Test taken: History Admissions Assessment (HAA)
Number of interviews: 2
Time between interviews: 20 mins
Length of interviews: 45 mins
Online interview: No

My first interview focused on a) the practical experience I had put on my personal statement such as doing an archaelogical dig, and then b) I was shown an 18th century source and was asked to date it and explain what it was saying. I did struggle to give them some answers about the source but what I made sure I did was speak out loud my thought process (though that sounds odd- they like that at interviews cause they can gauge how you think and whether your 'teachable').

My second interview was largely focused on the historical arguments I made in my personal statement. At the start I was asked to discuss a short article they had asked me to analyse on my own for 10mins before the interview. We had a short discussion about the article and then discussed the wider points I made in my personal statement. This was an interesting interview cause I got a chance to really explaining my arguments and discuss them with professional historians.

I was very fortunate that my school did do a practice session of interviews though they mainly just helped to make me realise the need to ensure I was ready to explain the points I had made in my personal statement. The other way I practiced was sitting with a friend and just chatting about my subject, that helped make me focus on really explaining my points and being clear in what I said. You don't need loads of interview practice though, as long as your able to explain your arguments/points and discuss your subject (you can just practice in talk about it with your friends/family/teachers).

The other thing I did was read around a bit, this actually turned out to be largely useless but I think it did mean I had thought about several historical angles. Most crucial is literally to just know your personal statement, ensure you read it shortly before your interviews because they will at some point at least ask you about it. Lastly, this sounds perhaps cheesy and wrong, but do have fun and see the interviews more as a learning experience than a flat-out exam. The interviewers are not there to destroy you, they simply want to know who you are and whether they could see themselves teach you. If you get something wrong they will not immediately go 'thats a fail' they try and help you think about the problem and to solve it.

I went on to the Cambridge Test website and found several past papers for the History Admissions Test and just did them. Overall I didn't worry too much about them, practising was important but more for getting an idea of the what tests looked like and how they worked/what was expected of you. There is really if honest very little wider information/practice you need, though if you read generally that of course does make the tests easier as they are heavily focused on your ability to understand texts.

It sounds almost sadistic, but enjoy the experience. It is rare experience - the Oxbridge application process and you learn plenty both about your subject and yourself just through putting yourself through it. Even if you don't get in, you at least tried and in reality the only reason most people are turned away is not because they are less intelligent or stupid but simply because they just don't seem best fitted to cambridge life and thats something you can't prepare for or change - some people are suited to the intensity and life of Cambridge and others aren't. Nevertheless you won't know if your best suited to Cambridge until you apply, so definitely apply.