I attended two interviews in early December of 2015, both of which were held on one single day. There were no tests for HSPS at this time. 15-30 minutes before my first interview, I asked the porter where I could find the room and he directed me.

My first interview was with one professor, who later became my Director of Studies and Politics supervisor. This lasted about 15-20 minutes but it felt like 2!

I then had to wait for about three quarters of an hour and chatted to some of the other applicants who were all very nice, normal and nervous like I was (I was expecting to be competing with ultra-confident, incomprehensible geniuses!) and then had my second interview with an archeology supervisor (though we focused on social anthropology and politics) which was the same length as the first. That was it.

The whole thing took less than two hours, and the interviews themselves only took about half an hour combined.

My first interview was much, much more nerve-wracking than the second. All the way through it, I felt like I was blathering and not making sense / making things up and my interviewer didn't ask many follow up questions or respond much to what I was saying. At the end, I was sure I had failed and that there was no chance whatsoever that I would get in. But I did, and I heard afterwards that loads of people who also got in had a 'car-crash' interview so try not to worry.

I was expecting interviewers to focus on what I'd written in my personal statement and SAQ and had prepared a lot for that. Instead, my first interview completely avoided any reference to either and I was asked more general questions about my reasons for wanting to study HSPS at Clare and the parts of my A-Level subjects I found most interesting. I was also asked questions about current affairs at the time (both international and domestic).

My second interview felt more comfortable and I came away feeling slightly more hopeful than I had after the first interview. It was very informal and friendly, just like discussing an academic topic with a friend or school teacher really, and conversation flowed naturally across more conceptual topics where there wasn't really a right or wrong answer. There wasn't much explicit structure.

There were no stupid trick questions like "define a banana" in either of them - it just felt like they were trying to get a sense of how passionate I was for my subject, really, rather than testing my intelligence.

I would really recommend having mock interviews with teachers, and even other students, to get used to the stress of an interview environment. It can also give you ideas, listening to how your peers respond to questions, and reassure you.

If you're applying for HSPS, having a good knowledge of current events will also help and speaking to as many current students as you can will also help to reassure you, hopefully.

Trust yourself, your ability and your general knowledge as much as you can. The fact that you've even applied will mean that you're bright, passionate and knowledgeable to some degree about your subject. It's nerve-wracking but, even if you think you're doing badly, the interviewers know that you're going to be stressed and nervous and will take that into account.

In HSPS, interviewers aren't looking for right answers (there are none) or even good answers, necessarily. All they want to see is subject passion and interest, a propensity to work hard and a curious mind. You'll almost certainly be performing much better than you think you are.

Another good tip would be to pick apart the questions you are given and define the terms carefully (e.g. what exactly do we mean by 'violence'?) as well as structuring your thoughts carefully and saying things like "I think you can approach this question in two ways, starting with etc.".