Past interview question: 'Is power a useful lens with which to view history?'

With a thematic question like this one, it’s especially important to ‘show your working’. Here are my tips for how to answer a question like this:
Think about the wider historical debate at hand - why are they asking you this question? In general, questions don’t come out of nowhere - they point to a larger point or picture. In this case, they could be referring to Boydston’s discussion of ‘useful category of historical analysis’, just reframing gender into power. They could equally be referencing the different ‘lenses’ of power used by people like Kennedy, Dahl or Foucault. Now you definitely don’t need to know everything, and they won’t expect you to (I’ve finished three years of study and I still don’t quite get Foucault!) but being able to say ‘oh well I’ve read ___ and that informs how I’ll answer this question’, is always useful. Think about a general argument and justify it, circling back to the question. Although it’s tempting to waffle and simply throw case studies at them, try not to - use your evidence and place it within a structure that leads to something. Framing your answer thematically is a favourite: even up to PhD level, people like to follow that structure (e.g. ‘power as a possession, power as a shadow, power as a relationship etc’). This can be difficult to do on the fly, so practice it in your preparation! Chronological, ‘continuity vs change’, and ‘zooming out/in’ structures are also good to keep up your sleeve. Pay attention to the words they use - 'how useful is __..?' invites comparison, 'is __ useful..?' can stand alone, although I always like to balance it against something else just for good measure. Again, it won’t be polished or anything close to a masterpiece - they’re just trying to see how your brain works, and they want to see that you can stick to a point, and conclude in some way. Think about how your own studies and historical exploration can help you answer this question. Key here is diversity and depth of analysis. Depth: try and get a detailed example (e.g. 'power dynamics between Shah and his advisors in the early c7th Sasanian court' - rather than 'diplomatic/monarchical power’), and try to be clear as to how it answers the question and adds to your argument. Diversity: in an interview you can be asked a dozen or so questions - if you talk about Victorian Britain for every answer, make sure you vary where you take your case studies from! This really starts in the preparation stage weeks before, but it’s worth keeping in mind that nothing is too specific or esoteric for Oxbridge academics - I did my Finals coursework piece on tiny painted Renaissance tablets, and talked about the colour red for about 200 words - it’s all about how you relate it to the question!Think about how you could nuance your argument, but be confident. This is the thing that will raise eyebrows (in a good way!) - treading the line between ‘um… maybe... uh…’ and overconfidence is incredibly difficult to do, but if you can, you’ll impress. Don’t be afraid to highlight areas you don’t know/would like to do more research in, but equally don’t sit there and come across as though you’re unqualified to answer it. This balancing act can also be a good way of structuring your answer: ‘this is where I think it is a useful lens, but here are ways in which my argument doesn’t quite work and there are more useful lenses’. It’s a tough thing to do, and there are plenty of overly-arrogant/overly-shy academics out there that prove it isn’t a necessity, but if you can do it, you’ll come across as likeable and confident, which is a perfect combination. At the end of the day, they are looking for someone who they want to teach - if they think you’re keen to learn and friendly, that’s a good start.Relax and try to enjoy it! When I heard this line I basically laughed at the person who said it to me, but looking back, it’s good advice. Oxbridge entrance questions are designed by their nature to challenge you, but once you embrace that, treat it as a game: if you come out of an interview feeling challenged, that’s good, that means they were interested in pushing you to your limits (exactly what goes on in 1-1 supervisions!). There is a temptation when faced with a panel of historians to avoid silence by blurting something out and then scrambling to justify it - but it is far better to pause, breathe, think for a second, and then work slowly. You got to the interview because they wanted to see you and speak to you - so back yourself! 
At the route of all this is passion: if you find a subject (and even better - a subject within a subject) that you’re passionate about, you’ll be able to talk convincingly and engagingly. Your interviewers will see that passion, and will want to feed it - in other words, you’ll be on the right track.