The Student Room Group

What makes an Oxbridge applicant stand our during the interview process? (2018)

Oxbridge, synonymous with privellege, prestige and the hub of intellectual innovation; the pinnacle of ambition and aspiration, a plethora of dreamers have dreaded the day, the interviews. Such elite establishments remain a mystery, ripe in ideosyncracies, and quilted over by a phenomenal nature of magic; well it was the film set for Hogwarts. But, what is the secret spice and ingredient, that installs and sparkles the imagination and wonder of the interview, what glare shines from the cladestine requirements. For centuries may have tried, yet failed, unconding the DNA of an Oxbridge applicant begins today!
Following onto a recent thread, "Why do bright students get rejected from Oxbridge?", perhaps the focus should be concentrated on the question of the admissions process; especially at Oxford, who value the interview performance to identify the "Ideal learning style". What is an ideal learning style?

For those successfull 2018 Oxbridge applicants, please share your thoughts, regarding your interview experience.

How did you feel the interview went?
How long was your interview?
How many questions were asked?
How did you attempt to answer your questions, verbally expressing your though process, asking the interviewer questions?

Hopefully we can identify and clarify what really makes a student stand out!
(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by Science99999
Following onto a recent thread, "Why do bright students get rejected from Oxbridge?", perhaps the focus should be concentrated on the question of the admissions process; especially at Oxford, who value the interview performance to identify the "Ideal learning style". What is an ideal learning style?

For those successfull 2018 Oxbridge applicants, please share your thoughts, regarding your interview experience.

How did you feel the interview went?
How long was your interview?
How many questions were asked?
How did you attempt to answer your questions, verbally expressing your though process, asking the interviewer questions?

Hopefully we can identify and clarify what really makes a student stand out!


From what I feel, I think they're looking for people (in STEM) who have truly understood and questioned the material that they're learning in school, as opposed to those who just memorised the content and regurgitate it in the exam. They want people who think creatively about new content and when taught, could apply it (with confidence) to new never-seen before problems. You can get an A* in A Level sciences, just by repeating the textbook and learning all the types of question they could ask, so that's why oxbridge need interviews to weed out those who have just learned content, vs those who have understood and questioned content.
Original post by StayWoke
From what I feel, I think they're looking for people (in STEM) who have truly understood and questioned the material that they're learning in school, as opposed to those who just memorised the content and regurgitate it in the exam. They want people who think creatively about new content and when taught, could apply it (with confidence) to new never-seen before problems. You can get an A* in A Level sciences, just by repeating the textbook and learning all the types of question they could ask, so that's why oxbridge need interviews to weed out those who have just learned content, vs those who have understood and questioned content.


So in the interview, they'd ask questions which they expect you to apply your knowledge to? To see if you understood?
So many big words :afraid: :ahhhhh: :hide:
Both my interviews (English at Cambridge) were about 25ish minutes, but once you're in the room it feels like about three seconds - certainly didn't feel like I'd had time to impress them, or even show off any of my preparation. In my first one they asked maybe 4-5 questions on a range of topics. The second was very much focused on a single topic I'd mentioned in my SAQ and all questions came naturally from the flow of discussion, so they didn't feel like 'interview questions', if that makes sense. I think verbalising your thought process is definitely key; they like to see how you're thinking and that it's flexible.
Reply 5
I had two interviews for economics and management at Oxford and they were both pretty short at 20 minutes. I felt like they were both quite middle of the road, like I did my best but not necessarily amazing. I think they both had a list of about 5-10 questions they planned on asking because everyone had the same questions. When I answered the questions tbh I just did my best to listen to what they asked and say everything I thought about. I don't think said anything really great but just doing my best to give my take on their questions.If I'm being honest I think being a genuine and passionate person can help. When they asked for final questions I asked the professor what his least favorite thing about the college was because that's what I wanted to ask at the time and I feel they kind of vibed with the personality I had when I addressed the material.
Reply 6
Interviewees are often terrible at assessing how well their interview went.

There is zero correlation between assessing your own performance and the outcome of getting an offer.

Cambridge Interview Outcomes (updated).jpg

The above chart was for Cambridge, but I guarantee it would be similar for Oxford. And it makes no difference if your course is one of the arts&humanities or a science.
For History and Politics, my first interview was focused on History and lasted around 30/40 min. I was given an extract with 6 pages, around 10 min to read it, and then we discussed it quite a lot. They also asked a few questions on my written work, but not as many as I had expected! In the Politics interview, they started of with one question on my personal statement, and then presented quite a curious challenge. I was shown a world map in which every country had colours ranging from dark red to dark green. I was asked to discuss possibilities of the meaning of the colours, until I eventually reached the conclusion that they were regarding the level of political freedom. And then came the hard part, they were quite specific on how a political scientist could form such an index, what were the key features defining democracy were, etc. This lasted around 45 min. It was much more interesting than the first, but made me feel that I hadn't done enough. They were really critical and kept pushing me, any weakness in my argument they'd immediately expose it, which may not seem like a good sign, but really is; I just didn't feel my argument and reasoning was "high" enough for Oxford standards.

Overall, I guess they are looking for people who can stick to their argument and justify it, yet who also show some kind of flexibility when presented with new conflicting facts... I don't feel there was much preparation I could have done, obviously besides having a good knowledge on my PS and written work, but in my case they weren't too specific with actual stuff I had learned; rather they were looking for how I reacted when presented with unfamiliar situations!

So my advice would be not to panic too much when preparing, to actually enjoy being in Oxford while having interviews, and to expect the unexpected :tongue:
Also don't overthink your interview too much; I did and kept rewinding all my gibberish, believing I had no chance of getting in, but in the end you might be surpised when receving your letter!
For those successful 2018 Oxbridge applicants, please share your thoughts, regarding your interview experience.

How did you feel the interview went?
How long was your interview?

source -Have an offer For Chemistry (A*A*A),

My college stay was great, I had quite a large room which was ensuite and it overlooked the snow-covered quad where there were several snowmen. I had applied to Lincoln college as my first choice and there were several friendly student helpers waiting at the gate on my arrival, the porters were very friendly too. I arrived just in time for the (free) college lunch which was better than I had expected. On Monday,(when I arrived) I had no interviews. But I had 2 on Tuesday.

The interviews took place across the street in a small office. Each took 25 minutes and I was questioned by each of the 2 professors in turn for 12 minutes. In contrast to my other Interviews (Manchester and Imperial) there was no chit chat.

The next interview took place 3 hours later.

I had done significant reading and extension work n chemistry and Nothing helped me so much as a good night's sleep, and the consolidation of the AS level syllabus.

I am happy to answer any questions you might have
Original post by Doonesbury
Interviewees are often terrible at assessing how well their interview went.

There is zero correlation between assessing your own performance and the outcome of getting an offer.

Cambridge Interview Outcomes (updated).jpg

The above chart was for Cambridge, but I guarantee it would be similar for Oxford. And it makes no difference if your course is one of the arts&humanities or a science.


I can agree with that. Thought I did a solid 7/10 and got rejected :lol: Interviews can't tell you anything really :wink:
Not a 2018, but a 2017 successful offer holder.

MR's top 3 tips for a successful interview:

- Act comfortable not confident. Trying to appear confident risks looking cocky. Behave as though you are enjoying being in the environment and that the idea of a one-to-one is something you would like and be suited to. So relax and feel as though you fit naturally into that academic environment.

- THINK ALOUD. This is the big one. Listen to the question, think about the answer, communicate these thoughts to the interviewer. Don't feel that you have to deliver a succinct answer quickly: this is a discussion, not a quiz. The interviewers wish to see your thought pattern, they wish to see the logic you are following in order to reach your point of conclusion (i.e. your definitive answer). Don't rush that. Don't be afraid of silence either, but if you are thinking seriously about the question then do it out loud.

- Stop and evaluate yourself as you go. Don't feel like you need to stick rigidly to everything you've said. I found myself partly disagreeing with my first sentence in my response after I'd thought about it (aloud) for a couple of minutes. Don't be afraid to stop and say "well actually, when I first said that... it might actually be ..." This doesn't show indecision, it shows you're open to other ideas and it means you're making your answer stronger. The interviewers will try to throw problems at the answers you give anyway, so anticipate what those might be as you're delivering your response and answer them before they're asked.
Hey guys! Got in for PPE, figured I'll be as helpful to others as I can.

How did you feel the interview went?
Badly. My very first interview (the philosophy section) I was cut off and challenged the second I spoke, and fumbled throughout afterwards. The second half of it was economics, which was okay except I at times was a bit all over the place. I thought my best interview was politics, except at the very end I realised everything I'd argued was bs and said, "I think I've got this wrong" as the interview ended. All round I was not confident.Guess it is just worth repeating that you really can't tell. I heard this advice so many times but came out of my interviews thinking I was sure my interviews went objectively badly. Turns out they weren't so bad at all.

How long was your interview?
Pretty much just under 20 mins each. Seeing as econ and philosophy was a joint interview, essentially I got about 9 mins for each of those. Ridiculously short and felt even shorter.

How many questions were asked?
All round they were very discursive. I was asked one central question to begin with for philosophy, then it became fairly back and forth. The exact same for philosophy, and same for my second half of politics. The first half of my politics interview was, "discuss what you want to", and that's the only part of essentially 3 interviews which was very much question then answer. In total I was probably asked 10 or so questions as part of a conversation.

How did you attempt to answer your questions, verbally expressing your though process, asking the interviewer questions?
I'd actually had quite a bit of prep before, but after that first moment in my interview I sort of panicked and forgot it all. But what I think I did do well was think out loud. Everything from signposting arguments/headlining points, taking a pause and all that advice is useful, but they are there to see how you think. Every time I thought I made a mistake (which was often lol) I not only said that I made a mistake, but explained why I thought that. It's also really useful advice, even though I could have followed it a bit more, to be open with your assumptions and why you have made the decision the way you have. Honestly I still don't think my interviews went fantastically, but if there is one thing which probably saved me it's thinking out loud.
(edited 6 years ago)
Why do so many tsrians have lust for Oxbridge that they need to post an Oxbridge thread on a daily basis, just what is so special about Oxbridge which attracts tsrians so so badly? The number of Oxbridge threads being allowed to be posted should be limited.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Doonesbury
Interviewees are often terrible at assessing how well their interview went.

There is zero correlation between assessing your own performance and the outcome of getting an offer.

Cambridge Interview Outcomes (updated).jpg

The above chart was for Cambridge, but I guarantee it would be similar for Oxford. And it makes no difference if your course is one of the arts&humanities or a science.


Which year was this one? :tongue:
Reply 14
Original post by SteamboatMickey
Which year was this one? :tongue:


Yours :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile


Ooo interesting! I wonder which number I was, I can't even remember how I ranked my interviews. :tongue:
Tbh, you could always throw up on the interviewer. Sure-fire way to stand out

But in all honesty, thinking out loud is the only bit of helpful advise along with staying calm. Not going to bother saying you should revise because that’s a basic requirement.

When I was asked a question that I couldn’t immediately answer, or I had to ponder over, I’d break it down into mini questions that I would ask myself (aloud) which let my interviewers step in if I was heading in the wrong direction, but also let them follow and question my thought process
Not a 2018 offer holder, but I'm a current Cambridge student and was a sucessful 2017 offer-holder too.

1. Be enthusiastic - the key thing you'll find if you make it to Oxford or Cambridge is that on the whole people love their subject. Of course, there are a few who end up dropping out, or switching courses, but I often find people openly talking about how excited they are about an essay or how much they enjoyed a lecture. The truth is that if you don't really love your subject you will struggle to motivate yourself to do the work, and there is a lot of work.

2. If you don't understand something, say so - In a sense interviews do mimic supervisions. The key thing about University is that you learn, and if you can't take criticism you might struggle with the supervision system. The interviewers are looking for someone teachable. They are looking for an undergraduate, not a colleague. It's much better to be honest and admit you didn't hear them right, or you're not too sure, than to stumble through an awkward answer. However, saying that, you should give every answer a go if possible. My tip would be to say something along the lines of "I'm not entirely sure BUT..." and give the question a go anyway.

3. Be friendly - Okay, by this I don't mean kick back and relax. You should relax to a certain extent, but nerves are natural and you're going to get nervous at some point. However, shake your interviewers hand, smile, and remember they're just people at the end of the day.
Original post by The RAR
Can we start a petition to ban these Oxbridge threads being posted on a daily basis? I am getting really ****ed off seeing so many tsrians having lust for Oxbridge that they need to post an Oxbridge thread on a daily basis, just what is so special about Oxbridge which attracts tsrians so so badly? The number of Oxbridge threads being allowed to be posted should be limited.


give us this day our daily thread...

:teehee:
Reply 19
Original post by SteamboatMickey
Ooo interesting! I wonder which number I was, I can't even remember how I ranked my interviews. :tongue:


I misremembered, it was the prior year (2016 entry). :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest