Two twenty-minute interviews in one day, with two interviewers in each, and one hour-long test. One interview had a half-hour preparation time to read through a source provided. On the day, we waited in the Peterhouse JCR (student common room), with entertainment on hand (films, a pool table, a PS4). Student helpers guided us to each interview.

The interviews were mostly like friendly conversations. Topics discussed included my A level studies, why I was taking a year out before university, thoughts on further reading beyond my A level studies. Most questions were drawn from things I had mentioned on my personal statement, and interviewers were particular interested in what I was reading at the time. Later on in the interview there was greater scope to talk about topics I chose. The interviewers were especially interested in my critique of historians. Do make sure you have read any books you mention on your personal statement, and have some interesting opinions on the things you have read!

The second interview was source-based, for which I had a half-hour prior to interview to read through. The questions were largely predictable: Who do you think wrote the source, why was it written, when was it written etcetera - for future candidates, practicing answering the basic questions on sources (Who, what, when, where, why, how) would be valuable. I think the broader aim was to judge my ability to interpret historical texts.

Exam: Based on two primary sources, the questions involved comparing the two. There was plenty of time to write. Difference between the sources were really quite subtle. Practice comparing and analysing sources prior to your interview - it will come up!

The best preparation was reading outside my subject, and most importantly, taking notes and really reflecting on what I had read. There is no point in reading a load of books if you don't bring away some interesting thoughts or opinions on what you have read.

Nope!