First things first: Vivas are scary. I don't think there will be many, if any, people that disagree with that statement. Two and a half weeks after Finals, the last thing you want is to get a phone call telling you that in less than 48 hours you have to be back in Oxford in sub-fusc to be cross-examined by a group of examiners. To make it worse, you don't know why you've been called. In my case, it was suggested to me that the principle reason was my paper VI - the data handling paper, on which I had fully expected to do poorly. However, after the event it seems that there is more to the story than this. In 2001, ten people were viva'ed - a much larger group than normal - at the request of the external examiner as much as anything; he wanted to see a cross-section of ability from the year, apparently. I was not told which part of the year I represented (and at the time of writing, I'm still waiting for my results, so I still don't know - but see below).

There is a good side to vivas though, if you can believe it: They are, as much as anything, an opportunity. No, really. In a viva, you get a second chance to prove that you know your stuff. Your marks will not go down; they will only ever be adjusted up, no matter if you go completely to pieces in the viva itself. In some ways, then, it could even be argued that everybody should be viva'ed. Personally, I wouldn't like to finish my exams and know for certain that I had an oral yet to come, but I've heard the case made.

Anyway, so I got the call on the afternoon of tuesday of tenth week. This had several effects. I was scared, not least because in my capacity as year representative I'd put in a complaint about paper VI on behalf of a large chunk of the year. I felt guilty for not having done any work since the exams in preparation, and I felt resentful that I had been made to feel guilty for having time off. I also felt angry; the viva was on thursday afternoon (4:45pm), and the intervening wednesday was my 21st birthday. Hardly an ideal situation. In the end, I decided to go ahead with my planned birthday celebrations. To be honest, it wasn't a hard decision; even with such short notice, the viva itself felt a remote prospect. Plus, bookings had been made and deposits paid for the following day. And (I argued to myself), I had all day thursday to prepare.

So, thursday rolled around, and I made my way back to Oxford, wrestling with the great dilemma: How do you prepare for a viva? In theory, they could ask about any aspect of the course, although I suspected - and later found out for sure - that in practice this would be limited to areas relevant to questions I'd answered in the exam, plus any other topics I might happen to bring up myself in the viva. My tutors suggested going over all of the answers from the six papers that I was unhappy with. However, I also knew that paper VI was almost certainly my worst paper by a hefty margin, so I decided to prepare for questions based principally on that, reasoning that if they were going to test me on basic factual knowledge then at this point I either knew it or I didn't; six hours of frantically trying to cover the entire course weren't going to help much. So, paper VI it was.

At 4:30, I decided, based on the fact that I'd spent the last twenty minutes doodling, that I wasn't going to achieve anything more, and wandered over to the department to sit and wait. Sub Fusc on a warm june day, by the way, is not pleasant.

The viva was held in the Rockefeller room, on the ground floor of the department; I was called in by Dr Mellor. Also present were Professor Simms, Professor Ferguson, Dr Ratcliffe, and the external examiner, whose name temporarily escapes me. Straight away, they were at pains to point out that I had been selected for a viva before they had recieved the paper VI complaint.

The first questions I was asked were related to what I had felt was one of my stronger essays; an answer to a paper V question about 'irreversible post-translational modifications'. I believe they did this, at least in part, to try to set me at my ease - asking me questions on a topic I'd demonstrated relatively good knowledge of, and seeing how far that knowledge went beyond what I'd demonstrated in the exam. I feel that this portion of the viva went as well as could reasonably be expected, save for my drawing a blank when asked to give an example of a digestive protease (answer: Chymotrypsin).

Next, Professor Ferguson questioned me about what I knew to be one of my weakest questions, from paper I, regarding physical methods. Physical methods have never been my strong point; I answered it in the exam because I was stuck for a third question, and it quickly became obvious that I didn't know any more about the subject in the viva than I did in the exam. However, I have to say that even though I was groping blindly for answers, the questions were more than fair; indeed, several times I was given very strong hints that pushed me towards acceptable answers.

Thirdly, I was asked about paper VI. They asked generally about how I tackled the paper - in what order, for instance, had I answered the questions? - and then specifically about one of the two questions in which I knew I had performed very poorly. They did not ask me to solve data handling problems on the spot; rather, they asked me about the theory behind the problems. Unfortunately, since the question focused on two topics I had not revised very thoroughly - enzyme kinetics and protein analysis - I was in much the same boat as I had been for the physical methods questions.

Lastly, they asked me if I had any comments about the exams, or about the course in particular. I said that I felt that the majority of the course was well-taught and interesting; but I also said that I felt that paper VI was neither of those things. In particular, I mentioned that I felt that the teaching support given during the curse was inadequate - there should be classes, as there are for the first year problems-based papers - and that this year the amount of work that had been set in the exam was too much for three hours. After some discussion - which was bordering on the friendly, at times, although the external examiner did rather sternly point out that he felt the problems-based exams they set in his university (Edinburgh) were significantly harder than hours - my viva was over. It lasted forty minutes, and I have absolutely no idea what kind of impression I made.

So, what would my advice to potential viva'ees be? Firstly, don't panic. The examiners know you're going to be nervous, and seem to go out of their way in their efforts to make you feel comfortable. It didn't work for me - I was extremely tense the whole way through - but it's worth noting that they try. Secondly, if you have time, do go over material from questions you feel you answered poorly. Don't limit yourself to one paper, if at all possible, but equally don't try to learn any new material. Keep focused on how you would have answered your chosen questions better, and trust that if you need to fall back on your general biochemical knowledge it will be there from your earlier revision. Lastly, be prepared for non-factual questions ('how did you tackle the paper?', or 'what do you think of the course?'). Oh, and be honest in your answers; you won't be crucified for admitting you don't know something - they'll simply move on to another topic - or for making reasonable suggestions that happen to be wrong. Vivas seem to be intended to establish the limits of your knowledge, not probe the depths of your ignorance!

Note: I've now got my results:

• Paper I - 49.3
• Paper II - 59.3
• Paper III - 65.0
• Paper IV - 62.7
• Paper V - 72.0
• Paper VI - 34.0

...and I know that I was let down by my physical methods question on paper I. Still, I come out on the side of a 2:1 (if only by 0.05%...), so I can't complain too much.