual history; your historicism from your postmodernism. All very important. In Defence of History and What is History? are seen as standard texts that many people have read which would be interesting. I fell in love with Marc Bloth's The Historian's Craft. I made reference to Bloch in my interview.

Try to go off the beaten path a bit. My interest was the British Empire, particularly its effect on Britain itself; I chose a more academic, not general book. That would be an interesting one. Political history 1700s onwards is an incredibly wide subject that has within it thousands of different subgroups let alone which country or decade you're examining.

If you need any personal advice like personal statements or interview prep give me a pm sometime. If you can be a bit more exact about any areas in history, I can try and be more exact with recommendations of what to read. I read around 11 or 12 books before my interview for various things I mentioned or wanted to mention.

Visit both, and go off the feel of the place itself. Do you want a reasonably large city with a city feel (Oxford) or a smaller city that is more campusy (Cambridge). Do you mind not being able to explore earlier History? If not, Cambridge may well be your place.

EDIT: I see someone from the other place has commented haha. HAT I'd argue is actually the complete other way around; Cambridge isn't more grade focussed given they considerably interview more people, the HAT can still be heavily prepared for in a way that the interview cannot is a fairer test. Not having the HAT was to me a significant advantage of applying to Cambridge. Also... http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings cough

EDIT: I see someone from the other place has commented haha. HAT I'd argue is actually the complete other way around; Cambridge isn't more grade focussed given they considerably interview more people, the HAT can still be heavily prepared for in a way that the interview cannot is a fairer test. Not having the HAT was to me a significant advantage of applying to Cambridge. Also... http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings cough

Yeah they did in one of my interviews, the other was a discussion on a sent essay. What I would say is, unlike the poster above, don't get too bogged down in the theoretical side of history, unless you make it explicitly clear that you have an interest in it as a philosophical discipline in your PS. It's, I think, important to know some actual history.

Aha. I see what you're saying. However, arguably, the HAT means that some people who would get to interview at Camb. (i.e. those with good grades but no or little historical interest), don't at Oxford. It is also a chance for those with worse grades but a real passion for history (not that Cambridge applicants don't have that passion), to ensure an interview. Essentially, I was saying, although this is perhaps over simplified - if you're grades aren't that good, but you're a good historian, you've got a better chance at Oxford, as there is more opportunity to differentiate yourself from other candidates with reference to interest and potential in History specifically.

A big part of both interviews was my own belief that A-Level history is too much based on basic political history and fails to account for cultural and social history, which shows thinking beyond the mere realms of assessing a book you've read.

Haha, nice to see some rivalry going on...
And ah I see, so some of the wider reading should be about the study of History itself, in addition to the books on specific history?
So in an interview will you be asked to like summarise their argument/say why you agree or disagree???
It seems exciting though... I think i'd find it hard to fit in 10-11 books, perhaps I'll have to do a lot of reading over Summer.
What did you get in your GCSEs and what are you studying for A-level?
Thanks

Ofc you're right to say that, but you only need to know maybe two books which disagree with one another on one area you're interested in to discuss it. Theoretical history allows you to discuss ideas better and evaluate opinions, including your own; I employed far more theoretical thinking in my interviews than actual history, particularly in assessing my own writing.

A big part of both interviews was my own belief that A-Level history is too much based on basic political history and fails to account for cultural and social history, which shows thinking beyond the mere realms of assessing a book you've read.

I think theoretical books, at the very least Tosh's Pursuit of History which explains the basics, sets you up to think far more critically than reading another book with facts and basic opinions, of which A-Level has not set you up to properly assess.

For your A-Levels you don't even need to do much wider reading, in History I gained 100% in my exam and 98% in my coursework by doing the basics plus a little bit more, sadly that's the way A-Levels are; thank god Oxbridge interview. Wider reading is 100% necessary for that.

I vaguelyyyyyyyyy understand, in that you get fewer chances to make said references to your wide knowledge in an interviews (which is only 40 mins or so of talking) at Cambridge than in a 2 hour long assessment or whatever it may be.

However I think that the best historians tend to be the ones who can elocute their thinking and find the right way to say something with ease in a debating manner, so in that respect the fact that so long as you're predicted the grades to get in you're guaranteed an interview is fairer.

My GCSEs and A-Levels were poor compared to almost everyone else there, yet I got my chance on the level playing field of interviews and got in when many others didn't. OP, you should probably be aware that at Cambridge you have to declare all exams you've taken including your retakes. I had to declare my E in Critical Thinking AS and C in Maths AS... but hey once again I still got in.

EDIT: I see someone from the other place has commented haha. HAT I'd argue is actually the complete other way around; Cambridge isn't more grade focussed given they considerably interview more people, the HAT can still be heavily prepared for in a way that the interview cannot is a fairer test. Not having the HAT was to me a significant advantage of applying to Cambridge. Also... http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings cough

Overridden, cough. http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/subject-rankings/arts-humanities

I kid, there's little separating the two, in all honesty.

Yes, I'm currently studying Russia late 1800s to the 1950s and there is barely any mention of the views and activities of the peasants and workers - more about how they were used, and how their unrest symbolised poor policy decisions by the political elite.
Granted, it would be hard to find a well-informed peasant of the time but indefinitely their happiness was a level of success - represented only by "number of peasant disturbances" as opposed to qualitative info.

What course do you currently do? Is some of it completely new to you?

Any tips for a current year 12?

Do I have to be the very best at history in my year to apply? I know this ONE guy who's better, rawr.

What are some good books for further reading? (I have a particular interest in political history 1700s onwards, but just put what you like )

Are the interviews really that scary?

What extra-curricular activities may bolster my chances ?(not like tennis, but debating perhaps?...)

Why did you choose one university over the other?

I wasn't too enthusiastic about being forced to do Social and Economic history with the Cambridge course.

To ignore social and economic history would surely be a huge mistake historically? The main problem with History A-Level is it's just a list of 'great leaders' who on their own supposedly changed everything along with political parties that got voted in and out and enacted legislation which was either effective or ineffective. That's a very tedious and narrowminded way of viewing history.