(This post was written in 2021. Since that point, Cambridge has changed its admissions process in English and, this year, Oxford will not be using ELAT scores in order to shortlist candidates. Accordingly, I have revised some of its wording.)
Applicants can find mid-November a disquietingly liminal point of the year and are unsure how best to use their time. Some are content to put all thoughts of their application to one side and focus on other matters. However, you can use this time to enhance your prospects of success in the interview that might await you. Even if your preferred Oxbridge college chooses not to take your application forward, such time is not wasted as it offers useful preparation for any university English course.
I have two main pieces of advice. They are intended for students of English but it shouldn't take too much of an imaginative leap to adapt the advice to the study of other subjects.
1. Keep reading unfamiliar literature for pleasure.
I have wondered if this is too obvious a point to make here. However, having spoken to scores of Oxbridge applicants, I think that it does need saying. English tutors want to teach those with a committed interest in the subject, that is to say those who enjoy reading texts on which they aren't necessarily going to be examined. I've heard several accounts of Oxford tutors beginning interviews by asking 'what were you reading last night?' One function of this question is to distinguish those whose reading has been exclusively geared towards writing impressive personal statements from the candidates whose literary interests extend beyond this narrow, instrumental purpose. Another function of the question is to test how precisely and extensively students engage with texts that they haven't studied formally.
It's easy to forget, however, that tutors who ask this question are doing so in a spirit of genuine enquiry. Admissions tutors are interested in your individual experience of reading, including your personal literary tastes and the texts to which your private reading has led you. There are therefore no right answers to this question although I do recommend doing the following.
Firstly, ensure that you're reading something new and unfamiliar, rather than re-reading a favourite text, one on the syllabus or one that you cite in your personal statement. Tutors want to see evidence of your extending the scope of your reading.
Secondly, if asked this question, be honest in your answer. Don't begin reading a worthy, canonical text simply because you assume that it will impress your interviewer. If you are reading Middlemarch or Ulysses or Tristram Shandy because you are interested in these novels per se, that's impressive, but only if you can discuss them in analytical detail. If you're reading them because you think that they are worthy names to drop, the slightness of that motivation will be exposed by the vagueness of the answers that you give. A typically dissatisfying response would be to say something like: 'I've just started A Le Recherche du Temps Perdu but haven't read enough of it to form an opinion', an answer that gestures towards awareness of a canonical work without any analytical engagement. Even if such an answer were factually accurate, it doesn't make for a fruitful discussion and that candidate would have been better served by citing another recently-read text about which s/he had more to say.
(For what it's worth, my answer would have been The New York Trilogy by Paul Auster. If I were asked today, it would be The Man Who Saw Everything by Deborah Levy.)
Creditable responses to this question will be characterised by the detail with which they engage with the texts in question, not the choices of texts themselves. I wouldn't, however, cite anything which is conceived primarily as undemanding entertainment – Young Adult fiction, thrillers, non-literary autobiographies. If you are reading to challenge yourself and extend your understanding of how various literary forms work, it's likely that you will talk insightfully and in detail about your current reading. It may well transpire that your answer actually introduces your interviewer to a text that s/he hasn't read.
Focus then on reading widely over the next few weeks. This means reading the poetry, drama, prose and criticism of different eras, including the present era and including texts to which you might not instinctively be drawn. This will not only stand you in good stead for analysing unseen poetry at interview and beyond but will also show that you are equipped for the historical and formal breadth offered by an Oxbridge degree.
2. Re-read your submitted essays to test the validity of every argument that they have made.
It is likely that the essays which you submitted were completed some time ago so it's important that you review their arguments before interview. When you do this, approach the essays with a pen in your hand and the mindset of their harshest reasonable critic. Circle anything that you have written which you consider simplistic, vague, under-exemplified, illogical or otherwise mistaken and adapt these criticisms into questions. You may end up with a long list containing questions such as:
Has my analysis simplified the ambiguity of the protagonist's motivations?
Have I read enough about Restoration comedy to support the claims that I make about the genre's use of stock-characters?
Have I ignored an important section of the poem which offers a tonal counter-balance to the parts on which I have focused?
Have I read enough about the context of the text's production to support my claims about its writer's purposes?
Drawing up a list of similar questions allows you to think at length about the quality of the arguments that your essays have made, to improve their expression, to re-read the texts for additional evidence and to fill gaps in your knowledge with further research. It may be that your opinion has changed significantly during the months since you wrote the essay. This is intellectually healthy: the ability to re-evaluate one's opinion is a hallmark of all outstanding students. It's helpful to conceive of the interview which focuses on these essays as an opportunity to explain, expand upon and qualify the remarks contained therein, not as an exercise in defending every claim that they make. Inevitably, this will involve some acknowledgement of their shortcomings as well as further discussion of their valid claims.
Although this process that I outline above is useful preparation, don't be tempted to 'rehearse' answers to questions that you anticipate being asked. The ability to pay close attention to the wording of an individual question is an important skill that interviewers look to test, as is the ability to formulate insightful responses to unforeseen stimuli. For example, the questions 'what makes a text worth reading?' and 'what makes a text interesting?' require subtly different answers. Similarly, I once offered a mock-interview to a prospective philosophy student who, when asked if a proposition was logically coherent, gave an answer which by-passed the matter of its coherence and instead explained why he considered the statement to be vague. The ability to distinguish between related but discrete concepts – 'vagueness' and 'coherence', in this instance – offers proof of one's sensitivity to linguistic niceties.
I wish you all the best with your preparation. My further observations on university interviews can be found here.
https://swlondontutor.wixsite.com/englishtutoring/post/university-interviews-some-advice
I will be publishing another short piece on interviews before the end of the month.
If you would like a mock-interview, please get in touch.
Comments