Blog Page 1365

Review: Sam Smith – Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas

0

 

★★★★★

Christmas may have become a thing of the past, but the music leftovers linger on well into the January sales. It’s true, the Capitalist tycoons are eager to get their mitts on our well earned Christmas pennies from Granny in their stores . However, musically they churn out the same playlist year in year out. Everyone likes a new song as much as they like the latest model Smartphone, don’t they?

But there’s something different about Sam Smith’s cover of ‘Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas’. ‘It’s just a rehashing of an old Judy Garland number from 1944’, I hear you music aficionados indignantly cry. Yes, it is a cover, but Smith makes it his own. Stumbling on the song, I was pressed against a touching and soul rendition of the classic. Garland’s version is a sublime warble. But Smith’s is a sombre and heart breaking coo. The musical tour de force of 2014 has showed no sign of stopping with this, his Christmas present to his listeners.

Sam’s angelic rendition of ‘Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas’ is sparse. But this isn’t the musicians being lazy and hoping to be home as soon as possible for chestnuts by the fire. The simple arrangement allows his angelic tones to shine out against the tinkling of a piano. His version is a nostalgic , melancholy concoction. It leaves the reader feeling warm for Christmas’s and mulled wines past. But you also can’t welling up as Smith winds his beautiful tones around the classic lyrics. He gently reminds us that it is indeed the season to abandon our worries, be grateful for what we have in life and cherish our time with our loved ones. Sam’s hauntingly beautiful number has indisputably touched this reviewers heartstrings. I just hope his velvety voice will enthral you as much as it has me, and make those post-Christmas hangovers slightly more bearable.

Review: Doctor Who Christmas Special 2014

0

★★★★☆
Four Stars

I have not exactly been blown away by Doctor Who Christmas Specials of recent years; a contention which, it seems, I share with a prior Cherwellian. Last year’s in particular, I felt, had a poor resolution, and was really unable to capture the epic immensity that Moffat intended to be the siege of Trenzalore. 

It’s true that Doctor Who Christmas Specials tend not to be particularly impressive, and understandably so. When you think about it, Christmas is actually fairly constraining; writers are compelled to include some sort of festive theme, which can compromise the plot or make it seem too childish, and, for similar reasons, it can’t be too dark or too scary.

Given its not-so-impressive legacy, I suppose this could be why I found this year’s special particularly entertaining, and certainly a breath of fresh air from some of the more recent let-downs. 

I was particularly nervous about this year’s decision to include Father Christmas. Watching the trailer, this, I had thought, could go one of two ways: it could either be a well-explained masterstroke to the plot, or it could leave it devoid of any logic or sense. Given Who Specials of Christmas past, I was naturally inclined towards the latter. 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10735%%[/mm-hide-text]

In actual fact, Santa was an endearing and well-thought-out addition to the plot. The casting choice of Nick Frost was excellent; he portrayed a Santa with attitude, while at the same time bringing an element of humour – and, of course, Christmas cheer – which counter-balances well Peter Capaldi’s dark Doctor; an element magnified by the sass that Father Christmas sends the Doctor’s way. Santa’s cadre of elves also added charm to the plot.

Most importantly, however, the appearance of Saint Nick was roundly explained as the plot progressed; the comic relief, and the obligatory Christmassy aspect of the special well packaged-away and accounted for by the end of the episode.

The new aliens, too, were particularly impressive. Sure, the face-hugging Kantrofarri – or ‘dream crabs’ – were ripped off from Alien, but this is humorously acknowledged in the course of the episode, the Doctor remarking to his human companions, “There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everybody keeps invading you.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10736%%[/mm-hide-text]

This is also where the episode loses marks for originality, however; the face-hugging crabs induce their victims into a dream state. The notion of dreams has already been well-explored during the Moffat era in ‘Amy’s Choice’, where Amy has to choose between two realities. This episode is not quite the same, but I can’t help but feel that it’s covering trodden ground. 

Still, the emphasis on dreaming well counter-balances the mild terror of the Alien-inspired face-hugging creatures, focussing the episode on our friendly, eccentric Gallifreyan genius – in effect what Doctor Who is about, and what makes it such quintessential family viewing.

It’s hard to go into more depth on this point without giving away too much of the plot, but I’ll summarise it thus: What do you get when you cross Alien and Inception? Apparently, a resoundingly good Doctor Who Christmas Special.

Fed up with festivity? Try our anti-Christmas reading list

0

Christmas. It’s here. Again. With a crushing regularity that some would argue serves only to highlight time’s onward march towards an inevitably lonely death, the festive season is upon us once more. The more cynical readers have doubtlessly clocked that Christmas is a time when a lot of people can make a lot of money by making a lot of other people poorer and fatter; an unconventional tradition, I’m sure you will agree, but one that the Western world seems to have taken to with gusto. Noddy Holder will once again emerge from the Christmas period £800,000 richer for doing precisely nothing apart from continuing to bludgeon us around the ears with a song written 41 years ago (you’d never know, it’s aged very well), whilst the major supermarkets once again engage in their weird ritual dance in which they spend as many millions as possible in the pursuit of making their potential customers cry over an advert that has nothing to do with anything they sell.

While the thought of this relentless materialisation can be a depressing one, we are here to help – just consult our handy guide to anti-Christmas literature, perfect if you still need to pick up a last-minute gift for that Christmas-despising family member we all know and love. (And no, the irony has not escaped me that I’m encouraging you to rebel against the commodification of Christmas by… buying something.)

For the Grinch in your life, you really can do no better than David Sedaris’s Santaland Diaries. This collection of essays manages to encompass illegitimate Vietnamese children, prostitution, blackmail, and comparisons between children’s nativity plays and cancer – so definitely a good place to start if you’re looking for a grittier Christmas this year. The title essay is based on Sedaris’s experiences of working as an elf in Macy’s over the holidays, and brings to life in laugh-out-loud fashion the absolute absurdity of collective human behaviour at Christmas. I even managed to enjoy the essay despite the fact that I myself was recently rejected for a position as a Christmas elf at my local shopping outlet (no, really), meaning lines such as this one – “Even worse than applying is the very real possibility that I will not be hired, that I couldn’t even find work as an elf. That’s when you know you’re a failure” – carried an extra acerbic weight. Sedaris’s book will validate your feelings of arch knowingness as you observe the foolish materialism of others during the festive period, and that’s really all you want from a Christmas gift.

Next up, O. Henry’s classic The Gift of the Magi. Nothing says “Happy Holidays!” better than a poverty-stricken couple mutilating themselves and selling their most valuable possessions in order to partake in the capitalist gift-buying ceremony of the festive season. Merry Christmas.

Finally, for something sweetly different, there’s E.E.Cummings’s Santa Claus: A Morality. Rivalling Sedaris’s essay entitled “Dinah, the Christmas Whore” for shock factor, the play’s main protagonist is Death – perfect for combating the saccharine-yet-oh-so-problematic-in-its-suggestion-of-forced-marriage cuteness of the John Lewis advert this year. Like Sedaris’ bemused Macy’s elf, Cummings satirically mocks the deadening lack of individuality that becomes so apparent at Christmas time. Yet rather than being a totally depressing indictment of our unforgiveable blandness, the play becomes the unexpectedly lovely and truly cockle-warming story of Santa and his daughter. For something properly different yet still properly Christmassy, this has to be the winner – AND it’s available online absolutely free, meaning you don’t have to put a penny in Amazon’s pockets! On that truly happy thought, let me wish a very merry Christmas to one and all – enjoy your anti-festive reading – and to all a good night!

If you’re an Arabist: Introduction

0

If you’re an Arabist, or have any knowledge of the Arabic language, you’ll already know one thing about it: it is hard. It boasts 10 different verb forms, a “dual” function, fun things called broken plurals, “specification”, how clauses, case endings, wacky sentence structures and many more nuggets of annoyance for the intrepid learner.

Taken as a whole however, the Arabic language is home to some of the greatest literature in the world: tribal Arabian poetry dating back to pre-Islam, scientific and medicinal journals that far outpaced the Western World for centuries, architectural designs from all over the middle east and, of course, God’s holy word revealed in Arabic.

 Not only is the language itself a treasure trove of intellectual thought and culture, refined and almost unchanged after 1400 years, the Middle East has long been considered the birthplace of world religion, and more recently, the epicentre of a cultural revolution or two.

 Even more impressive, and slightly more tangibly, it is also extremely cool to write (a great addition to the party trick repertoire) and fantastically fun to speak. With all this in mind, embarking on a year abroad over here is likely to be quite an undertaking, even if it is to the safest and – arguably – tamest country in the region: Jordan.

 Known for its rich cultural history – Alexander the Great passed through, leaving ruins that still remain some 3000 years later, not to mention one of the 7 wonders of the world, Petra – and religious importance – the sites of the Burning Bush and Jesus’ Christening are both very near the capital, – Jordan has a lot going for it! But rather than quote from Lonely Planet, I’m going to tell a few stories – in installments, hamdulillah – about my time there so far. 

Reclaiming my body: dancing in Amman

I’m not a good dancer. At all. I generally find that I can either coordinate my legs or my arms but that coordinating all four limbs together is too much for me to handle. In spite of this, on a whim, I signed up for belly dancing (or “al-raqs al-sharqy” in Arabic) in Amman, not really knowing much about what it entailed beyond wiggling your belly. I certainly didn’t realise that it would be such a powerful way to feel free from the harassment.

As it turned out, the first thing I learned was that your belly isn’t so crucial. It’s all about the shoulders and the hips. The second thing I learned was that it’s incredibly sexual, to the extent that, by comparison, most of the dancing you see in UK clubs looks practically Victorian in its level of prudishness. I left my dignity behind on the first day when, with somewhere around fifteen faces staring at me expectantly, I had to basically thrust the air and shimmy with my bum.

The sexuality of the dance defines the class, in a way. The class is all girls, mostly Jordanian nationals, and the class consists of little blushes and awkward giggles until one of us manages to pull off the move with an acceptable level of sass. For that second, the girl basically becomes Beyonce and there is a little round of applause in acknowledgement of the sexiness of the moment.

The interesting thing is the context in which we dance like this. Who are we dancing for? Before the lesson starts we cover all the windows with material so that no man can see. At least half of the women in the class wear headscarves; once the windows are covered they can remove the scarves and we can all start dancing.

There is something peculiarly liberating about this – dancing in such a sexual way knowing that men are not allowed to watch. The liberation comes not from the fact that men cannot watch, but from the fact that we’re still dancing like this even though men cannot watch. We’re dancing sexily just for us, for ourselves. The issue of what a man might think is a million miles from our minds. It feels like a celebration of female sexuality for itself.

In Amman, I live in an apartment above a family with three daughters. Sometimes they invite me over to dance with them in front of Arab Idol. When the girls’ father comes home, they quickly rush over to him and pull him into the other room because he’s not supposed to see me dance. If a man unrelated to them came into the room, he would not be able to see any of us dance. Again, there’s a peculiar liberation in this because it begs the question: who am I dancing for? And the answer is definitely not men.

I describe this as “peculiar”, though, because I believe that rules separating “male” and “female” in such a binary sense and implying that there is something potentially wrong with dancing together or in front of one another are not at all liberating for anyone of any gender. Had someone told me in advance that my dance lessons would be so hidden from men, I would probably have retorted that I would like to be able to dance in front of whomever I choose to dance in front of.

In some kind of paradox, I’m finding liberation within a convention of gender roles and restrictions that ultimately I don’t agree with. I don’t entirely understand how it’s possible to feel so free and so confined all at once. I just know that, when I’ve had a tough day of street harassment, dancing with a group of girls knowing that men are not allowed to watch feels like I’m reclaiming the body and the sexuality that those harassers tried to claim for themselves.

How to put an end to festive feuding

0

“Well hello! Gosh… I think it’s been a whole year since we last saw you!” Up and down the country this is perhaps the opening line of many a Christmas, as well as being the standard greeting of extended family. It is a common saying that Christmas is the time to celebrate family. It is also a common saying that you can pick your friends, but you can’t pick your family. So potentially, you might be in for a rough ride this Christmas. But, rest assured, there are methods you can adopt to ensure your household has more jingle than rock this Christmas.

Even the NHS is aware of family friction. In its Live Well section online, the NHS tells the reader of ‘Keep Calm this Christmas’ that the way to avoid the rehashing of old family feuds is to sit down and discuss them, to work through the long standing family problems. Christmas should be a time of moving on and strengthening family ties.

On average, there are no fewer than five family arguments in a household on Christmas Day. Research carried out by Travelodge, which surveyed 2,000 British households, found that the first family blow out tends to occur at 10.13am. Travelodge were prompted to investigate the typical British Christmas because they had noticed a curious increase in Travelodge bookings by people on behalf of relatives for the festive period. Britons were booking their ‘day-only’ houseguests into nearby accommodation. People were clearly anxious to check in relatives for one reason or another, and Travelodge got their answer, it was to take some fizz out of the already overflowing family household.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10733%%[/mm-hide-text]

According to the research, it is difficult to draw a definitive explanation for the first family row. Taking place just before 1pm, the second average argument, however, coincided more tellingly with the average national completion of the present opening ceremony. Reportedly 38 per cent of children moan that the presents they opened are somehow “wrong”. Failure to provide a “correct” gift is construed as showing thoughtlessness. 

The other cause of many Christmas arguments is generally anti-social behaviour, or more precisely, of anti-actual-people social behaviour. This action is achieved through the use of mobile phones and social media. To combat this, take a reality check. The notifications really aren’t coming flooding in. Instagram is abuzz with Christmas pictures, so why not make your own memories rather than oggling at those of people you have never met.

The next argument to take place is more temporally varied, flaring up over the course of dinner between 1 and 3pm. Often they are caused by the fact that Dad has slightly overindulged in day-drinking and Mum is unduly stressed over the dinner.

Of course, another factor is that a lot can change in a year. So when extended family are suddenly thrown together again, having not seen each other for 365 days, there may have been a potential change to diet. No doubt you feel sympathy with Mum when Auntie so-and-so casts her eyes at the roasted chestnuts in horror, pulling her beloved darling away from the table saying, “You do remember that my X is allergic to nuts don’t you? I hope you haven’t put them in anything else. I did tell you about this at the bottom of the Christmas card we sent you.”

It might be a good idea to pull Mum away from the chestnuts too at this point so that she doesn’t retort that the card’s contents were illegible on account of the fact it was the size of a postage stamp. More drastically, it might even be at this precise moment your other cousin or sibling, feeling somewhat starved of attention with all the other children around, decides to respond to a deep calling to vegetarianism.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10734%%[/mm-hide-text]

The other arguments to take place arise from general post dinner banter, which over the course of a couple of hours has probably adopted a vaguely political flavour. As the day progresses and alcohol runs a bit low, resorting to the eggnog might seem like a good idea, but be warned, it has been known to add fuel to family feuds and so, as with all things, drink in moderation. 

Going back to the NHS’ advice, if addressing feuds sounds too idyllic and like it might cause more problems than it will solve, there is always the British business-as-usual attitude. Just tie a big tinsel bow on the elephant in the room, position it firmly behind the Christmas tree, and no one will be any the wiser. Of course, pretending everything is all hunky dory when it’s just not is not always a good idea. Just give everyone a little space and don’t force people to do things together. 

Clearly, festive feuds are part and parcel, or rather part and present, of Christmas day. That’s what makes the memories and really reminds that you can’t pick your family.

Review: Black Mirror: White Christmas

0

★★★★★

Five Stars

Charlie Brooker is indeed a clever man. I was waiting with baited breath for this feature length edition of his technology-criticising work, and I was not disappointed. You would be forgiven for not enjoying Black Mirror: White Christmas, as the aftertaste is very much bitter, but you can still appreciate it. You are left feeling overwhelmingly uncomfortable, with the knowledge that this feeling stems from the familiarity you sense with what’s happening on screen.

The story starts with a mismatched pair: a glum Englishman and a cheery American who are having their first conversation in five years living together over a Christmas dinner. They swap stories about their lives before they came to this place. The American is the first to speak and alludes to a Google glass-like technology that is implanted in your eye, allowing others to see what you see, whilst also creating the ability to block people. This power stops you from being able to see or interact with the person who blocked you, or even see their image in pictures. You are immediately uneasy of this Facebook power turned real, and you see its dangers as the story progresses.

I shall avoid ruining the twists and turns of this dark story, because I recommend that anyone who has not yet seen it makes use of the non-evil technology that is 4oD. Charlie Brooker cleverly identifies things that our society has accepted as normal and harmless, which could end up going spectacularly wrong. He raises the questions of how morals work in such a technically advanced world, and how lonely and isolated seemingly social technology can make us. I am truly hesitant to give anything 5 stars, as nothing is perfect, but I feel that something this clever and simultaneously disturbing should be recognised as brilliant.

Review: St. Vincent

0

★★★★☆

Four Stars

What a remarkable way Bill Murray’s career has developed since his youthful days on Saturday Night Live. Although the US Academy deprived him of their Best Actor award for the superb Lost in Translation, the British Academy proved rather more discerning. Since then he has cultivated an increasingly diverse portfolio of work, often as the lead actor, for which he has won plenty of praise from commentators. St. Vincent is the latest addition to his catalogue of distinguished acting. Much though I adore Lost in Translation, I have to admit that this is probably his best performance yet.

The plot follows an extraordinary sequence of events in the life of Vincent MacKenna (played by Murray). At first glance, Vincent is something of a mixed bag. He is unemployed, and an alcoholic. He regularly hires a prostitute to satiate his sexual wants, and does not even manage the courtesy of paying her promptly. He gets into fights with a barman who refuses to serve him liquor, when he is clearly already intoxicated. He drink drives home, only to reverse over his own picket fence as he backs into the driveway, before callously attributing the blame to his neighbour. He lives in squalor, and squanders what little disposable income he has. He is indebted to a loan shark, having borrowed money to gamble on horse racing (and, inevitably, losing the lot). But he is not all bad. He has a pet cat upon whom he both lavishes affection and fine foods, giving rise to the unusual phenomenon that his cat eats better than he does. Although he owns his own home, he has liquidated his equity in it to pay for the care costs of a mysterious woman, whose relation to Vincent is not immediately apparent. His behaviour is self-destructive but he is clearly possessed of a great capacity for love and affection for others. His lifestyle has nonetheless left him socially isolated, and he is rude and abrasive with virtually everybody he meets.

Enter new neighbours, Maggie (played by Melissa McCarthy) and her son Oliver (played by an unusually talented child actor, Jaeden Lieberher). Maggie has been betrayed by her philandering husband, and has left the family home in exasperation, taking Oliver with her. She has taken a job at a hospital and is trying to make ends meet for herself and her son, but is clearly struggling under the pressure. She finds herself in need of a babysitter for Oliver, and by an accident of fate, Vincent steps in to the role, driven by desperation for money. Oliver and Vincent strike an unlikely friendship, with Vincent in loco parentis helping Oliver to confront school bullies, build up his self-confidence and otherwise socially succeed. Once economic necessity forces Vincent to allow others to pierce his social armour, he is revealed as a rather more intricate soul than he initially appears. Young Oliver, exasperated with how his Catholic school extols as saints fictional beings devoid of character flaws, begins to look to more real life examples of human good. This prompts him to take a particular interest in Vincent, and we as an audience share in his reflections and assessments of Vincent.

St. Vincent is an impressively eloquent character drama which reflects upon the nature of man. Vincent almost casually performs incredibly noble deeds as part of his every day habits. He has an immense capacity to do good, but he is simultaneously beset by some of the most ignoble human vices. These contradictions sit awkwardly together, but it is Murray’s outstanding performance which makes them believable. At the helm here — as director, producer and screenplay writer — is Theodore Melfi. As it turns out, this is Melfi’s very first feature length film. That there is no visible evidence of this on screen is remarkable. Both the script and the directing show an impressive maturity and restraint, and though Murray’s stand out performance may be the one which is remembered during the awards season, Melfi is an outstanding new talent and a real find. This is an impressive first directorial effort, and is well worth watching.

OUSU condemns Home Secretary’s ‘Send Home’ proposal

0

OUSU has released an official statement condemning the Home Secretary Theresa May’s recent calls for non-EU international students to be sent home following the conclusion of their studies.

The statement, which is signed by OUSU President Louis Trup and OUSU Vice President for Graduates Yasser Bhatti, explains that the proposals would not, “help the government’s immigration caps or the companies wishing to make use of top graduates”.

It goes on to add that, “We believe that international students should be made to feel welcome in the UK, and this attempt to pander to immigration scaremongerers serves no purpose, except to further alienate international students from the British educational community and reduce the potential for them to contribute to the UK economy”.

The proposals, put forward this week, are designed to help the government “move towards zero net student migration” in the coming years. If put in place, non-EU students would have to return to their home countries before applying for permission to work in the UK.

Trup also took to Twitter to refer to the plans as a “silly idea”.

One Oxford student told Cherwell “I’m fully behind OUSU on this one. May’s ideas just don’t stand up to any sort of logic. Everyone’s set to lose out if this goes through.”

Meanwhile, Anu Oyefesobi, a third-year classicist from the United States, commented, “It’s absolutely ridiculous, especially considering the amount of money international students bring to the UK economy every year. If the Conservatives feel immigration is an issue, cracking down on highly skilled migrants really is not the way to fix anything.

“Even in the US, where plenty of Republicans are always all about stopping immigration, no one ever attempts to stem the influx of educated immigrants. If anything, it’s been a recent worry that the US doesn’t attract enough. Also, the UK really needs them, considering the fact that something like 20 per cent of NHS doctors aren’t even British. So good luck with that if she succeeds.”

Arnav Chaube, a first-year Maths student from India, highlighted the potential financial problems with the proposal. “I‘m paying much more for education in the UK than an average UK student (about £22,700 for tuition annually),” he pointed out, “and much more than that I would pay in India. So if I were to go and work in India after graduation, I would earn an average Indian salary, which is significantly lower due to cheaper living expenses etc., making it impossible for me to pay back my loans.”

Conservative sources, however, have since attempted to justify the move. “Making sure immigrants leave Britain at the end of their visa is as important a part of running a fair and efficient immigration system as controlling who comes here in the first place,” one party official claimed in The Sunday Times.

OUSU’s statement follows the Vice-Chancellor’s remarks in October criticising the government’s position towards international students. Professor Andrew Hamilton had said that visa controls would be “harmful” and “hostile to student entry”.

Interviews from the inside

0

“Do not sleep with the candidates,” wails the Home Bursar. “When you take them to their rooms, prop open the door and get out of there as soon as you can.

“People do silly things when they’re nervous. Do not be alone with them. Always travel in pairs.”

This is not, in fact, a snippet from the sex ed class in Mean Girls. Actually, it’s an excerpt from the post-bop, hungover excitement that was the admissions volunteers’ briefing. And I’m happy to be able to report at this juncture that – to my knowledge – we made it through admissions without actually sleeping with any of the candidates (though I guess his concerns are legitimate; I can’t help but wonder if, given the nervous, bordering-on-desperate tone in the Home Bursar’s voice, he’s actually speaking from past experiences. But I digress).

In my final year, I’m one of the oldest to be ‘doing admissions’, and possibly the only person in my year to be doing it for the first time. But being a finalist (which, I am reliably informed “in college family terms, is akin to being a grandparent”), I kind of feel vindicated in being a massive cynic, and going off on a minor rant about what I believe is my new pet hate: cocky interviewees.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%8392%%[/mm-hide-text]

Now, don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that all candidates should be quiet-as-mice, humdrum little boys and girls. But just picture this:

Mr Smug strides purposefully out of his interview, his arms swinging by his sides confidently. The next interviewee is sat, awaiting her turn. Let’s call her Ms Anxious. My assurances that the tutors are “actually really nice” have, seemingly, fallen upon deaf ears in this case: Ms Anxious’ hands are nervously pressed together in her lap. Perhaps she is reflecting on the personal statement she is about to discuss. She might even be praying.

The door has now swung shut behind Mr Smug – behind the door, tutors are conferring on their impressions of him. But Mr Smug knows – thinks he knows – how he has done. He pauses in his strides alongside Ms Anxious, he turns, and with a smug grin on his smug face, smugly whispers: 

“I aced it.” 

As he marches away, Ms Anxious’ jaw drops slowly in disbelief. We exchange looks that say the same thing: “conceited bastard”.

Being an admissions helper, saying the right thing really is half the battle (the other half is, incidentally, sitting in the Lodge, sipping tea, waiting for the appearance of a distressed candidate whom you can mother. But, again, I digress).

What you say genuinely has a noticeable impact upon how distressed interviewees are. Naturally, some are going to be more nervous than others, but, as I discovered to my detriment, as a general rule, when anxious candidates come to you with tales of what happened in their particular interview, it is perhaps best not to fall back on your own experiences. In the first place, to them, you’re living the dream. You’ve pulled it off, you’re at Oxford, and whatever personal interview experiences you share, they’re going to read into it that by comparison you’ve done something right that they’ve done wrong.

In the second place, in the heat of the moment, you might just say something incredibly stupid, as happened in my case, when I was asked by a student if tutors ever hint at how well a candidate has done during an interview. My (instinctive, but nevertheless foolish) answer was: “Well, my tutor said ‘I’ll be seeing you again’ at the end of my interview”. I couldn’t really have done much worse if I had laughed in her face and told her that the tutors thought she was an idiot.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10731%%[/mm-hide-text] 

In fact, my advice to anyone working in admissions is this: If you really must fall back upon referencing your own experiences, tell them that your interview was a disaster, and you’re fairly certain that your tutors got your names mixed up and were mildly surprised to find Mr/Ms Dim turn up on the college’s doorstep in Freshers’ Week.

So when Mr Smug comes along and decides to share the oh-so-wonderful experience of his ‘aced’ interview with the next anxious candidate, everything you’ve just said to them just goes out of the window. Buddy, it’s not clever, it’s not smart. You’re just making someone else more anxious, and that’s just mean. And at least I felt bad about my gaffe: I later came across Mr Smug in the JCR, boasting to his fellow interviewees about how confident he was, and I have it on good authority that there was a repeat performance of the above after his second interview.

I often wonder how tutors make their decisions. Talking to just a sample of the interviewees from my own subject, they seem knowledgeable, talkative, and just, well, nice. In fact I’d go so far to say that, for me, actually experiencing the interviews process as an Oxonian from the inside, it seems a lot more mysterious the second time around. Sure, I wasn’t in the interviews themselves, but what it’s taught me is that there really isn’t an Oxford ‘type’.

I guess you have to trust in tutors’ judgement somewhat, because, well, they picked us, didn’t they? And presumably we think that we kind of (at least sort of) deserve to be here?

But as for Mr Smug? I really hope he doesn’t get in.