Would you rather be a novel or a poem? Oxbridge interview questions and how to answer them

Interviews for Oxford and Cambridge are imminent, and 6th formers across the country are panicking. Everyone has heard about the strange questions which are sometimes thrown at prospective Oxbridge applicants, and we're sorry to say that they're all true! However, help is at hand - we have some real Oxbridge interview questions, and some tips on how to answer them....

UPDATE: See the comments below for some more examples....

Oxbridge Applications helps hopeful students find out more about the application and interview process. And MD Chloe Palfreman says that the key is not to panic, but instead to see the interview as a kind of mock tutorial."You should see it as an opportunity to show your knowledge and powers of lateral thinking," she adds.

Palfreman says that not all interview questions are strange, and that they do make sense in the interview situation. "What they're trying to get you to do is show how you can apply your existing knowledge in a new context. They're often subject specific."

So here are some recent interview questions* - and tips for how to go about answering them...

1) Talk about a light bulb (Engineering, Oxford)

The question makes two main demands: firstly to structure your ideas logically in response to such an open question and secondly to use this open forum effectively to show a good range of your Physics knowledge.

Armed with this awareness, one approach would be to define what a light bulb is (a replaceable component in a lamp, which is designed to produce light from electricity); then to give more detail about how the light bulb has been designed to do this effectively; then to talk about different types of light bulb and finally to discuss the current debate about light bulbs and how we will be tackling illumination in the future.

2) Would you rather be a novel or a poem? (English, Oxford)

The question is asking you to consider the differences between the two literary genres.  Traditionally the novel is a lengthy prose work, often rooted in reality, while the poem is usually shorter, focusing overtly on style and form, and often based on fantasy.

Having made this distinction, you could go on to qualify it with the observation that these definitions are difficult to maintain when considering epic poems such as The Song of Roland, which narrates historical events; or perhaps the prose Arthurian romances - identified as novels because of their length, despite their magical content.

A possible conclusion would be to see it as simplistic to divide literary works into rigid categories, or indeed to describe a person with a one-word epithet. As an individual, you would rather combine the novel’s pragmatism with the poem’s idealism.

3) How would you market a rock band (Economics & Management, Oxford)

This is an opportunity to show that you understand the basic principles of marketing. Beyond this, you should also show that you have the commercial awareness to apply and adapt these principles to the specific product you have been asked to market in the relevant industry.

First you need to define the product by talking about what type of rock band it is, how well known the band is already, who is in the band, what they look like and the nature of their songs and music.

With a clearer idea of the band, you should start to work out its most obvious customer target groups, through which channels the customers could access the band’s material, and where the access points to market the band would be.

You would also want to include some examples to back up the ideas you outline from existing bands who have marketed themselves in a similar way. This should make your answer more tangible to the interviewer.

Finally, to show that you are up to date with current business and marketing ideas, you might want to talk about how you could use the Web to do this even more effectively, for example creating a Myspace page for the band, putting videos of them on YouTube or other suggestions you can think of (a blog, perhaps?!)

4) How does Geography relate to A Midsummer Night's Dream? (Geography, Oxford)

According to Oxbridge Applications, this is a "wonderful chance to show that you can adopt an interdisciplinary approach and that you enjoy lateral thinking in the abstract." Phew! It is also "wide open to a completely personal interpretation, as long as it is presented logically and uses clear examples."

One possible angle would be to look at how the play presents the human world at the mercy of the natural (fairy) world. The fairies dupe the humans with tricks and potions thus changing the course of their lives. Despite all the advances of mankind and our feeling of being in charge of our environment, we remain very much controlled by the natural stirrings of the Earth, at times with devastating effect – drought, storms, tidal waves or earthquakes. Our being in control is very much an illusion.

5) How many of these pebbles would fit in that car? (Natural Sciences, Cambridge)

It is likely that on asking this question the tutor might show applicants an average-looking pebble and point towards a car outside the window. From this, you then need to show that from a few basic pieces of information you can make a few sensible calculations to work out a plausible estimate. Obviously, getting exactly the right answer is near impossible but the real test is showing that you can use basic problem-solving techniques on your own.

This is a question about volume. Firstly you need to calculate the volume of the pebble and then the volume of the car. To accurately estimate the volume of the car, you should take account of the boot as well as the main passenger section. You should also think about whether any additional pebbles will fit in and around the engine area under the bonnet and if so, what the volume of this area is.

Once you have these two approximations, you then need to divide the total volume of the car by the volume of the pebble to get the number of pebbles that would fit inside the vehicle.

6) Can History stop the next war? (History, Cambridge)

This question tests an applicant’s wider understanding of the academic discipline. To answer it effectively, you first have to decide whether or not you interpret ‘History’ as an active player in world events.

If we understand History to be the study of past events, the immediate assumption is likely to be that History itself cannot actively prevent a war. History does nothing.

It would be possible, however, to broaden our understanding of History. You could say that those who participate in an in-depth study of the past are necessarily more attuned to the local sensitivities as well as being more aware of the horrors brought by previous conflict. If these people are in decision-making positions, perhaps they're politicians, armed services commanders or international advisers, then this knowledge may make them less inclined to use war as a solution. Therefore, through these agents, History could end up preventing a war.

That said, this still beggars the question of how wars are started and whether they are the result of conscious decisions or more intrinsic and deep-rooted local circumstances. The conclusion here may well be that in some instances knowledge of History could help to prevent tensions being escalated into a war, but there are many other wars where this is not the case.

7) Would you say that greed is good or bad? (Land Economy, Cambridge)

This question looks at the conflict between self-interest and the overall common good within the disciplines of Economics, Law and Geography (the three subjects that make up Land Economy at Cambridge). Taking this interdisciplinary approach to answer the question would show an understanding of the course content.

A memorable way to tackle the question might be to take examples from each discipline and talk through them in a structured way using a cost/benefit analysis framework to measure the outcome of different scenarios where greed is to be found.

So, in classical Economics all individuals are assumed to be homo economicus (economic man) - self-interested actors motivated by the desire for wealth and the need to avoid unnecessary labour. There are many instances in which this ‘greed’ conflicts with the common good. A strong applicant may want to make a reference to recent investment bankers whose greed for bonuses has now affected the world economic system. There are other instances, however, in which greed produces economic benefit, e.g. entrepreneurs building businesses and thus creating jobs, paying taxes and generating wealth. So within Economics, the case seems balanced, greed drives growth and prosperity, but at what cost?

Within Law greed is seen as a ‘bad’ thing, e.g. theft or murder. It is hard to find an example where the law looks upon greed favourably.

Within Geography, greed is also more often than not detrimental, such as developed countries’ desire to burn fossil fuels at the expense of the environment.

Overall, greed can occasionally be seen to be good, but is not necessarily to be encouraged to an excess. A strong applicant could then discuss what criteria we might put in place to manage greed.

8) Should we have laws for the use of light bulbs? (Law, Cambridge)

The question first raises the issue of the extent to which a law should intervene in people’s lives.

To have a law on the use of light bulbs (a 'Light Law') would equate to a law that restricts an individual from freely employing a good to which he has a legal right (the right being derived from the contract of sale between the individual and the light bulb seller).

Obviously there are certain overarching laws that do just that, for instance the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 severely curtails to what violent use you can put a light bulb. However, such laws primarily impose negative obligations (you may not assault another with a light bulb), whereas a ‘Light Law’ seems to envisage specifying to what positive use a light bulb can be put.

Should we dictate the individual’s right to use his goods in such a manner? To do so we would need some type of social justification i.e. that for the benefit of society as a whole, the individual's freedom to act ought to be constrained. As the global supplies of oil, gas and coal dwindle, there may indeed be such a justification in the future.

In answering this question, however, you should also be considering the purpose of laws and what the law is trying to achieve. This raises a second issue around limitations of laws. You may want to consider situations in which it would be unsuitable to use the law to attempt to achieve certain aims. For example, controlling the use of light bulbs may achieve the aim of reducing electricity usage which would be good for the environment, but introducing a law may not lead to changes in people’s attitudes to environmental matters. Educating people about the environment would be a more suitable method for achieving this aim.

In considering the purpose of laws, you should consider the value that society gets from them. Laws may be expensive and difficult to enforce and it could be argued that this expense and difficulty are not worth the small gain which will accrue from a particular law, meaning that a particular law cannot be justified.

It will also be necessary to address the need to balance intervention through laws with the need to respect civil liberties and you should be able to give an opinion about where that balance should be struck.

9) Is there such a thing as an immoral book? (French and Spanish, Cambridge)

You may want to start by questioning the question. Can an inanimate object have a moral value? Is a book made immoral if its author is judged to be so? If the subject matter of a book is immoral, can it be defended as being a moral work which serves to educate the reader on the dangers of immorality?

You could then proceed to explore examples. The 18th century French works by de Sade and Laclos are compelling examples of literature which explore immorality. Laclos defends his epistolary novel Les Liaisons dangereuses by claiming in the prologue that he is simply warning innocents of the dangers of Parisian society. Perhaps then it is not the book which is immoral, but rather the reader who is seduced by it.

10) If you are not in California, how do you know it exists? (PPE, Oxford)

The main issue here is defining the ‘know’. The question strikes at the heart of the rationalist, as opposed to empiricist, schools of philosophical thought (of which any candidate seriously interested in studying Philosophy at Oxford should have at least a basic awareness). Rationalists, such as Descartes, claim the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive. Empiricists, such as Locke, believe in a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience (i.e. what your senses tell you). So, do you trust your senses or rational thought?

Sure, you may have experienced ‘California’ through your senses by going there, seeing it, hearing about it, etc., but how do you know you are not being tricked and misled into believing its existence?

A strong candidate would discuss an awareness of these two arguments, stressing there is not a right or wrong argument, and then settle on one side of the debate.  They should then expect to be cross-examined as to why they chose that side.

*All questions are based on the findings of a survey conducted by educational consultancy Oxbridge Applications of over 4000 students who went through the Oxbridge interview process in 2007.

Read Joanna Sugden's top 20 tips for surviving the Oxbridge grilling

And read School Gate on:

The easier way to get into Cambridge

The easier way to get into Oxford

Why Oxford's Bullingdon Club raises questions about the Tories

Why studying at Oxbridge isn't as expensive as you might think...

Comments

[Whimsey]

Ooh, these are fun!

1) Lightbulbs. The most important thing everyone should know about them is that they were NOT invented by Thomas Edison, but Joseph Swann. Edison was a greedy, unethical businessman, who seldom credited others with their ideas from which he profited. Every time I hear the lie 'Edison invented the lightbulb' I want to hit someone. Preferably Edison.

2) Novel. But only a seminal one. Imagine the humiliation of being nothing more than a minor one. Ghastly!

3) I wouldn't market a rock band at all. I'd tell the members to go away and do proper music. ie, classical music.

4) Forest of Arden is in Warwickshire, England, UK, Europe, Earth, Milky Way, Universe. Nuff said.

5) Get a life. Leave the pebbles on the beach where they belong, and stop wasting my time with daft questions.

6) Yes, of course history can stop the next war. But politicians can't. Or, worse, won't.

7)Depends what you're greedy for. If you are greedy for everyone having a good life and a fair share then obviously yes, greed is good.

8) We already do have laws for lightbulbs, don't we? I assume they have to be manufactured to strick health and safety guidelines.

9) Of course there's such things as immoral books. Written by immoral authors. Read by immoral people. Sade and Leclos are excellent examples, and I'm sure there are, sadly, many more.

10) How do you know California exists even if you are there? How do you know it's California? You trust the people that tell you it's California. Ditto you trust the people that tell you California exists. Or not. Your choice.

Yup, definitely fun.

[karen]

Can one just go for the interview part??

[Kim]

Well, you could see it as an opportunity to demonstrate lateral thinking. Or you could see it as an opportunity to demonstrate your own massive self-confidence and ability to devise smart alec answers to clever-clever questions.

These questions are a very good example of why so few working-class students are admitted to Oxbridge.

[Kate]

Oh dear....

They might be fun, but they're not terribly realistic. I'm a PPEist and you're definitely not expected to know what separates rationalist and empiricist schools of thought by interview. They're looking for an ability to think, not knowledge - they need to be able to teach you something!
The lack of working class Oxbridge students is less to do with interview questions, and more to do with failing state schools.

[Wendy V]

"Is The Duchess of Malfi the Kill Bill of Jacobean drama," was the quirkiest question during my daughter's Cambridge interview (for English) a few years ago. That she was able to answer it confidently showed she kept up with popular culture, as well as her A-level texts, and that she hadn't spent all her time swotting. She was offered a place and has graduated with a First.

[whimsey]

Yes, of course it is. Both are sicko. I'm not surprised the Puritans closed down the theatres - I wish they'd close down sicko films too.

[newjerseygirl]

Whimsey - it may be a bit off-topic, but did you actually see Kill Bill? Yes, it was violent, yes, it was graphic, but it was also a gripping piece of cinema with some amazing imagery and clever camera-work. If that's 'sicko', are you wanting to ban Hamlet, too – after all, just about every character in Shakespeare's classic has died in a nasty fashion by the end...

[Lizzie Lewis]

I would also advise that you avoid seeing Titus Andronicus.

[noughtpointzero]

Kim: Because all working class children can't estimate the volume of cars, but all upper class kids can? Or do you just have a chip on your shoulder?

I didn't go to Oxbridge because I didn't get three As at A Level. But I'm not even sure if I'd have wanted to go if I did. But I don't begrudge those who got the grades and did go. I think it's time to stop screaming "classwar"

[Sophie]

On no account should anyone pay good money to companies, such as Oxbridge Applications, that claim to be able to help you prepare for Oxbridge entry. There are no magic formulae and it mostly boils down to common sense. Both Universities provide a great deal of information about what their courses offer, what they expect from students and tips for preparing for interviews - go to their websites.

And, Kim, don't be so dismissive. Just because you might not be able to come up with answers to the questions doesn't mean that all "working class" children can't.

[j]

Please dont forget that this is just another bit of product placement. They have every interest in making it look hard, so that people buy their services.

Listen to the Oxford student who has posted, saying, what a load of cobblers. Based on my 30 years of experience I agree with her. Ok they may be real questions but they are not real answers.

Its so frustrating, because every time someone tries to flog their service in this way, it get a spurious authority and someone like Kim believes they would not be welcome.

[anita]

Kim - I'm working class (well, before the Cambridge degree) and a smart ass so had no problem getting in.

Just because you're working class doesn't mean you shouldn't be self-confident. Attitudes like that are what keep people down.

If you've just read all those questions and feel intimidated, don't. Give it a crack, the worst they can say is 'no' but it'll be memorable experience if you treat it as a bit of fun.

[chris Stevens]

If you understand why the interview process is constructed that way then you can pass it quite simply. Most teaching at Oxbridge is done in small groups, often 2 pupils to 1 tutor. The tutors are looking for people with the confidence to talk freely in that situation otherwise each tutorial will be a very painful and slow experience for all involved.

Tutors are also looking for people who have the honesty to admit when they do not know something and ask sensible questions in order to fill gaps in knowledge. If you haven't read a midsummer night's dream then just say so and ask if you may be permitted to talk about the subject in relation to a different book. If you haven't read any books and can't suggest a suitable replacement then that might be a problem though!

A lot is made of social class but really it shouldn't matter at all, in my small subject group we had a couple of etonians including the son of one of the richest men in England as well as many pupils from small state schools. We all got on very well and differences in background were irrelevant.

Elena, this article might be of interest to John

[Patrick]

How stupid can questions get? No wonder you get a great deal of Oxbridge grads with a wonderful ability for mellifluous persiflage.

[Victor, St Petersburg]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...
Kate, the problem is that a failing state school is normally the only opportunity available to a working class lad. Find it hard to believe, he will ever be able to afford Eaton - no title, no estates, no bags of money

[Anon]

Don't mean to continue to bash Kim, but her comment pretty much epitomises all left wing views and subsequent attempts to dumb down the application processes for our great universities (and I don't mean just Oxbridge). I went to Oxford and more than 60% of my college (Christ Church) in my year were from State schools.

[Derek]

At my Oxbridge interview (in the eighties) I struggled with "How would you explain the situation in Israel to a Martian in two minutes?" and "what would you change in the world?". I was so shaken up bt it all that I walked into the door on the way out. Yet they still let me in (working class boy).

My conclusion is that if you are sufficiently bright and hardworking and look like you will study hard and contribute to college life you'll be ok.

[Lauren]

Whilst interviewing for French & Philosophy at Oxford in 1999, I was asked to write an essay answering the question "which flavour of ice cream would you prefer to be and why?"

I have blocked out most of the excruciating hour that it took me to plan and write the essay...needless to say, I didn't get in. I also sat a VERY advanced (and consequently disastrous) French grammar exam and was a complete gibbering wreck by the time I made it out of there. Dreaming spires are all very well, but I honestly think it would have been the biggest mistake of my life to take up a place there (had such a thing been offered!)

In the end I went to a certain North-Eastern redbrick that combined some of the good bits of Oxford with very few of the bad bits; failing that Oxford interview was the best thing I ever did (on purpose, naturally).

The teachers at my comprehensive school, whilst on the whole fantastic, were woefully unaware of the Oxford interview process and of the format it would take. My "mock interview" with them was really more of a chat about my extra-curricular activities and bore no relation to the real thing. Hard for them to know, however, what the real thing would be when to my knowledge, no-one from my school had ever gone to Oxbridge and very few had gone to university full-stop.

[mumoftwo]

I was so intimidated at Cambridge interview, I actually said 'I'm sorry, I can't answer that' in response to some clever clever question. It didn't make any difference in the end, I still got in with a low grade offer (they were clearly mindful of the inadequacies of my state comp!)You don't have to be perfect in every way to get in, I agree with everyone who says go and be yourself. I loved my topic and I was an enthusiastic and critical thinking student, which overrode any lack of preparation by either myself or my school who knew nothing about how to get me in.

[mumoftwo]

I'd also say that I fared better academically when I was there than many of the girls who had been the 'Oxbridge candidates' at their private/grammar school, but had had copious tutoring in how to get in (and presumably in how to get high grades at A level). They suffered much more once the constant tutoring stopped, whereas I was used to working on my own.

[Adam]

What a joke. Makes me very, very glad that I went to a decent, non-Oxbridge university.

I visited Cambridge recently. Many of the students I saw (esp. postgrads) were terrifyingly freakish and would clearly never adjust to life in the real world.

[j]

how interesting, you have taken down my post that linked to a much better and more accurate free guide in the Guardian- did your product placement partner object to the competition?
What it said was, be prepared to take part, dont sit there and grunt like a Kevin, have a two way conversation, but its about how you engage and have a go, not what you already know about.

[Frankie]

@Adam: I am a terrifying freak ;-) unfortunately I seem to be doing OK in the real world after Cambridge though...

[Gus]

I went to an Oxbridge interview for Engineering (two interviews in a row) and it wasn't at all weird or eccentric. I recall it was something about Hooke's law and I didn't remember it so I had to deduce it myself. I hadn't been drilled for the interview and still got the offer. Those of my classmates who were also interviewed didn't mention any weird questions either. I think there's somewhat of a group hysteria about Oxbridge and companies that want to make money on it.

[Will]

You missed one crucial point about the pebbles in the car question.

Once you have the volume of the interior of the car and the volume of the pebble you also need to know how much free space will be between the pebbles when they are packed together and adjust your answer. This adjustment is called the packing ratio.

For regular spheres of the same size, you might know that the packing ratio is pi/sqrt(18) = 0.74 (approx), or you could just estimate (a figure of 3/4 would be a very good - and very natural estimate)

So for the actual number of pebbles you do:
0.74 * volume of car / volume of pebble

Then you could go on to discuss more about packing ratios, and if you had a range of sizes of pebbles how this would change. It's actually a facinating area of geometry.

Went to cambridge and loved it. The cryptic questions are just jump off points for whatever topic you're interested in. Don't be intimidated :)

[David]

Be nice to dogs. At one of my intervews at Oxford the tutor arrived with his dog. The dog and I got on very well. I got a place.

[Caroline]

I seem to have forgotten a lot about the interview process I went through for physics at Oxford this time 10 years ago, but the bits I do remember really weren't as weird as some of the questions here.

I sat a pretty nasty maths exam, stumbled through a discussion on electric fires and heat transfer, and explained how I would calculate the physical length of the tape inside a standard cassette tape using only a 15cm ruler and a stopwatch and without destroying the cassette.

If you can cope with the rigours of an Oxford degree, then you'll cope with the interview questions in your subject.
And yes, remember to laugh at the ridiculous questions they ask for other subjects - they'll be laughing at yours.

(In my first week at Oxford my tutor, of electric fire questioning, basically banned us from doing any extra-curricular activities as we were there to do physics, physics and nothing but physics. I ignored her, got two blues in different sports, and a 2:2...!)

[Sarah Ebner]

Hi J,

No one told me to take that link down, but the reason I did so was because Joanna Sugden wrote an excellent piece along the same lines for the Times (top 20 tips for surviving the grilling) and I have linked to it in this post - I didn't see the point of replicating that information.

Best wishes,

Sarah

[M]

Hmm. I am a third year currently studying at Cambridge and I wasn't asked any 'odd' questions at all at interview.

In fact, the point of the interview is to see how you can hold your own in a 'supervision', normally taught in a small group of 2-4. In Law, you need to be confident about your subject matter and able to argue for and against the current state of the law.

Articles like this simply perpetuate the image of the Oxbridge application process as obscure. My experience couldn't have been any more different from that.

[j]

Thanks for explaining, Sarah.

As someone who has spent the last 30 years in Oxbridge, married to a Prof there and active in the effort to bring people in, it makes my heart sink when the Times profiles services that have an interest in making it seem difficult and secretive.

Maybe an article with the admissions people at Cam or Ox? I honestly think more people would actually get in following that advice.

[Helen]

I wasn't asked any of these bizarre questions at my Cambridge interview for Russian and German 3 years ago, perhaps that's why I didn't get in!
Then again, none of school friends who did get into Oxbridge were asked any of these questions either...
The thing with Oxbridge is that they are looking for people who can think, and often, people who will make good researchers or academics. It's not a class thing, Oxbridge can only admit those who apply, and if they only get private school applicants then they can only admit ex-private school pupils. Simple as that - if more state school pupils applied, or were encouraged by their teachers to apply (many of whom will DIScourage pupils because they have chips on their shoulders about Oxbridge and bastions of priviledge), then more state school pupils would get in. It's like everything else in life, if you have the qualifications, the ability, something you can give to them and the burning desire to be there, then they'll give you the place, if not, then you're better off elsewhere.

[Al P]

I'm an Oxford don and admissions interviewer. Frankly, these questions are extremely unrepresentative and hence
unhelpful. The questions we tend to ask are challenging and do require thinking outside the confines a school syllabus; but they are rooted in the subject(s) you are proposing to study and more straightforward. For example, 'How would you define the difference between a novel and a poem?' rather than 'Would you rather be a novel or a poem?'. I'm not saying my colleagues never ask off-the-wall questions, only that the chances of being asked one are very slim. Of course it would be far too tedious and damaging to circulation for The Times to actually write a useful, realistic article on this subject...

[Sarah Ebner]

Dear Al P,

Thanks for your comments. Firstly, as I said to J, Joanna Sugden has written a more general article on the whole Oxbridge admissions process, and I link to it in the piece above.

But secondly, all the questions above were asked only last year and are completely genuine. Naturally, these weren't the only questions asked in the interview, so applicants could shine in other ways, but they are testing.

Others, which I didn't post include:

What does it mean to be happy? (Philosophy and Modern Languages,
Oxford)

When I get home this evening, how can I be sure that my wife’s diamond
ring won’t have turned into graphite? (Chemistry, Oxford)

If it could take a form, what shape would the novel “To the Lighthouse”
become? (English, Oxford)

How many monkeys would you use in an experiment? (Experimental
Psychology, Oxford)

How many grains of sand are there in the world? (Physics, Oxford)

How would you define infinity? (PPE, Oxford)

If I were a grapefruit, would I rather be seedless or non-seedless?
(Medicine, Cambridge)

and Would I be justified in saying that only morons play sport? (Economics, Cambridge)

So, although I accept that not all admissions tutors ask questions like these, some obviously do!

[j]

Sarah I am sure they are genuine questions. Just not typical ones- if there were 4,000 applicants reporting on 2 interviews each (which is the norm) of about 40 minutes' conversation... say 10 questions per interview - that gives you 80,000 questions. Most of which are not like this.

And as I said before- the answers are not typical even if the questions have happened.

On a more serious note, it's the profiling of commercial operations, who sell "back door" ways into Oxford, that is so damaging because they exaggerate the difficulty in order to make their guide to it seem better value.

Candidates, you dont need to pay a penny. Log onto the webistes and download the podcasts, come to the open days, and learn to love the subject you want to do.

And yes, for heavens sake read the prospectus while you are on the website, and pick the A levels it tells you to pick for that course.

[Helene]

The novel's pragmatism... the poem's idealism... Does this mean anything? Not as far as I can see. Does Oxbridge really want students who are trained to come out with such drivel? I would have thought any academic would be horrified by this. By definition, an academic can see beyond a snappy superficial answer which sounds more like an advertising slogan than the result of serious thought.

[j]

" Does Oxbridge really want students who are trained to come out with such drivel? "

you're right, Helene. Of course they dont.

[Laura]

This is a silly article. Oxbridge interviews don't just involve questions like this out of context: these questions will have come about from responses the candidate made earlier. So, for example, geographers will only be asking about Midsummer Night's Dream if the candidate has already talked about it, or mentioned it on their UCAS form. Oxbridge Admissions is just trying to make the process seem more mysterious and justify people wasting good money paying for their services

[mumoftwo]

I don't think some of the supplementary questions Sarah posted are that weird, they are just different ways of asking key questions (e.g the grapefruit one about modes of reproduction and evolutionary advantage). This used to be routinely done at 'A' level, but now we have moved to a learning 'outcome' model where the answer has to be flagged up in the question so an A-level question would have to read something like 'describe the advantages and disadvantages different modes of reproduction in fruit' (or whatever). This is why the grades have gone up: I was just astounded tutoring A-level recently as you really could rote learn the answers without much thought-process and certainly little critical thinking. These questions require a depth of understanding of the issue in hand that isn't currently tested by the system.

[Eric Noble]

How many of these pebbles would fit into that car. All of them, but not all at the same time.

Talk about a light bulb. A small onion or tuplip bulb of not much weight could possibly be discussed!

incomplete and silly questions, silly answers!

[rose]

I'm a first year at oxford, so my interview is pretty fresh in my mind. I wasn't asked any ridiculous questions, and quite frankly they're not trying to scare you or unsettle you because they're trying to make a true assessment of your potential.
And Kim, you showed a fabulous sympathy and understanding for working class applicants by implying that they don't have sufficient confidence or ability to answer 'clever-clever' questions. Surely the point of oxbridge is being a 'smart alec'? I live in a council flat and went to a crap comprehensive and I managed to stop tugging my forelock for just long enough to answer their questions.

[Jack]

Do you not think that it is important to think outside of the so called box? Reading such articles as this really opens your mind. (Well at least it did mine)

As for those who believe that any one can get into Oxford "If you just believe in yourself", how many times has that advice been given to someone? It really is the most uninvolved response to someone. There is no better example of someone not thinking outside the box.

Readers are not interested in your "working class hero" sob stories. From your local dilapidated comprehensive school to Oxbridge? Well done you. I’m sure you’ve done well for yourself, if not slightly underemployed to be constantly rattling out your story on here.

However, we need elitists in the country. We are rapidly becoming a welfare state of council houses and sponging off the benefits system. Finally, a prestigious university with fantastic kudos that does not offer degrees in Media Studies. I, personally, do not want Average Joe from down the road going to Oxbridge, he can go and do an NVQ in hairdressing like the rest of them. I want my prestigious degree, from a well renown university, and I want to say “Yes, I was asked those questions, and yes, I showed myself to be worthy of a place here.” Any bookworm can get three A’s at A Level, it takes passion to answer such blatantly ridiculous questions.

Patrick, I suggest you see someone about that dictionary you have swallowed, if you weren’t stupid enough to actually swallow a dictionary, stop using an online thesaurus.

[Lucy (without kids. Yet)]

I love the question about whether there are such things as immoral books! Even if I didn't get in to Oxbridge, I think I'd really enjoy the chance to talk about something like that - especially with someone interesting enough to have thought about asking it.

Some of these questions just look like fun to me - they'd make me feel as if I had a good time, even if I didn't get to a 'right' answer. Encouraging!

[harry]

i was interviewed for PPE last week and was really dissapointed that there were no offbeat questions, if there were i bet i'd have done far better

[Lucy]

Just returned home today from 6 days being interviewed at Worcester college, Oxford for French and ab initio Russian.

Firstly, not too many nasty off-the-wall questions really. All of them challenging yes, but not bizarre. I think the worst one was, asked in French, and had to respond in French whether I would take immortality if offered it.

Secondly, I'm from a large Northern state school too.
Been in state education all my life.
The only division I found was primarily from other applicants with a chip on their shoulder about state schools and uphold the traditions and practices their parents went to Oxbridge with when it was near impossible for a state-educated applicant to get in.

But generally there is no huge disadvantage to the 'working-class' applicants or those state-educated. Just being there for the interview process means they've recognised a potential in you, irrelevant of your background, it's what you've personally done to demonstrate a passion for your studies.

If there's a reason for a lack of applicants from state schools I'd say it's the image of Oxbridge more than anything.
For me, the thought of applying to Oxbridge never occurred to me. It was never suggested by any teacher or careers adviser simply because there are so very, very few that even apply, never mind reach interview stage from my (good!) state college.
I only considered applying when a family friend assumed I would apply with the grades I have and a discussion then ensued.

It's a great shame that there are a lot of cases where state educated students are more than capable of gaining Oxbridge interviews but are put off by the elitist image seemingly above themselves. In reality, spending the past 6 days in a JCR with all the other Arts applicants, we're all in the same boat and drawing from the same bag of nerves. And there's only one applicant sat in the interview at the end of the day and you're not there to argue the merits or otherwise of state and independant schools.

[Rafaella]

I'm a first year English student at Oxford and I wasn't asked anything particularly strange- then again, you learn that no matter how strange you think an essay topic is, someone will have written their dissertation on it.

The problem is when people confuse knowledge with intelligence. It's not what you know- being well read simply means having a wide range of examples at your disposal, and thus are more able to support your arguments. You have to be able to make the arguments in the first place.

Oh, and Jack? I believe Patrick was being ironic and making an excellent point about self-styled 'elitists' such as yourself in the process. If you want an interview tip, having a sense of humour doesn't hurt.

[Reina]

I remember a question for English, such as:

If novels are poetry, what is a play?

I thought screenwriting and they said that's an interesting answer.

I still went in, but I thought that was the weirdest question I have ever heard.

Another weird question was

If you were an author, which is the most famous writing now?

I said each of them are famous, but now it's the novels and film scripts. Then I expanded on them, I still think they give the weirdest questions.

[Andrew Rous]

Cambridge, Natural Sciences, 1975

How would I evaluate the hypothesis that the universe was run by fairies? I didn't reject it out of hand, muttered something about most people calling the supernatural god and was admitted.

[Steve]

Oxford General Paper for Scholarship in Natural Science 1957 (I was 17 years old):
"Do you consider Fred Hoyle's statement valid that, because the ancient Egyptians' cosmology was primitive, their theology was severely handicapped?". My Headmaster (minor Public School) was so shocked that he read the question out to the whole school as an example of what to expect if they had Oxbridge aspirations.
I failed but got in at another College the following year.

[Jonny]

Q: Would you rather be a novel or a poem?

A: My life writes its own story that is as poetic as any novel and more novel than any poem.

:)~

[frasierfan]

I graduated from Oxford a year ago - I studied modern languages. None of my questions at interview were this obscure - don't let this put you off applying if you were thinking of it. The questions can be tough but they are in context; most of the time they relate to a topic you have brought up yourself, e.g. a book you have read. The questions on this page are nightmareishly difficult and I wouldn't be able to answer many of them successfully.

[C]

As a current undergrad at Cambridge, I cannot but agree with the above comments that display disappointment with this piece. Unrepresentative questions, taken out of their own context, are only going to deter people that really ought to be applying and getting in. I was asked absolutely nothing unusual; I was set a problem which the interviewer felt I would find difficult (and I did, but kept trying), and I was asked a question similar to "Do you love [your chosen subject]?". I think that last question was the most important part of the whole process.

[M]

I thought I would share my experiences of interviews at Cambridge to reassure those who might think all questions are like those above. I applied to Cambridge (Jesus) about 7 years ago for Natural Sciences, and my interview consisted of 3 interviews. The first was a half hour discussion about me, my extracurricular interests and what I could bring to Cambridge. The second was 40 minutes on maths and physics, where I had to work through several questions taking A-level knowledge to slightly more advanced problems. Finally I had 45 minutes of discussion on my interest in biology over a cup of tea, what I thought were the most interesting concepts in modern biology, and which books on biology I had particularly enjoyed. No trick questions, and no lightbulbs!

Such questions were fair and unbiased, and allowed candidates to show what they had to offer. My year of biologists was truly mixed, with both private and state school students and no one thought that the interviews favoured one schooling system over the other.

I would recommend anyoneto apply who feels they are able to get the grades, and who thinks they would enjoy the education; Cambridge is a wonderful place to study, with excellent tuition, many and varied extracurricular activites, and an atmosphere that does not feel elitist or discriminatory in the slightest.

[T]

I was asked "How much does the Earth weigh?" - it was all about getting it to the correct power of 10, and assuming that the Earth is a perfect sphere (it isn't), it has a uniform density (it doesn't) and so on.

I was also asked "Is there more oxygen in this glass of water than in the air in this room?" - estimate the volume of the room (with alcoves!), and the amount of water in the glass etc.

There was also a jokey question, "What is your favourite part of the electromagnetic spectrum?". My response? The part with a wavelength of about 490nm, that of blue light, more specifically Cambridge blue...(I got in)

[dissertaion]

Blogs are good for every one where we get lots of information for any topics nice job keep it up !!!

[Ex-PPEIST]

Whimsey is right - your answer to question 10 is wrong. Descartes would have questioned the existence of California whether he was there or not.

[Geoffrey]

I'm obviously seriously behind the times, but, as I understood it when I was at Cambridge, interviews for the subject of Land Economy were likely to attract scenarios such as:

"Cripoes, that's a bit of a tricky one! D'you think you could pitch that one over again? Caught me a bit unawares! Straight over my head!"

"Your name, please...."

[Natalie]

This is rubbish. Wierd questions like that, if they are asked at all, are few and far between at Cambridge interviews. The interviewers are lecturers and researchers who only conduct interviews once a year, have probably been on one 'how to interview' training course years ago, are usually much more confident with their subject material than they are with people & so they're just not that experienced or confident at interviewing as a rule. Put the kind of questions they ask into this context & you'll understand much more where the interviewers is coming from.
I did Land Economy at Cambridge and would never have got in if they'd asked me that sample Land Economy question you give there. The questions are much more straight forward & common sense than the examples you give.
If you're going to an interview, read the Times for the preceeding week so you're up to date in recent issues in the news, read the prospectus & course content till you know it well, then relax, smile, be yourself, and show them what you know. Best of luck for all of you going for it! You might even enjoy the interviews!