These are probably the cause of the most anxiety. First, let me say that if you don't want to prepare at all, that's okay. The most important thing is to go in as relaxed as possible, keeping in mind that even if you are shaking head to toe you can do okay and that the judges will take your nervousness into account.

It's hard to describe what the questions are like, beyond "well-chosen." Some of them are pretty straightforward or simple, and they'll lead to harder questions if you do well. Some of them may, by sheer luck, be in subjects you know well. Sometimes you may have absolutely, positively no idea what the judge is even talking about, despite being convinced that it's simple.

The general format seemed to be that each judge would ask one question, possibly with a follow-up, and they'd cycle back around if there was extra time. Sometimes the interviews felt almost like normal conversations; at other times they felt like the Inquisition. But you're never expected to have a fully-formed answer ready. You're expected to reason it out as best you can, often not actually coming to a clear answer or any at all. The judges really do want to see how you think when you don't know--how you figure things out.

The questions are not quite standard--judges often ask similar questions or variations on a theme, but no one ends up getting the exact same set of questions. One theory floating around the eLounge during interviews was that they'd ask a question until someone got it right, and then change things up. Certainly, there's no attempt to keep students from talking to one another or from looking answers up online. After all, they chose us partially based on "curiosity"!

As a "calibration point,"' here's how I thought I did on my interviews:

1. Missed a really, really obvious question. Then had fun talking about an idea that had nothing to do with what the judge meant, and floundered once we got back on track. Had some more fun talking about my mental numberforms, since I'd mentioned them in an essay and one judge was curious. Took a really long time to answer a simple reasoning question, and only got it with prompting. Completely failed to understand the last question.

2. Got a simple question, but only with very significant help. Rambled a lot on a fun question, but didn't come up with an answer. Rambled a lot on a not-so-fun question, and didn't get anywhere at all; judges took pity on me when I finally mentioned I'd never taken a course on the subject.

3. Got one question pretty well. Completely failed on another, and felt like the judge thought I was really dumb. Tried and failed to solve another, and realized the solution as walked out. Got one simple problem that I asked for when I couldn't solve the former.

4. Got the first question pretty well because I happened to have studied the subject at RSI. Even got a follow-up question! Got another question, although it took me a while to understand it. Got a third question after a pretty long struggle.

The pattern you may be seeing emerge from the above notes is that it's really hard to tell how you did! Nothing's very clear-cut, and it's also not the end of the world if you mess up, even if it feels like you Really Mess Up.