5 Lessons from my Oxbridge Interview - Flat Earthers, Hard Drugs and the Mafia (Expert Oxford & Cambridge Application Advice)
“Therefore, I suppose, the world is flat.” I concluded. The philosophy tutor interviewing me looked slightly shocked, then sighed. “No Kes, the world isn’t flat. Now tell me why it’s round…”
Defending one’s argument is essential to performing well in the Oxbridge interview. I had done so passionately; we had started by agreeing that spheroids had a lot in common with flat structures; you could manufacture one using two surfaces, they certainly weren’t round and in 3-dimensional space, they can look very similar from above. Applying this to the Earth, which also was slightly oblong, I very quickly found I was arguing that the world was flat and not round.
I stuck with my argument, looking to impress the tutor with my unwavering opinion, not wanting to seem weak or indecisive. I had heard that tutors were looking for students who were able to defend tricky opinions.
Whilst this is true it became apparent relatively quickly that tutors are not looking for students who will defend untenable opinions. I was promptly told to give up my argument, so we could move onto the next more interesting debate regarding what it means to say we “know” the world is round.
Lesson 1: Stick with your opinions, but not to the point of insanity.
An interesting question I received towards the end of the interview ran something like the following- “Should we use drugs to enhance exam performance?” I could have very easily fallen into what was an open bear trap here. However, I managed to avoid it using two simple strategies.
Lesson 2: Pause for thought, if necessary
Lesson 3: Define the terms of the question
Once the interview was over, I spoke to a few other applicants about their answers. Most involved a swift denial of the proposition, nearly all arguing that drugs should be entirely banned from exam halls. However, after this initial denial,they had generally changed their opinions on further thought.
After hearing the question I paused for a moment's thought, I defined drugs as approximately the following- “a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested”. On this reading, drugs really weren’t all that bad. If I had a student had a cold, it would be very hard to justify not providing them with a paracetamol. The real question is about where one draws the line- I managed to engage with the nuances of this question straight away, due to my use of definitions and decision to think through my answer before answering.
Another lesson I believe worth sharing is one I took from my politics interview. We were thinking about David Cameron (who was prime minister at the time) and his style of governance. I was asked, very simply, “what management style does David Cameron use to manage his cabinet?”
When constructing an answer in my head, I remembered reading an article about a Tory MP called Nicholas Winterton; he had accused David Cameron of running a “mafia”, which was trying to push him out of the party. After thinking through what I was going to say, I decided I could use this as more than just a random insult from a backbencher.
I proposed that David Cameron’s management style was rather similar to type the mafia uses. At first, the tutors laughed, seemingly expecting me to change my answer. However, perhaps stubbornly, I stuck with it.
As I was taking this argument seriously, the tutors then engaged seriously on those terms too. I managed to justify my argument by highlighting that both management structures use paternalism, underbosses and omerta to maintain control. The tutors were rather surprisingly impressed; rather than moving onto the planned activity, as I found out later other students had, the tutors and I instead discussed this point at great length until the interview was up.
The point I must emphasise here, however, is that one has to be able to support one’s claim if it is a bit unusual. It’s no use saying zany things for the sake of doing so. All things must be grounded in reason and evidence to be taken seriously in the academic world.
Lesson 4: Think creatively, but justify claims.
My final lesson is somewhat distinct from the others. When I was waiting nervously outside the interview room for my interview, the previous applicant exited and turned to me. He had a large grin on his face, whilst he uttered quite simply “that was really good.”
People will try to intimidate you. Do not let them do so; it will give them what they want.
I turned back to the applicant and simply said “congrats! That sounds rather good”, whilst thinking to myself “only someone deeply insecure would feel the need to make that comment”. I didn’t let it affect me, and if I had things may have turned out rather differently.
Lesson 5: Don’t let others intimidate you.
I hope some of these lessons are found to be useful by some applicants. Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions about any of these or wish to know more about my experience.
This article was written by Kes (Oxford - PPE).
If you find this content useful, please visit Kes' profile for further information on applying to Oxbridge. Alternatively, book support now with Kes, using the form below.
Author: Kes - Oxford
BA Philosophy, Politics & Economics
In my mentoring, I like to focus on building critical thinking and communication skills, which are fundamental to both PPE. In my experience, the best way to build these skills is through understanding argument structure and then applying it to different scenarios.
