<p>This is drawn from a long conversation I had with a Cambridge law graduate about how she got in and what the degree was actually like. I've pulled out the parts applicants ask me about most, and kept her voice, because her advice is more useful in the first person than filtered through mine.</p><p><strong>How I prepared</strong></p><p>I came from an independent school that sent maybe fifteen to twenty applicants to Oxbridge a year, of whom three to six got in. The school gave me one mock interview and some help on my personal statement, and my parents only proofread it. The real preparation was mock interviews, at school and with GuruMe, plus a lot of drafting on my personal statement with my admissions tutors.</p><p>One thing worth knowing about my year: Cambridge asked for an LNAT score but largely set it aside. Most candidates get an interview regardless of their personal statement, and the interviews themselves were problem-solving from a set of facts, so there honestly wasn't much to cram. The main lever was interview practice and learning to stay calm under pressure.</p><p><strong>My advice for the interview</strong></p><p>If I had to compress it, I'd say this:</p><ol><li>Know your personal statement inside out, in case they ask, though I was only asked one question on mine, right at the end.</li><li>Answer clearly, explain your reasoning, and give both sides rather than a one-sided, dogmatic answer.</li><li>If you're nervous and need to think, just ask for a moment. Ten seconds feels like an age to you, but it doesn't to the interviewer.</li><li>Stay current on events, and more importantly, have a well-thought-out opinion on anything you might raise.</li><li>Don't bring up a topic, or a book, you can't actually defend, there's a real chance your interviewer has written on it.</li></ol><p>Then relax, because they're not trying to catch you out. They genuinely want to know whether they'll enjoy teaching you in supervisions for the next three years, and they'll help you along to get your best out of you.</p><p><strong>What the interviews were actually like</strong></p><p>I had two interviews, with two interviewers in each, around twenty to thirty minutes long. I was given situations and asked how the law should respond, then had to reason by analogy, would my answer change if you tweaked the facts this way? In the second interview they handed me part of the Theft Act 1968 and asked me to apply it to different scenarios. The one personal-statement question, at the very end, was about how reading H.L.A. Hart had shaped my view of law and morality. I found the whole thing far less stressful than I'd feared, and genuinely enjoyable, with clear questions and room to ask for clarification when I needed it.</p><p><strong>What interviewers are looking for</strong></p><p>Reflecting on it, I'd say they wanted three things:</p><ol><li>A capacity for logic: you must be able to explain clearly and rationally how you reached any answer.</li><li>An appreciation of policy: you should see the wider ramifications of your position and how they might shape how the law develops.</li><li>A balanced argument: don't give one-sided answers, recognise that there's usually a counterargument to whatever you're proposing.</li></ol><p>Underneath all of it, show genuine interest. They want someone who'll be interested, interesting and enthusiastic to teach.</p><p><strong>The Cambridge Law Test</strong></p><p>Most Cambridge colleges also set the Cambridge Law Test, a one-hour paper with a single question that you sit during the interview period. It comes in three forms:</p><ol><li>a problem, where you apply a given statement of law to different situations</li><li>a comprehension, where you summarise a passage and answer questions on it</li><li>an essay, where you discuss a statement of opinion</li></ol><p>Scores aren't released to candidates, and Cambridge uses the result alongside your UCAS form when making offers. It rewards analytical thinking under time pressure, so even though it tests a certain innate aptitude, a bit of preparation genuinely helps.</p><p><strong>What the course was like</strong></p><p>I loved it, and I'd choose the same subject and the same place again. The parts I enjoyed most were the logic and reasoning the degree demands, getting into mooting (mock trials), and the sheer amount of contact time with supervisors, who were always eager to hear our ideas. It wasn't all easy. The workload could be heavy, and because supervisors didn't coordinate, essays that were meant to be one a week sometimes arrived four in a single week, twice a term. The lecture timetable was light compared to the sciences, but the private study time was intense and didn't leave much slack.</p><p><strong>Would I do it again?</strong></p><p>Yes, without hesitation. I'd still study Law, because I preferred private study and reading time to a timetable full of labs, and I preferred it to other humanities because I didn't want coursework or a dissertation, I liked exams and the structure of the reading. And I'd always stay at Cambridge, for two reasons: the quality of the lecturers and supervisors, and the extraordinary access to alumni and visitors, judges and barristers who came for talks and careers help. That contact has been invaluable to me since.</p><p><strong>Final thoughts</strong></p><p>If I had to distil the whole thing: reason clearly, see both sides, know your personal statement, and show that you'd be good to teach. The interview turns out to be far more enjoyable than you expect once you stop hunting for the "right" answer and start genuinely thinking. If you'd like this kind of preparation for a Cambridge law application, Oxbridge Solution can help.</p>