This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- What are Cambridge medicine interviews without biology like?
- Cambridge 2024 Medicine Offer Holders
- Anyone else interviewing for English at Cambridge?
- best research supercurriculars for computer science (cambridge)
- Cambridge English 2025 applicants
- How important are competitions for cambridge/imperial application?
- Preparing for Cambridge Computer Science interview
- medicine Cambridge application
- writing a ps for HSPS and philosophy and economics
- super curricular oxbridge
- Should I bother putting Cayley/Hamilton/Maclaurin Olympiad medals in Maths PS
- Should i try apply for oxbridge this late?
- what to do in year 12 for oxford law
- Will GCSEs impede my chances of Natural Sciences at Cambridge?
- Oxbridge personal statement
- Law applicant
- Cambridge Uni medicine
- Can I apply for HSPS at Cambridge but Law at other unis?
- Cambridge colleges - med
- Oxford biology or Cambridge Bio NatSci
'Wider reading' for Cambridge Interview
Bit early, I know, but I've beeen reading about various English courses at university, and unsurprisingly they all talk about the importance of wider reading during the A-Level years.
Cambridge (which is where I would love to go, fingers crossed) say:
"You will have read widely, even voraciously, and well beyond your examination specification..."
Does anyone have any advice on what reading they would like to see evidence of?
Of course, there is the literature covered in class (we're doing various Gothic novels and T.S. Elliot, plus 'The Tempest'). Other than these, is it just down to personal choice, or are there some 'must reads'?
I've enjoyed reading some Oscar Wilde, and enjoy Victorian novels. I'm currently reading Lady Chatterley's Lover (!) What else can I read to give the best impression at a uni interview?
And what about poems, and how much Shakespeare?
Thanks everyone
I know that there is another, similar thread on this board, but this topic is particular to Oxbridge wider reading for the interview
Cambridge (which is where I would love to go, fingers crossed) say:
"You will have read widely, even voraciously, and well beyond your examination specification..."
Does anyone have any advice on what reading they would like to see evidence of?
Of course, there is the literature covered in class (we're doing various Gothic novels and T.S. Elliot, plus 'The Tempest'). Other than these, is it just down to personal choice, or are there some 'must reads'?
I've enjoyed reading some Oscar Wilde, and enjoy Victorian novels. I'm currently reading Lady Chatterley's Lover (!) What else can I read to give the best impression at a uni interview?
And what about poems, and how much Shakespeare?
Thanks everyone
I know that there is another, similar thread on this board, but this topic is particular to Oxbridge wider reading for the interview
Scroll to see replies
My teachers advised me to have an area of specific interest (to show I wasn't a 'magpie' reader, apparently) so I read a lot of Indian literature. The rest of my wider reading was quite general (the Brontes, Sterne, Flaubert, John Donne, quite a lot of Shakespeare etc.) I tried to make it quite varied. What you're reading sounds completely fine to me - though I should point out that at my interview, hardly any specific authors from my Personal Statement were mentioned anyway!
Marcus-B
Bit early, I know, but I've beeen reading about various English courses at university, and unsurprisingly they all talk about the importance of wider reading during the A-Level years.
Cambridge (which is where I would love to go, fingers crossed) say:
"You will have read widely, even voraciously, and well beyond your examination specification..."
Does anyone have any advice on what reading they would like to see evidence of?
Of course, there is the literature covered in class (we're doing various Gothic novels and T.S. Elliot, plus 'The Tempest'). Other than these, is it just down to personal choice, or are there some 'must reads'?
I've enjoyed reading some Oscar Wilde, and enjoy Victorian novels. I'm currently reading Lady Chatterley's Lover (!) What else can I read to give the best impression at a uni interview?
And what about poems, and how much Shakespeare?
Thanks everyone
I know that there is another, similar thread on this board, but this topic is particular to Oxbridge wider reading for the interview
Cambridge (which is where I would love to go, fingers crossed) say:
"You will have read widely, even voraciously, and well beyond your examination specification..."
Does anyone have any advice on what reading they would like to see evidence of?
Of course, there is the literature covered in class (we're doing various Gothic novels and T.S. Elliot, plus 'The Tempest'). Other than these, is it just down to personal choice, or are there some 'must reads'?
I've enjoyed reading some Oscar Wilde, and enjoy Victorian novels. I'm currently reading Lady Chatterley's Lover (!) What else can I read to give the best impression at a uni interview?
And what about poems, and how much Shakespeare?
Thanks everyone
I know that there is another, similar thread on this board, but this topic is particular to Oxbridge wider reading for the interview
I'm only an applicant and am probably going to be rejected by Cambridge shortly, but I do love to read so I'll tell you what I think anyway
Oh and the DoS at Newnham was asked a similar question to yours at the Englishy part of the Open Day, and said it doesn't matter what you read, as long as you read. (Although I would've thought they'd probably get a more favourable impression if you said something like Oscar Wilde/Victorian literature than if you said something like the Harry Potter books!) My advice would be, within reason, to read what you most enjoy - otherwise, you won't sound passionate about it at interview. Oscar Wilde is fantastic, I love him. Someone on TSR told me last year to make sure I mentioned writers that were less common choices and seen as 'challenging', e.g. Milton or Pope (Oscar Wilde is one who's mentioned by quite a lot of people). However, only do this if you genuinely like the writer! If you're reading 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' why not try 'Sons and Lovers', and maybe 'The Rainbow' and 'Women in Love'? Personally I love Lawrence (I put him in my PS actually) but I don't think 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' is his best. Strongly recommend the 3 mentioned above, they're amazing reads
Maybe you should think about which of Shakespeare's plays you have enjoyed most in your school studies. If it's a tragedy you could try more of those, if it was a comedy, likewise. Cambridge has a tragedy paper, so if you love Shakespeare's tragedies and you're asked about what attracted you to the course it could be a good thing to bring up. Someone I spoke to at Newnham was studying 'Othello' at A level, and had also read 'King Lear', 'Macbeth' and 'Hamlet', so in her interview she was able to make connections between them, etc.
Also, you could get some decent poetry anthologies - I like the ones like Collin's Albatross Book of Verse that arrange the poems according to the centuries in which they were written. Then you'll get a nice overview and when you find a poem you love, you can look up more poems by the same poet.
Yep, go with what Bethany said.
Also, if you are a 'magpie' reader (which I am) then you can pick a subject which is very wide. I chose to look at religion in literature which spans pretty much every time period and is very easy to pick and choose from.
From my interview, I realised that if you pick a poet then read their most famous works first. I started with the ones I liked the look of and it backfired as they weren't the ones they wanted to talk about. And do read up on the poet's background too.
You could also look at a little bit of literary criticism. Not anything too difficult as I doubt they expect it, but maybe just something you're interested in so if you got into a discussion then you could bring it up.
Edit: I also don't go to Cambridge and am probably soon to be rejected.
Also, if you are a 'magpie' reader (which I am) then you can pick a subject which is very wide. I chose to look at religion in literature which spans pretty much every time period and is very easy to pick and choose from.
From my interview, I realised that if you pick a poet then read their most famous works first. I started with the ones I liked the look of and it backfired as they weren't the ones they wanted to talk about. And do read up on the poet's background too.
You could also look at a little bit of literary criticism. Not anything too difficult as I doubt they expect it, but maybe just something you're interested in so if you got into a discussion then you could bring it up.
Edit: I also don't go to Cambridge and am probably soon to be rejected.
Thank you all - great advice! I'd better start reading voraciously 
*Good luck* to those of you hoping for Cambridge; the agony of waiting will be over soon
*Good luck* to those of you hoping for Cambridge; the agony of waiting will be over soon
Yes, everyone has very good advice! Read everything you're interested in, and maybe try to read around it. I was into George Eliot, so I made sure I'd read several more of her novels before interview. I guess that's like having an 'area of interest' really - but just go for something you like anyway rather than trying to find something in particular.
It's probably wise to have a bit of Shakespeare under your belt, but if you just brush up on the ones you've read through school that'll be fine. It's good to have some pre-19th century stuff. At any rate, my interviews went by period, and for the Medieval/Renaissance one there was a lot of 'have you read x? have you read y?' until we got to something I could talk about. Maybe flick through a poetry anthology and see what takes you.
Bethany's point about making connections between works you've read is a really good one. It's good to be able to cross-reference - put things in context, maybe think about how a genre develops over time. (Say, I did Latin and Greek at AL, so I got very excited making connections between Antigone and King Lear, which were both AL texts.)
It's probably wise to have a bit of Shakespeare under your belt, but if you just brush up on the ones you've read through school that'll be fine. It's good to have some pre-19th century stuff. At any rate, my interviews went by period, and for the Medieval/Renaissance one there was a lot of 'have you read x? have you read y?' until we got to something I could talk about. Maybe flick through a poetry anthology and see what takes you.
Bethany's point about making connections between works you've read is a really good one. It's good to be able to cross-reference - put things in context, maybe think about how a genre develops over time. (Say, I did Latin and Greek at AL, so I got very excited making connections between Antigone and King Lear, which were both AL texts.)
I've applied to English at Clare College . . . all I did before my interview was read. That's all I've ever done! Just read what you enjoy, don't be afraid to try new things and when people recommend a book to you, try to read it.
I did have to do some background research before my interview, but this was just because I had to send in a reading list and I'd studied everything independently and wasn't sure whether I was on the right lines with 'The Heart of Darkness', 'Bartholomew Fair' or the poetry of John Donne!
Read. Enjoy it. Talk about it. Have a wonderful time
Oh yes, and also, if you're enjoying what you're doing in English Lit A level, read more of that writer. We studied 'Enduring love' by Ian McEwan and I've since read quite a lot more of him! It's a good starting point.
I did have to do some background research before my interview, but this was just because I had to send in a reading list and I'd studied everything independently and wasn't sure whether I was on the right lines with 'The Heart of Darkness', 'Bartholomew Fair' or the poetry of John Donne!
Read. Enjoy it. Talk about it. Have a wonderful time
Oh yes, and also, if you're enjoying what you're doing in English Lit A level, read more of that writer. We studied 'Enduring love' by Ian McEwan and I've since read quite a lot more of him! It's a good starting point.
OK basically agreeing with everything above!
Shakespeare came up in both of my interviews - look at the sonnets as well as some plays.
I was advised (but only by a teacher at school) to make sure I had a wide range to talk about - I started off with a personal statement focussing on more contemporary literature and particularly with Oxbridge in mind you need some traditional and classic areas of interest.
Yes - Ian McEwan is good!
Read 'Sophie's World', less for the acutal plot of the novel (amazing though it is), but because you will pick up huge themes and theories that can be applied to many other texts. For example, there's a definition of innocence as being the awe and wonder that small children experience through every aspect of the world, and adolescence being the loss of that innocence as the world becomes mundane and ordinary. I managed to use this in interpretations of some of the texts that we're covering in class.
Of course, I've been rejected so you may choose to reject this advice also ......but it's with hindsight all of the things I should have done better and will definitely focus on if I do choose to reapply.
Also, saw that you're studying history - know the historical contexts of both the texts' settings and their writers. I got a nasty interview question on the historical significance of 'Pride and Prejudice' because they knew I took A level history and had mentioned my interest in it in the personal statement.
Shakespeare came up in both of my interviews - look at the sonnets as well as some plays.
I was advised (but only by a teacher at school) to make sure I had a wide range to talk about - I started off with a personal statement focussing on more contemporary literature and particularly with Oxbridge in mind you need some traditional and classic areas of interest.
Yes - Ian McEwan is good!
Read 'Sophie's World', less for the acutal plot of the novel (amazing though it is), but because you will pick up huge themes and theories that can be applied to many other texts. For example, there's a definition of innocence as being the awe and wonder that small children experience through every aspect of the world, and adolescence being the loss of that innocence as the world becomes mundane and ordinary. I managed to use this in interpretations of some of the texts that we're covering in class.
Of course, I've been rejected so you may choose to reject this advice also
......but it's with hindsight all of the things I should have done better and will definitely focus on if I do choose to reapply.Also, saw that you're studying history - know the historical contexts of both the texts' settings and their writers. I got a nasty interview question on the historical significance of 'Pride and Prejudice' because they knew I took A level history and had mentioned my interest in it in the personal statement.
hmm i would disagree slightly.... do not, whatever you do , waste time reading for anything for interview that was written in the last 10 years... unless the interviewer has JUST finished it, you don't have a cat in hell's chance of being asked abou it... i don't care if its "Saturday" or "The master", "vernon god little"(brilliant though) or anything by Joanne Trollope (what a loser) they simply wont... with the huge breadth that is on offer for applicants and undergraduates to read, they won't be impressed that you can wander down to WHSmith's best seller list and read them...eg, I mentioned Corelli, Catch 22 and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich , and was not asked about any of them at any stage, anywhere.....I don't wish to be rude to person who got asked a history question about P+P in her interview, but COME ON. The answer was almost definately regarding the militia at merryton , or some triffling detail of social conduct that serves to address regency attitudes to clergy/army/navy/women's role etc. If coincedentally anyone IS looking for history throught literature, may I suggest the Gothic Novel. written in the 40years either side of the French Revolution, and has stuff about religious, gender and social unrest that is fascinating. It is obscure enough to impress tutors from any uni's, and demonstrates a desire to go beyond "wuthering heights" and "great expectations" (not saying they bad at ALL).
Shakespeare is a must - if you can't be arsed to read it (big mistake), either go see it at theatres (RSC Complete Works Season) or get the BBC video's series (amongst others). Seeing as almost everyone will be studying him, it makes sense to have a large range of plays to draw from. Also if you can check out either some biog's of him, or look at some other texts that can be used as links - Hamlet can be seen as a revenge tragedy, so look at the origins (Seneca), others of the period (The Changling), and others by Shakespeare himself(Merry Wives, etc) .Do this ad nauseam.
Poetry- find some obscure people and mug up like you have never mugged up before. No real need to look in too much detail at the whole spectrum, just look at some poems by others from a similar era to those you studied - tennyson can be complemented by some of the Romantics (he started off as one- sort of) as well as Arnold and Browning.
Good luck , pm if you want any other info
Shakespeare is a must - if you can't be arsed to read it (big mistake), either go see it at theatres (RSC Complete Works Season) or get the BBC video's series (amongst others). Seeing as almost everyone will be studying him, it makes sense to have a large range of plays to draw from. Also if you can check out either some biog's of him, or look at some other texts that can be used as links - Hamlet can be seen as a revenge tragedy, so look at the origins (Seneca), others of the period (The Changling), and others by Shakespeare himself(Merry Wives, etc) .Do this ad nauseam.
Poetry- find some obscure people and mug up like you have never mugged up before. No real need to look in too much detail at the whole spectrum, just look at some poems by others from a similar era to those you studied - tennyson can be complemented by some of the Romantics (he started off as one- sort of) as well as Arnold and Browning.
Good luck , pm if you want any other info
Toscar
Do this ad nauseam.
Yes, because they always like to see someone who is at the end of their tether and seriously contemplating throwing it all in. Also, I was asked about Ian McEwan at my Cambridge interview (Enduring Love) and was asked to relate it to Wordsworth.
Sorry i'll rephrase ... unlike my worthy counterpart "english student", I do read things ad nauseam... whereby I read absolutely everything, and then a bit more... by no means do I actually vomit doing so. Evidently "english student" does not on the other hand do this... or he finds it hard to do without finding himself at "the end of [his] thether and seriously contemplating throwing it all in". ... or so I have been led to believe. Are you sure English at Cambridge is for you?? I fail to see how, if you are truely passionate about your subject, you would not want to do this already, but if you have miscontrued my meaning of the phrase, i will happily offer my appologies. By the way, did you get in????
In regards to Ian McEwan- how did you phrase it on your ucas form? " I particuarly enjoy Wordsworth and his universal themes, which can be seen in Enduring Love" or something to that end? Are you one who thinks that McEwan will be read in 100 years time? Oxbridge deals with the literature of the past - modern stuff doesn't feature prominently on either course for several reasons, which I cannot be bothered to list now...so while I would certainly not reccomend trying to read the reading list for Oxbridge interviews (and think that it could actually be detrimental), it would be far better to look into the realms of the canon and find something good and interesting that they will be impressed by.
In regards to Ian McEwan- how did you phrase it on your ucas form? " I particuarly enjoy Wordsworth and his universal themes, which can be seen in Enduring Love" or something to that end? Are you one who thinks that McEwan will be read in 100 years time? Oxbridge deals with the literature of the past - modern stuff doesn't feature prominently on either course for several reasons, which I cannot be bothered to list now...so while I would certainly not reccomend trying to read the reading list for Oxbridge interviews (and think that it could actually be detrimental), it would be far better to look into the realms of the canon and find something good and interesting that they will be impressed by.
Haha, wow - you're taking my comment quite seriously I see. If you want to be pedantic about this, ad nauseam means "to a tiresomely excessive degree" or "To a sickening extent, so as to excite disgust" (from the OED). I wouldn't advise anyone to study something to such an extent in preparation for an interview where the aim is to convey a passion and deep interest in a subject. Obviously they are free to do so if they wish. Clearly an interest and passion for a subject would be better. Erm, maybe you just misused the phrase?
During my interview she asked about Wordsworth in the context of something I'd mentioned having studied at A Level and also asked what I was reading at the moment (hence the McEwan). And no I didn't get in; I was pooled and then rejected. But having said that, I'm at York now and wouldn't switch to Cambridge even if I could. Clearly having not got in I am not as worthy as you are to comment on the matter; I would be hard pushed to speak such wisdom anyway. I hope you enjoy your reading and wish you good luck in finding something even more obscure to mug up on!
During my interview she asked about Wordsworth in the context of something I'd mentioned having studied at A Level and also asked what I was reading at the moment (hence the McEwan). And no I didn't get in; I was pooled and then rejected. But having said that, I'm at York now and wouldn't switch to Cambridge even if I could. Clearly having not got in I am not as worthy as you are to comment on the matter; I would be hard pushed to speak such wisdom anyway. I hope you enjoy your reading and wish you good luck in finding something even more obscure to mug up on!
Toscar
I suggest the Gothic Novel... It is obscure enough to impress tutors from any uni's, and demonstrates a desire to go beyond "wuthering heights" and "great expectations"
...
Poetry- find some obscure people and mug up like you have never mugged up before. No real need to look in too much detail at the whole spectrum, just look at some poems by others from a similar era to those you studied - tennyson can be complemented by some of the Romantics (he started off as one- sort of) as well as Arnold and Browning.
...
it would be far better to look into the realms of the canon and find something good and interesting that they will be impressed by.
...
Poetry- find some obscure people and mug up like you have never mugged up before. No real need to look in too much detail at the whole spectrum, just look at some poems by others from a similar era to those you studied - tennyson can be complemented by some of the Romantics (he started off as one- sort of) as well as Arnold and Browning.
...
it would be far better to look into the realms of the canon and find something good and interesting that they will be impressed by.
By "obscure" do you mean "something most teenagers won't read"? The examples you cite are firmly canonical; indeed, you suggest that people read from the canon. I find it interesting that you imply that something can be both canonical and obscure. I'd have thought the terms to be mutually exclusive (though, clearly, something can be neither canonical nor obscure, and you're probably right in suggesting that texts of this class are unlikely to 'impress' interviewers).
On the whole, I think your advice is good, if rather bombastic.
Ouch ... if I weren't going to Cambridge I would be quite miffed!
Honestly though, the point is that you are going into a competition against several other candidates and need to stand out; hence it makes sense to read authors who are off the beaten track. Passion and deep interest are the words used by you to describe what is looked for. I would suggest firstly, that you missed out talent, and secondly, that surely this best demonstrated by reading around your subject, and finding the unfocused upon areas of literature. If you want to read obsessively, as I did, then brilliant, if not, just remember that saying "I have an interest and have subsequently read something easily found down my local mainstream booksellers" doesn't really have the same kudos as reading something that very few of the other candidates will have read. Admittedly though it all comes down to your understanding and analysis of the text.... so surely looking at an obscure text and having something interesting to say about it will be more impressing than, exactly like the candidate before you, saying that you though McEwan was a good author because yada yada yada??etc Your mockery in the last line of your post completely identifies the fact that as a candidate you didn't realise what you were going up against - there are people out there who will have read so much more than you, and do so in so much detail because they enjoy it, and there will be those who wanted to go to Cambridge and are prepared to cram to get in there. Actually,why should revising for a tough exam (as the Cambridge entrance tests are??) be mocked by you...? Now I am going to Cambridge, I'm sure I will have to read continuously (to the point of sick inducing hysteria maybe) for several days, and will in the end of my second year "mug up" for exams. Is this in any way a bad thing?
I never desired to upset you in any way , although it looks to me that you seem to perhaps have an ever so slight chip on your shoulder to those under grads who got in...-"Clearly having not got in I am not as worthy as you"-, but there is a reason why you were rejected wasn't there? Perhaps it was this bullish attitude to criticism that she saw and didn't particularly feel like teaching??
I'm sure I will enjoy my reading, and reading everything thank you very much, both mainstream and obscure, and hope you do the same at York. On a completely different subject, what is the course like up there?
And OED... sorry mate, I don't do Oxford., but if it makes you feel better, I will admit defeat over "ad nauseam"... sorry, the phrase "sick as a parrot" does seem to be occuring to me though... wonder why?!?
Honestly though, the point is that you are going into a competition against several other candidates and need to stand out; hence it makes sense to read authors who are off the beaten track. Passion and deep interest are the words used by you to describe what is looked for. I would suggest firstly, that you missed out talent, and secondly, that surely this best demonstrated by reading around your subject, and finding the unfocused upon areas of literature. If you want to read obsessively, as I did, then brilliant, if not, just remember that saying "I have an interest and have subsequently read something easily found down my local mainstream booksellers" doesn't really have the same kudos as reading something that very few of the other candidates will have read. Admittedly though it all comes down to your understanding and analysis of the text.... so surely looking at an obscure text and having something interesting to say about it will be more impressing than, exactly like the candidate before you, saying that you though McEwan was a good author because yada yada yada??etc Your mockery in the last line of your post completely identifies the fact that as a candidate you didn't realise what you were going up against - there are people out there who will have read so much more than you, and do so in so much detail because they enjoy it, and there will be those who wanted to go to Cambridge and are prepared to cram to get in there. Actually,why should revising for a tough exam (as the Cambridge entrance tests are??) be mocked by you...? Now I am going to Cambridge, I'm sure I will have to read continuously (to the point of sick inducing hysteria maybe) for several days, and will in the end of my second year "mug up" for exams. Is this in any way a bad thing?
I never desired to upset you in any way , although it looks to me that you seem to perhaps have an ever so slight chip on your shoulder to those under grads who got in...-"Clearly having not got in I am not as worthy as you"-, but there is a reason why you were rejected wasn't there? Perhaps it was this bullish attitude to criticism that she saw and didn't particularly feel like teaching??
I'm sure I will enjoy my reading, and reading everything thank you very much, both mainstream and obscure, and hope you do the same at York. On a completely different subject, what is the course like up there?
And OED... sorry mate, I don't do Oxford.
, but if it makes you feel better, I will admit defeat over "ad nauseam"... sorry, the phrase "sick as a parrot" does seem to be occuring to me though... wonder why?!?oh i'm completely bombastic... i found out less that a week ago I was going to the best uni in country, and my head has inflated to a large size (please ignore me if i insult anyone here... it will deflate soon)... I will need some time for my bubble to burst... thank you for agreeing in part though mr Da Bachtopus , and if I were to give you some titles that were in the canon but obscure as it were, I would suggest Hogg's Justified Sinner, Caleb Williams and The Monk, the poetry of Charlotte Mew (yes, I know Bristol are giving out her poetry as tests, but I found her first...honest!), and , in regards to drama, looking at other Eliz/Jacobean authors - Middleton and Rowley, Massinger, Tourner etc??While these vary in obscurity, I would suggest that when it comes down to it, they all belong in the canon (and are certainly in an oxbridge tutor's)
Toscar
I would suggest firstly, that you missed out talent, and secondly, that surely this best demonstrated by reading around your subject, and finding the unfocused upon areas of literature.
Unless your "this" somehow refers to the passion and interest of the previous sentence, I can't follow your reasoning. Talent is best demonstrated by producing well-written, well-argued essays, which also show the ability to think originally and critically when synthesising the masses of material that you read. Likewise, in being able to show this in an oral discussion, and in responding quickly to unseen texts with close readings. Whilst I doubt that talented English students won't be well-read, being well-read is not in itself a sign of talent, just a sign of enthusiasm. It just happens that talent and enthusiasm tend to be found together.
I don't think you've explicitly addressed the definition of "obscure" that I proposed; you also aren't clear about what you mean by "canon", allowing it to be both "the canon" and a subjective selection ("any Oxbridge tutor's"). I don't want to start a debate about the relevance and construction of the canon, but I'd like to address the definition of such a concept. If you postulate that there exists "the canon", it is essentially objective, and I think that this is the generally understood meaning of the term. You cannot maintain that there are then personal variants on this without drawing into question the possibility of such an objective canon in the first place. Indeed, even if you don't support the notion of an objective canon of literary texts, you still depend upon such a notion in order to attack it. Hence, fixing a definition is important.
I'd not consider the people you list as obscure, by virtue of the fact that they are canonical. They might be termed "obscure" by people who've not heard of them (I've not read them all, but I can place them). Hence, I was asking how you'd define the word, and I certainly don't think that "having a secondary role in the canon" is suitable. I think we probably agree about the concepts, but not the definitions.
Irrelevantly:
And OED... sorry mate, I don't do Oxford.
You're really begging for some snide remarks from anyone who searches through your past posts.
Still, well done on getting into Catz. Catz = hot English girls (/girl
)You'll certainly have your head deflated when you get to Cambridge and realise how much you've still got to learn; undergraduate education doesn't even cover a fraction...
Thank you for congratulating me on getting into Cambridge. I'm not going to make any statements about the girls at St Catz as knowing me I would say something offensive and/or dodgy that would lead to pre emptive grudges etc, which is something I would most like to avoid!
This thread is set up to help people get into Oxbridge, and I think it should remain so. I know I will be at the bottom of the food chain when I get to Camb, but I am fully prepared to roll up my sleeves and do what it takes.
I would like to entrench my position therefore regarding texts to read pre interview, without debating technical terms; I do so for two reasons . Firstly, it is irrelevent to helping people getting in, and secondly, as a uni student already, you have an advantage over myself which I would not be able to conquer. So, here goes...
I think it is beneficial for upcoming candidates to differentiate themselves fully from the pack; to do so can easily be done by studying works that the average A Level student would not even hear about it, and which would subsequently impress - the texts listed above are good examples. They are also fascinating, and noone who has read them could think otherwise.
Cambridge entry is a competition; and one should not approach it in any other state of mind. It isn't a cosy chat with a tutor who you can just nod along with; while there needn't be any friction nor animosity, there should be disagreement. It shows what you are made of.
I hope this clears everything up ( and to be honest, I need to have a nap now, so I can stay up for the Woody Allen film on tonight) but please let me know if there is anything further you would wish to question.
This thread is set up to help people get into Oxbridge, and I think it should remain so. I know I will be at the bottom of the food chain when I get to Camb, but I am fully prepared to roll up my sleeves and do what it takes.
I would like to entrench my position therefore regarding texts to read pre interview, without debating technical terms; I do so for two reasons . Firstly, it is irrelevent to helping people getting in, and secondly, as a uni student already, you have an advantage over myself which I would not be able to conquer. So, here goes...
I think it is beneficial for upcoming candidates to differentiate themselves fully from the pack; to do so can easily be done by studying works that the average A Level student would not even hear about it, and which would subsequently impress - the texts listed above are good examples. They are also fascinating, and noone who has read them could think otherwise.
Cambridge entry is a competition; and one should not approach it in any other state of mind. It isn't a cosy chat with a tutor who you can just nod along with; while there needn't be any friction nor animosity, there should be disagreement. It shows what you are made of.
I hope this clears everything up ( and to be honest, I need to have a nap now, so I can stay up for the Woody Allen film on tonight) but please let me know if there is anything further you would wish to question.
I think it is beneficial for upcoming candidates to differentiate themselves fully from the pack; to do so can easily be done by studying works that the average A Level student would not even hear about it, and which would subsequently impress - the texts listed above are good examples. They are also fascinating, and noone who has read them could think otherwise.
Cambridge entry is a competition; and one should not approach it in any other state of mind. It isn't a cosy chat with a tutor who you can just nod along with; while there needn't be any friction nor animosity, there should be disagreement. It shows what you are made of.
Cambridge entry is a competition; and one should not approach it in any other state of mind. It isn't a cosy chat with a tutor who you can just nod along with; while there needn't be any friction nor animosity, there should be disagreement. It shows what you are made of.
I think 'disagreement' isn't quite the right word here. 'Engagement' would be more appropriate. Certainly, however, you're right in that how you behave in your interview is going to count for much more than the fact that you've read the complete works of Milton (or whatever). The fellows choose those students whom they think will be most interesting to teach. It doesn't matter how much you've read if you can't hold an intelligent conversation about it, or if you can't write well and to the point about it.
In terms of differentiating yourself from the pack, this will show in your conversation and your writing, not in being able to reel off a number of 'obscure' books you've read. Oxbridge tutors can spot people who've been coached a mile off. If you mention works for the sake of it, they won't be impressed. Equally, if you make intelligent, lucid comments about works of literature, you're not going to be penalised because you were talking about Hamlet and Jane Austen rather than Fletcher and Sterne (or whoever).
Sure, showing a wide range of reading serves to demonstrate your enthusiasm, and that's tremendously important. But the real benefit of reading widely is that that will inform your critical views
Yes, it is a competition, but, one which is won not by reading a bunch of 'obscure'/underappreciated texts, but, as you pointed out earlier, by talent. And a bit of luck.
And I wouldn't recommend that you turn up at Cambridge with that attitude.
Sorry if this all sounds hostile. But it's not up to you to decide who's good enough to be at Cambridge and who isn't. It sounds as if you're trying to tell people they're not good enough (or, not dedicated enough? not worthy?) if they don't prepare as you did. And that's simply not true.
But, congratulations for getting in. It's a wonderful place.
I was going to reply to Toscar's post but on seeing zigguratted has made many of the points I intended to, and also because I am very tired and have stomach pains, I am instead merely going to state my agreement with most of what was written by the previous poster
Related discussions
- What are Cambridge medicine interviews without biology like?
- Cambridge 2024 Medicine Offer Holders
- Anyone else interviewing for English at Cambridge?
- best research supercurriculars for computer science (cambridge)
- Cambridge English 2025 applicants
- How important are competitions for cambridge/imperial application?
- Preparing for Cambridge Computer Science interview
- medicine Cambridge application
- writing a ps for HSPS and philosophy and economics
- super curricular oxbridge
- Should I bother putting Cayley/Hamilton/Maclaurin Olympiad medals in Maths PS
- Should i try apply for oxbridge this late?
- what to do in year 12 for oxford law
- Will GCSEs impede my chances of Natural Sciences at Cambridge?
- Oxbridge personal statement
- Law applicant
- Cambridge Uni medicine
- Can I apply for HSPS at Cambridge but Law at other unis?
- Cambridge colleges - med
- Oxford biology or Cambridge Bio NatSci
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Is it normal to get emails from unis saying that they like your personal statement?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Kinda wanna do an English degree; didn't do Eng Lit A-level?Last reply 1 month ago
Oxford Linguistics interview - not the test - what is going on?Last reply 1 month ago
Chances of getting offers for English Literature without the A-Level?Last reply 1 month ago
schools with creative writing/english majors that have strong departments in the UK?Last reply 1 month ago
What piece of literature made you want to study English Lit?Last reply 2 months ago
How likely am I to be accepted into Royal Holloway for English?
