Test taken: History Admissions Assessment (HAA)
Number of interviews: 2
Time between interviews: 2 hours
Length of interviews: 35 minutes
Online interview: No

My first interview centred around my personal statement - starting with the arguments I had made in it and then moving on more generally to the overall period. This felt far more content-based and I was really pushed to explain positions I had taken in my personal statement or was taking throughout the interview. It also centred around more general knowledge of the time periods I discussed but may not have explicitly studied/mentioned.

My second interview centred around a source I had about 20 minutes to read beforehand. We then discussed it and I was aske general questions about my understanding of the source, my interpretation, the general themes it discusses, what I thought the author’s motivation was. They also asked some general questions about the time period however they didn't expect any previous knowledge on this. The work I had sent in was also mentioned in this essay however we didn’t spend very long discussing it. The interviewers never felt like they were trying to catch me out or prove that I was wrong or didn’t understand, but rather I felt they were pushing me to see the full extent of my knowledge or understanding. I felt that they wanted to see how I adapted in the room and how I responded to their direct feedback on my ideas. It wasn’t relaxing however I feel when you’re doing it you’re so caught up in the academic discussion you aren’t necessarily nervous the whole way through.

I mainly made sure I fully understood the arguments I had made in my personal statement - I looked it over and made sure I fully understood the books I had mentioned and felt comfortable discussing them. I reread the notes I had made on them and also read some reviews and summaries. I made sure I was comfortable discussing the areas of history I had specifically brought up in my personal statement by doing some additional reading around them as well. I did definitely look over the more general content of the areas of history I had discussed as well using class notes text books however this was mainly idea and argument based rather than statistics. I also checked that there hasn’t been any major breakthroughs in the historiography of the areas I discussed either or if there were that I was aware of them and able to discuss them.

Practise papers on the website - the test for history has changed very slightly recently but the old practise papers before the change were helpful as well - do as many practises of the multiple choice as you can and do try the essays as well!

My advice would firstly be make sure you’re prepared - read the books you say you’ve read, understand the themes and concepts you discuss and of the time periods you discuss. In stressful situations I often find that the easiest knowledge to recall is the knowledge you fully understand so make sure you feel grounded in your subject. The interviewers really are looking to see how you can adapt and learn in the interview they aren’t expecting you to know everything or be right every time, but they want to see how you adapt to situations where you don’t know or are wrong. It’s also not a discussion based on necessarily specific knowledge and facts but more ideas and concepts BUT it is always helpful to be able to support any statements you make. Try and avoid thinking about how the interview is going whilst it’s happening (or even after!) because you don’t know and it’s so hard to tell what they’re looking for. You can take time to think and you can ask to clarify questions!