Studying history at Cambridge requires the ability to retain knowledge, to understand and handle advanced concepts, to think critically, and to write clearly
Candidates should enjoy making analytical judgements. The ability - in interview or on paper - to discriminate critically and shrewdly between plausible and implausible arguments is an asset, as is the ability to think laterally and see the ramifications of questions. So is skill in deploying relevant material lucidly, concisely and with accuracy and chronological control.
Is humanity destined to repeat the mistakes of history?
What do you think of Ben Elton?
To what extent is Hitler evil?
If you could interview anyone from history, who would it be?
Can you see a connection between Britain's Euro-Sceptism and its obsession with teaching about Nazism?
Has the French revolution ended?
Was it more detrimental or beneficial to Elizabeth I's image to align herself with Virgin Mary?
Was Stansted Expansion a good idea?
Is Christianity solely about salvation?
Were the Russian peasants mystically connected to the countryside?
Are there parallels between totalitarian control in the Nazi state and forms of control in the western world today?
What can we learn from the south wall of the Warwick Castle?
Do you think the dumbing down of history for TV and in museum is a good thing?
Does history repeat itself in paragraphs or sentences?
How would one apply effective government to Mongolia?
Was Russia just too damn big for democracy?
Why do Archaelogists love pots so much?
Do you like milk? Why?
In an essay of two or three sides, discuss the difficulties involved in defining a significant social group or political or religious idea in a society or period with which you are familiar.
Write an essay of one and a half to three sides explaining how a particular change that you are familiar with arose from the interaction of different kinds of causes (political, economic, ideological, social, cultural, religious etc). Make sure you include at least three kinds of causes in your answer.
Why do you think the dominant ways in which historians explain change tend to alter over time? Write an answer of about one side in length, giving reasons for your views.
Write an essay of one and a half to three sides, applying the author’s ideas about ‘legitimation’ to ANY ONE ruler, or regime, which you are familiar with. In the course of your essay, you should comment on the extent to which these ideas help to explain the power of your chosen ruler or regime.
‘To be sure, the pure types are rarely found in reality’. Do you think historians should make use of ‘types’ and theories in discussing the past? Write a paragraph setting out your answer and the reasons for it.
"scared" doesn't even BEGIN to describe how I feel at the moment.
「Think YOU can make it for Oxbridge? 」へのコメント
「Think YOU can make it for Oxbridge? 」へのトラックバック