Hello I'm Anna Connelly, the outreach officer for the Faculty of History here at the University of Oxford. In the following recording we will be exploring the interview process for History at Oxford with two of our admitting tutors Professor Steven Gunn and Professor William Whyte. Steven, William, would you like to introduce yourselves please? I'm William Whyte, I'm one of the History tutors at St John's college and I'm a Modern Historian which means that I ...write and teach about Britain mainly and Europe in the last two or three hundred years and my research is largely devoted to the study of architecture, and Steve do you want to? Hello I'm Steven Gunn, I'm one of the History tutors at Merton college and I teach the history of Britain and Europe between about 1300 and 1700 and my research is on the Tudors...political history but also social history and, at the moment, the history of accidental death. So I think, which is a nice way to begin a discussion of interviews, I think what we should do is probably start out by by thinking about what the interview is for...and then go on to think about how how it actually happens...and I think the critical thing to say if you're coming for interview or you're going to be interviewed is it's important to bear in mind that it's only one element of the admissions process. We are in the fortunate position here at Oxford of being able to assess you across a whole range of different sources, and so we have your UCAS form with your results in it and your personal statement in it and a reference from your school or college in it, we have the History Aptitude Test, we have your written work, so we already know quite a lot about you before you are interviewed and we are assessing all of that and the interview is only one part of that process. And so when we come to make decisions about whom to admit we are able to range across a whole range of things. It's not that the interview is the be-all and end-all of the whole process, it's just an element in it, and it's designed to do a number of particular things to assess across the range of criteria that we're interested in and so Steve's going to take us through that I think. I'm going to show you the...admissions criteria that we are using in the History admissions process, and every interview is if you like an experiment trying to find out whether we can detect these things. Every interview will be different, interviews are conversations between people so they're different because every candidate is different, every interviewer is different, but these are the things that we're trying to find out. As William says, not only from the interview but also from the other information that we've got, so if you're watching this interview see if you can find the candidate showing the following qualities which we think are the qualities that give people strong potential to study History effectively at university and they should be up here on the screen: intellectual curiosity, conceptual clarity, flexibility in analysis and argument, accuracy and attention to detail, critical engagement, thinking about things, capacity for hard work and enthusiasm for history, evidence of historical imagination and understanding, in particular...the ability to speculate, to compare...possession of appropriate historical knowledge and the capacity to deploy it. So those are the things we're trying to find out about...in the interview...and you can have a think at the end, we'll try to think afterwards, about how far we've discovered them. I think William is now going to talk more about the different varieties of things that might happen in a History interview. Yes so thanks, there are a number of different ways in which you might interrogate those different different concepts and allow candidates to display all those different...qualities. One way of organizing an interview is to focus on the written work that people have sent in, and to use the the essay that they have submitted as the jumping off point to try and...to try and explore some of the historical thinking they're able to do, and usually in that case it is just a jumping off point: what you do is you start with something that the candidate really knows about and then tries to think, and then you try to broaden the range of questions you're asking so that they can display the analytical abilities, the conceptual clarity, the historical imagination or the enthusiasm that we're looking for. Another way of doing it is to is to start with something the candidate doesn't know anything about and that's to start with...an image or a text that you give them, sometimes in advance, sometimes in the interview itself, and to get them to to explore how they would use it as a historian, to explore how other historians might use it, and to see again how people are thinking through the process of analysing material, and then having done that, extrapolating from that to apply it to the material that they do know about, to start thinking this is how this source worked, how might the things I learned from that apply to the stuff that I understand...from the courses I've been doing at school or college. And a third way of doing it is a much more general way which is to talk about the nature of history itself, often using people's UCAS personal statements and using that as a way of probing what it is that motivates them in the study of history, what ideas are they interested in, what concepts, what places and people and themes in history, and then try to think again how those interests can be applied to a particular example or a set of ...themes and in these three rather different ways you're essentially finding different ways of exploring the criteria that Steve just set out. And the interview you get, you'll be told in advance what the format is going to be...and then you just go in and hopefully have an enjoyable conversation. Now we are conscious that of course people have particular needs, that if you need extra time for reading that will be allowed to you, if you need extra time for the interview that will be allowed for you: the point is that we want to create as level playing field as we humanly can and so if you have a particular need then that can be discussed in advance and the college will arrange for you to receive whatever support is necessary for you. We're also conscious that this is going to be online and what that means is that it could go horribly horribly wrong at any moment, Teams or your computer could cease functioning: that doesn't matter, the point is that we have enough time to make sure that we can rerun the interview if it needs to be done, we can do it in different ways, we can work round it. You would never be disadvantaged by the fact that the technology isn't working because we can manage that. Steve did you have anything to add? I think the final thing to say is that we aren't trying to catch you out, we could all ask you questions about things we know you don't know, you could ask us questions about things that you know we don't know, that's not the point of the exercise. We're trying to think about how you think about what you do know already. No, that's a really crucial point and again I think it's important that if anything seems unclear or you need more time to think, then just ask a question or just take some time to think. We'd rather people were thinking than talking nonsense...and if, I always say to the candidates applying to St John, if the question I've asked seems stupid or unclear then that's because it is probably stupid or unclear: it's just I've expressed myself badly and then they should feel free to say what earth do you mean by that?...And the chances are I don't know either but they can, at least we can at least try and reach some kind of common understanding together.

So hello Sam, welcome to virtual Oxford can you hear us and see us ok? Yes, I can hear and see you guys, I'm glad to be here. Good, very good...well we're aiming to talk for about 20 minutes...today...and the interview is going to have two different parts... so the first part we're going to be talking about the picture which we sent you a little a while ago...and then after that we're going to talk about your written work. My name's Steven Gunn and I've got with me my colleague William Whyte. I'll be talking about the picture with you and then William will be talking to you about the written work you've sent in and the history that you've been studying at school and college more more generally. Good, so we sent you this rather strange picture to to have a look at and we want to try and think about how to use it as a historical source...so first of all, who would you say do you think is the most important person in this picture? Oh that's an interesting question...after looking at it for a for some time, I guess the person who my my attention is drawn to is the figure in blue with the...rather, I don't even know how to describe the hat that he's wearing and then the gold kind of chain around his neck, I think that seems to be the most...the figure of the most authority. Now, that being said of course it depends on what the historian is trying to achieve...because if they are trying to look at who has the most authority or you know the things of leadership then perhaps that's of most importance for them...there do seem to be some really religious figures who could be of more importance depending on what the historian is actually trying to achieve. So we could be trying to use this to ask different kinds of questions and we'll think about that as we go along...that's that that's good, so so what makes you say that the person with the with the in blue with the furry hat is the most important person? What I think...is in terms of the kind of orientation of other figures so I just think the kind of inclined heads of the other and the other figures seems to suggest that there's some form of kind of bowing and authority and there are other figures you know clad in blue but he's the only one that's sat down as well and then I think the figure...the position that he's in within the table and everyone around him seems to suggest the authority as well as the actual necklace that he has, which nobody else in blue seems to have...that's I think...those are the main things that suggest that to me. Yeah yeah that's good...what do we think the necklace is made of? I would I would argue gold...I'd hope so, based on the colour and also based on the fact that there's a lot of other things made seemingly made of gold around him, which also suggests that wealth that...that he may have. Yep yep anything more you want to say about the other things made of gold? So I think

with regards to the other things made of gold I think that, well the fact that one there's quite a lot of it so in the in the far left of the of the picture you can see that there's kind of a table which is stacked with things of gold, I think it's a lot of it's used for the actual feast so it's like all the...a lot of...there is some that isn't but most of the kind of cutlery and the...the crockery that's what I'm looking for...used is made of gold and then also there's this interesting thing in on the far right which I'm actually not too sure about what it is...and...but that's also kind of made of gold and it seems to all suggest this grandeur around the palace which even in the...on the top of the pillars in the background...seems to be...have that gold plating. Yeah yep that's good. How do you think we might work out who this person is (the man in blue with the furry hat)? I think there's some...what could...some...whenever a picture has writing it's quite useful though I don't...I can't necessarily read it nor tell whether it's in English but looking at the writing might be helpful in that especially at the top of the picture...Yeah I think the guy behind him is saying 'approche, approche' which means 'come here' or 'come near' in medieval French so...ok so now we know that, how does that change how what we think is going on? Well if it's in medieval French then though we can't necessarily know that whether the figure is French but this must be some form of engagement or at least a figure that is known to...medieval France, of significance to medieval France and so that would kind of narrow narrow that kind of perspective on who you'd be looking at. Then you could also look at...I think the context is quite useful so looking at various different aspects of the image, you know the top left having the battles...and looking at the different...the different kind of patterns that they're wearing and trying to assess...what kind of, what that suggests allegiance to, what kind of points towards and then I think the fact that, and of course this is speculation, but this...what seems to be a conflux of different religious figures...and it seems to be from different cultures all coming together, I believe...that could suggest a significant point in history which narrows down...narrows down the kind of...the range I think of events that you could be looking at which are linked to certain figures. Yeah yeah good great, so...so imagine now you're a historian, you've gone into an archive or a library, you've opened up a box or a volume and you thought, wow this is amazing, so what what kinds of aspects of history do you think you might be able to write about or analyse using this source, we thought a bit about power structures and so on but what other kinds of things are you going to use it for? Yeah so I think...there's also the fact that...one thing that interested me is even just the, it's quite an obscure thing, but even the relationship...of the society to animals. I don't know why it's just like something that struck me quite a bit, both in the fact that there just seemed to be, there do seem to be live animals on the table and like kind of bottom right, two kind of very small might...maybe cats and this dog in the bottom right corner...so that could be a really interesting thing to look at in regards to how the people relate to one another. I guess another aspect which is perhaps a bit more obscure but could be of interest is kind of gender and looking at the if this is a kind of a place of authority or suggesting kind of a significant kind of meeting of people with authority...the people that are in this in this room and their gender could be of interest to a historian and then also I haven't mentioned about, I've mentioned it a bit, but then ideas of religion and looking at what the kind of the images at the very top, but also throughout the image, could suggest about...what this...the kind of religions or the culture surrounding this society I've never actually seen an image of. As you see in the top left which seems to be a kind of...maybe a goat with I don't know what the other end of its body is but that's still something of interest that could be explored as well...and just these different kind of figures what that suggests about...even the kind of iconography and how they choose to, whoever creates this, how they choose to represent...whether that be religious figures or the supernatural could be of a real interest to a historian. That's great, that's really interesting thank you. We could carry on talking about that picture for a very long time, but Bismarck is calling, so...I'm going to hand you over to William now for the for the second part of the interview, thanks. So often the way with Bismarck, there he is, he's appeared. So thank you for your essay which we really enjoyed reading...how did that fit within the course, so what would have...where is it and what what did you study? Yeah so as part of the kind of IB History which I was doing...we covered a lot of 19th century...Europe and the kind of the revolutions within Europe and like overall move towards nationalism that I guess you see post, kind of, post Napoleon, post 1850. Fabulous, no that's great, so what I'm going to do is start with Bismarck and then we'll probably widen our range and if there's anything I say at any point that doesn't seem clear then just just tell me that it didn't seem clear because it'll be I won't...I wasn't clear and if you need to think about anything then do do do feel free to do that, so...well I mean the question that you're addressing in that essay is about the extent...is about the unification of Germany and what role Bismarck plays in that but I suppose the question that's often presented by historians is to what extent does Germany unify at all? I mean Germany's seen in some respects as an example of nationalism working but it can also be seen as an example of a state that never really does quite cohere, where would you place yourself in in that debate?

I must admit that's a very interesting question...and I think one of the reasons why it's so interesting is because yeah of course Germany as a...as a as a nation in itself very much was created at this point and when you think about before the Holy Roman Empire that was formed of very very...various principalities and the people within those principalities would not have identified themselves as Germans, they would have identified themselves with those princes, and it's not far removed from 1871 that kind of political entity existing, so I...that being said, I do-...I also think there's an argument always to be made that German nationalism isn't something that simply just...spontaneously kind of arrives there is this...whether it be similarity, whether it be linguistic similarity, the fact that there are shared shared languages or shared kind of cultural aspects within the nations, I don't think it's something that's simply just created by Bismarck nor by any of the kind of by by pressure...that being said, Germ-...what German..., what we see as Germany, I guess, being created is very Prussian and therefore I think when we talk about where I land I guess in this in...within this argument is that politically Germany is very much a thing and I think the political creation of Germany is the first step before a larger cultural association develops. That being said, I think even when you look at Germany today there's clear differences between the south and the north so...full unification? Is it like a full assimilation to to what is German? I don't think that really ever happens as you can see today but...the political unification is one that is, in the end, quite strong because it did last after 1871. No, brilliant, and lots of ways in which we could take that from now so I mean one of the things I suppose we we might want to ask is, you know, what what what is it that you need in order to in order to make a nation? What what what is it that needs to be there for it to pass the, you know, the white test let's say of of nationalism? So what factors do you think you'd want to identify? We can take, you know, there'll be tons, but let's let's try and get a range. That's that's really interesting question...I think...look at... and I think it'll be useful so to look at this in a 19th century context, also like a 20th century context when especially like when I think about my kind of my background being a Nigerian and the creation of of a nation...like Nigeria so I think...one aspect which is very much necessary is this kind of...some form of a central political body, some central figure that's...that that takes authority, whether that be a monarch or or kind of a chancellor...kind of within within the German context, or within kind of the Nigerian context you have the federal government which can be seen as a central body of authority. Religion can often, especially back in the 19th century or even in the twent-...even today, religion can be a strong unifying force, that being said often it's the one that's mostly neglected. I think there also has to be some form of cultural similarity and that can just come within the form of ethnicity and similarities of simply appearance, or some form of historical...some historical link that can bring, seem to bring a nation together, so...though the holy roman empire was very much a kind of...I don't even know it's quite hazy, I guess, when you're thinking about it as an entity, it's still an entity that had existed for, you know, a millennia when you think about it like that and was......though is...kind of expanded I guess over history was quite similar to what you see in a German state...and then similarly within the kind of case of Nigeria the state that created the kind of...artificially brought together by the British, those kind of boundaries had existed for a period of time so when the state was created there was something to attach itself to, so those were a few, those are kind of a few things that I'd identify but...I do think that the idea of a nation is very much something that's quite...it's constructed in itself and therefore there's always going to...where...people I think will always have a certain identification with their region perhaps a bit more than the idea of a nation because I think a nation itself is often quite political...when it comes to actually how tangibly you see it. Yes, no, tha-...brilliant stuff and I would I would happily talk about...I am very interested in the building of Abuja and places like that but I will I will...I will take the themes you were talking about and one of them was a sort of political unification is important and if we look at Germany in the period you're looking at, well, tick I mean that's absolutely the case that's that's what's going on, now there is a kind of cultural unity or at least an attempt to foster a cultural unity and I suppose not least through that history you're talking about and also through the German language we're getting some sense of that in in Germany after 1871. But what about religion which was the critical one there, I mean how does how does Bismarck manage that? Yes and I think it must be some time that I've I've looked at it...the clear difference within Germany is that in the north you have states like Prussia which are you know strongly...quite significantly Protestant and then you have states in the south which are...Catholic...and they the people within those states have a strong attachment to...Catholicism and you can even trace it back to history, things like the 30 years war when, you know, Catholicism and Protestantism were used as kind of rifts between the nations...but if I'm not mistaken...Bismarck...I think this is one of the things that historians often criticise Bismarck for in terms of his cultural...his, the way that he tried to deal with Catholicism but I must admit at least in this point in time, it escapes me specifically what he did which seemed to alienate Catholics post...1871 but...Oh don't worry, don't worry it's fine, no no I mean you're absolutely right is there is this tremendous gap and it's also even apparent in Prussia itself there are large large populations of Catholics in in Prussia that Bismarck sets himself against, I think that's absolutely right. It's largely seen as a kind of failure on his part that this this this doesn't work and that the the the divisions between Protestants and Catholic remain. What could you do as a state do you think to combat that, I mean what what what might you do to replace religion as a kind of unifying force, if it's actually not working as a unifying force? Yeah and I think one thing I was...I would have said is that well if you're...if you are a state that's formed of multiple religions, one of the things that the state kind of naturally, I think, would tend towards, if you are seeking unity from some from cultural unity, is to kind of secure...secularise the state in itself and...or form some form of, I mean I'm not going to say secularise, that could be...that could be seen as quite anachronistic, but when I say that it's more removing that kind of religious significance or the root of the power being seen in religion and rather taking on ideas of whether it be military power where people are able to identify kind of the power and significance of the state or whether that may just lie in a kind of a charismatic figure that people are able to identify and follow and kind of admire in that sense, so it's about...sometimes it's about taking away religion as something which is so clearly identified with governance and rather focusing on power in a much more kind of...just simply kind of...when we say political, in a in a kind of 'power over other nations in relation to other nations' and allowing people to identify them that's in that way, kind of, identifying yourself against an 'other'...but that 'other' not being religious, rather than being another nation. Yes no I think that's, I think that's absolutely right and how do you do that, do you think? I mean one of the reasons that...religion is so powerful in this period is that there's a church in every parish, there's a priest or a minister in every parish, I mean religion is real because it's local. How do you think you make the nation real in a village in Bavaria? I think propaganda and when I say propaganda it can simply be even the way that the news is presented, it could be something of of very, you know, significant...of key significance when you are especially a kind of a fledgling nation state and that's because it's about how, for example, how a victory over another nation, how the the actual creation of that nation is presented can have a significant impact on how people who perhaps would be opposed to the creation of that nation then grow to develop that kind of affinity or that affiliation with the state. No I think that's absolutely right, and how does that reach people do you think? I mean how how is it that, you know, there's a military victory thousands of miles away, how is it in, you know, this tiny little village that one learns about it and one realises it has anything to do with oneself? Yeah I think is is sort of I think the spread of news is something that's very interesting because it's of course changed a lot over time. I think especially within areas where something like the parish would have been a significant means of of spreading information then the government...if that is still the significant means of spreading information where I think news would still...you could still use kind of newspapers I believe during the period to spread information and also word of mouth then, as well as that, works well, so I think it's the combination of: one, of course local government...governance is a big thing that I'm sure that they would have to pay significant emphasis on, but then, two, once the local governance and the representatives of that gov-...that central government spread the word then the word of mouth spreading that even further and that's why that kind of initial communication of the news has to be, I guess, geared in such a way that patriotism is hopefully the result, this idea of pride in a victory rather than seeing yourself as conquered you see yourself as part of the conquering force. No no I think newspapers are really important here and of course particularly important in Germany because Germany has very high literacy rates so it means you know with this compulsory elementary education much earlier than there is say in Britain where, yeah, you know you don't you...in England (Scotland's a rather different case), so newspapers are important and they're important because they're able to convey some of those ideas you're thinking about. In what other ways do you think does the fact that you in Bavaria are reading the same news as somebody in Berlin, or that you are you are you're reading the same newspaper how else might that...not in a propagandistic way, how else might that make you think you're German do you think? Well I think the...if you're consuming, and if you're consciously consuming, the same information as somebody else, it it takes away any idea of I guess superiority within within the state that somebody that somebody's exposed to a higher level of information or perhaps more detailed information, instead you're all being given the same information due to kind of a recognition on a...on a higher kind of...whether that be on a higher level you're kind of seen then, equally, in that sense, so and I think something as simple as having the name of the newspaper something rather than, you know, something that's linked specifically to a region but rather something that's more national and then you reading that in the name of the newspaper could have that impact, so yeah on that sense it's not really propaganda, rather it's the way that even the news is presented in that sense, simply just providing you with the idea that you are having the same information does suggest that you are on the same level as another states or something...It's what...and so in a very famous book the anthropologist Benedict Anderson...have you come across him at all? Doesn't matter if you haven't, he he talks about the way in which newspapers create an 'imagined community' so that one can imagine that you are part of the same group of people who are reading this and therefore your interests are the same as those as all the other people who are reading it because you're you're sharing in that and you can see how that works you can see how that works in all sorts of ways. What are the other ways, and I'm going to have to stop in a minute aren't I, I'm sort of running out of time, what are the other ways in which nationhood or national identity becomes real in a community, you know, that that aren't reading about stuff, are there other ways in which nations make themselves known and and real to people? Hmm...I think there are, I do think there are other ways, I think there's simple, simple ways that that can be made with people are almost within the way that they...how do I describe this...one second...

outside of the way that things are projected to them but I think also within the kind of the relations that people would have with each other and I think that would clearly change so I think almost this idea of you know within the past it might have been long-lasting antagonism within regions, between regions, and and that kind of antagonistic relationship can...when that fades, when when people almost not encourage...no longer encouraged...whether that just being kind of the common discourse, you know, when someone...when you may have kind of scapegoated a previous community for your...for your failure, for the failures of a certain thing or, you know, poor harvest or something like that, you can change it and suddenly when that changes and when the scapegoat is further away that itself could be a sign of of kind of of nationhood and the fact that you no longer make them...make a neighbour a rival and you kind of...so a change of rivals I think. Yes. And I don't think the change of rivals has to just be through kind of what the newspaper's saying but also simply on a on a low level maybe, for example, if a child is no longer taught to...to kind of see a certain community in a negative way and rather their their kind of eyes are fixed...fixated on other areas so whilst the older generation may not see things the same way, the children may vary. I think that's enormously important and I mean one of the ways in which you might think of states operating is is you know is schools, schools in some way but provide an alternative to churches and in that way it's important, but I should stop, shouldn't I Steve, I've probably outstayed my welcome here. Thank you ever so much for that, that was fascinating, thank you. It was great, it was my pleasure.

So it would be really lovely now if we could just reflect on the interview and...Steve and William if you maybe...could have a think about what Sam did really well in that interview, if there's anything that maybe he struggled with that and if there are any any areas that you think he might have been able to improve. So William would you perhaps like to reflect on the source part of the interview? Yes, no I thought Sam did really well with that because it was an unfamiliar and a slightly tricky source and and he wasn't thrown by that, which was impressive, I mean it doesn't matter if people are thrown by it but what it is nice to see and what he did is to show real enthusiasm for engaging with this stuff which is exactly what we're looking for, we're looking for people who really enjoy this kind of puzzle, as it were, because that's what history consists of, largely, is engaging with things that are tricky and not immediately obvious and enjoying the chase as you work your way through it, so I think he showed real enthusiasm and and he also showed very good historical imagination in being able to work his way through this and start to think about what what regimes of power, what what what ideology is, what what systems of visual representation were being used at this time, so I thought that was that was extremely good and it was sophisticated analysis too because he was able to see that you could ask very different sorts of questions of this source, depending on what you were trying to get out of it and that, you know, it wasn't...what we want I suppose is people who aren't just going to take one look at something and say, 'it's biased and what I'd want to do is to have another unbiased source that I could use against against that' and so he he was he was asking all the sorts of questions that you'd want to ask and recognising that the answers you'd get back would be quite different depending on the questions you were asking. I think, I think...I think it would have been...it would have been good, but I mean he did extremely well, it would have been good perhaps to pursue one or two of those themes a little further. What what he did, which was was excellent, was to pick out lots of different details and and then keep adding different details but it might have been a good idea to have thought, well look, this is one that really interests me, or this sees this seems like a theme I'd want to explore further and in a in a normal interview probably we'd have...we'd have actually had time to say, well look, which one would you have wanted to wanted to pursue further and we'd have been able to explore that, so it's not not a weakness on his part, it's partly because of the the constraints of the format we're operating under. I don't know, Steve, was there anything else from the point of view of the interviewer, I mean I took the notes because of course that's how it works, but you were actually doing it. One thing I would add is that if a source works well there are just lots of different directions that you can take it in so so the directions that Sam took us were really interesting and some of them, engagingly, a bit different so the animals on the table and so on, not everybody would would spot that, that's great, people who are, for example, more interested in the history of art might have gone down a line of thinking about, well, what what are the representational conventions here, which of those things you can see in the picture are actually meant to be in the room with the people, which of them are...is the thing at the back with the battle happening out of the window or is that a picture on the wall, what...right at the end Sam talked about the the goat at the top, what what's going on there? Maybe it's an astrological symbol, maybe it's...maybe it's something else...what...do we know how important people are by how big they are as well as what they're wearing and whether they're sitting down so so that's another line that we might have gone down but there's only time in an interview to go down certain lines, so that's no, that's no failure it's just there's different things that you could do with it.

Wonderful thank you. So then if we move on to the discussion about Bismarck and the second part of the interview. So Steve if you wanted to reflect on that because you were taking the notes and William was was asking the questions. So my role in the in the Bismarck part of the interview was to watch and and take notes and assess and I think if you think in terms of the criteria that we were looking at earlier, we saw most of them demonstrated in one way or another, certainly intellectual curiosity which fitted in with this ability that we talk about to speculate and compare, so the point where Samuel started comparing what was happening in Germany with what was happening in Nigeria you thought, good, that's a fertile way to start thinking about models of how history changes or operates in different places at different times. There was conceptual clarity, for example in the way that he was breaking down the different kinds of things that contribute to national identity. There was flexibility in that, for example, religion wasn't very prominent in the way he was explaining things earlier on, then when he was prompted to think more about religion he he had a lot more analysis on religion and, indeed, detail- factual material on religion that he could bring in. It's fair to say I suppose if we're saying about what what didn't work so well. I think if he'd been in the middle of his IB course he would have hit Bismarck and the Catholic church and and the Kulturkampf rather faster than he did when when when it's quite a long time since he was...since he was doing it, but accuracy and attention to detail was was good, he wasn't waving his hands around and being very general he was trying to be specific and pin things down, there was critical engagement because he was listening carefully to the questions and trying to produce analytical arguments in answer to them and all those things suggest an enthusiasm for history, and there was historical imagination and understanding when he started to think about what's it like reading a newspaper, what does it make you feel and and, again, as with the animals, some slightly different and interesting specific points like where he said, well it's interesting to think what's the title of the newspaper, what's the newspaper called, so that suggests an ability to search out and make use of interesting bits of detail which again is an important part of the historian's craft that we're we're trying to spot when we're interviewing people. William, I don't know whether there were other things that you felt you were looking for with the questions that you could talk talk a bit more about. I think the most important thing to say is that Sam gave a really good account of himself and and and dealt with, as you...as Steve just said, all the criteria which is what I was trying to get him to do, so that the whole the whole process is to try and range as much as we can so that we're able to tick and to say, look he's managed to do that, but I thought what was really important was to say that he was able to do that despite the fact there was a moment where he said, I don't know. I think that's really significant is none of the criteria, nothing there is about knowledge, as it were, none of it's about...none of it's about being able to recall things instantly, we're not testing people's knowledge, what we're doing is testing their capacity to apply what they do know and and to range beyond it and so the interview went well, even though he had to say well I'm afraid I can't remember that bit and that's absolutely fine because then it's my job to fill that in and we can then move on and discuss something else and so I thought that was a really useful example because people often think going into these interviews that actually what we're going to do is to say, what happened in 1357? And they need to remember it or if they can't remember a quote or a name or a date then somehow the interview's been a disaster. The truth is that despite that, we still had a good...we still had a good discussion and Sam was able to show off his ability to to to to to to score well against all of the criteria that we're actually assessing. Wonderful, lovely. Ok so it would be really helpful now, thank you all of you for your contribution today, but it would be really helpful now if each of you might give a little bit of advice to our prospective candidates, so Sam if you could give just some advice to prospective candidates on what to expect from the interview process. I think one piece of advice from the interview process is don't feel like you're going to always be expecting everything that you're asked regardless of how well you may have researched it, and in my interview I had no idea that they were going to go beyond the kind of remit of my written work, I had no idea they're going to go beyond the years that I had kind of included and that's okay, even if it is something that you're not completely familiar with, even if it's something that you kind of have to speculate on, as long as you kind of show that you're speculating, feel free to do so and if something just pops into your mind as relevant, even if you haven't really interrogated it before- as the Nigeria comparison to Germany had never come into my mind before- but if it comes up in the moment and it seems like an appropriate response to the question feel free to pursue it because that will just show how you're willing and you've kind of just got different aspects of information that you'd love to kind of just explore, even if it's in a in a moment even if it may seem a bit weird to you, I'm sure the professors will probably actually quite enjoy it more than you may think. Lovely and Sam could you give us some preparation, is there something you did to prepare for the interview or is there something that you would give somebody as advice now that you having been through...most recently been through the interview process that you would advise somebody to do to prepare, and I know a lot of people think there isn't a huge amount you can do to prepare but everyone wants to try and prepare, so. Yeah I think speaking to a combination of people that do know about history, such as your History teachers, but also people who...who know very little, such as you know your parents, or your just friends applying for other subjects, can be a really really useful kind of tool in preparing you for questions that you wouldn't normally expect. You know your history tutor or teacher may kind of ask you questions that you're kind of used to, whereas somebody who's completely just unfamiliar with a topic may ask you things that you've never even thought about and that's exactly what History tutors will probably do, they'll probably ask you things you've never thought about so asking somebody who's, you know, applying for a science subject...just to kind of quiz you on different things or to just get you talking about it can be a really really useful tool I think in the whole preparation process. Wonderful, thank you Sam. And so, Steve, did you did you have any advice for preparing for these interviews? I think Sam's advice about getting used to talking to people about history is really good because after all this is going to be a conversation about history, we're not your friends at school or members of your family or your teachers but we still want to have a conversation with you about history so so practice that and also people often say, well, read around the things that you're studying at A-level or IB and to some extent that's true. If you can find a biography in a library of somebody that you've been studying, read it, just anything that gives you a different perspective on the things that are coming straight out of what you're being taught at school, but that not necessarily going to be a big book, it could be a television documentary, it could be anything but but get used to the idea of absorbing different kinds of perspectives on something because that's what will equip you for the kind of discussion that we want you to be able to have. Lovely, thank you Steve, and William do you have anything to add? So I think there are...there are some things you can control and there are some things you can't. I mean the interview, as we've just been saying, could range very widely beyond anything that you've read and and should do, if it's working well it'll take you, as Sam said, it'll take you to places you haven't thought about and you can't go away and read everything that's ever been written about everything and, you know, good to read stuff, good to think about history, good to talk about it, but there are certain things that candidates can can control and and and the two most obvious ones are to be on top of the written work that you've sent in and and to be aware what it is you argued, at that point, even if you don't agree with it anymore and it's perfectly all right to come into the interview and say and they say, we want to talk about your written work, it's perfectly all right for you to say, well I don't agree with that anymore, I think I was wrong, but at least you know what it is you've sent in. Occasionally you get candidates who seem surprised that the essay was sent in, that anyone's looked at it, but we will have done, we will have looked at it and marked it and the chances are in a lot of colleges that it will be the jumping off point for the discussion so be aware of what you've written. The other thing you can be in control of of course is the personal statement which you will have written, ideally, and will have said all sorts of things in it and again people sometimes talk about it in in interviews and if you've written that your favourite book is, I don't know, Professor Gunn's book on on on on the Duke of Suffolk and and and then it and then it turns out that you've not actually read it that can be a discouraging element in the interview. You know, go through and read what you said you've done and and do it...because because if if you haven't then then then it will it it's it's it's discouraging for the interviewer and and it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't reflect well in your historical enthusiasm or anything else if you actually haven't read any of the things you claim to have read, so those two practical things you can do in preparation is: read your written work and read your personal statement, otherwise it's it's largely to do with, you know, concentrating on the work you're doing at school or college, reading more widely, if you have the chance, and talking to people about about history. And I think the last bit of advice is what was also I think my first bit of advice right at the start which is to put this into perspective, not to not to obsess about the interview as though that's the be-all and end-all of the whole thing, it's just one of the elements in the admissions process and so it will last a relatively short amount of time and then move on. Wonderful, thank you all. Thank you very much, that was excellent!

you