As we get closer to the start of a new academic year, many people will be preparing for Educational Mental Health Practitioner (EMHP) and Children’s Wellbeing Practitioner (CWP) interviews.
Preparing for an interview no longer just means researching the role, reflecting on your experiences and practising interview questions.
For many applicants, it also means opening ChatGPT.
AI has quickly become part of the application process—and for good reason. It can help organise ideas, improve clarity and even build confidence when preparing applications or practising interview answers.
But I also wonder whether it’s become something of an elephant in the room. Many people are using it. Very few people are talking about how to use it well.
Because although AI can be an incredibly helpful tool, there are also times when it may unintentionally make an application less authentic—and that can create challenges later in the interview.
AI isn’t the problem
Let’s start with something important.
There is nothing inherently wrong with using AI when preparing for an EMHP or CWP interview.
Like any tool, it can be incredibly useful. It can help you organise your thoughts, improve the clarity of your writing, generate practice interview questions and even help you reflect on your experiences from different perspectives.
The challenge isn’t that AI exists. The challenge can arise when AI starts replacing your thinking rather than helping you communicate it.
At that point, the application may no longer reflect your own voice, your own reflections or your own level of understanding.
When the application and interview don’t quite match
Having taught on MHST training programmes, supported practitioners preparing for interviews and worked alongside services recruiting EMHPs and CWPs, I’ve occasionally noticed something that is becoming increasingly relevant.
Some applications are exceptionally well written. They use sophisticated language, demonstrate thoughtful reflection and present ideas in a clear and compelling way.
Then the interview begins.
Sometimes, the conversation reflects exactly what was written in the application.
Sometimes, it doesn’t.
Applicants may find it more difficult to explain those same ideas in their own words, expand on their reflections or talk through their clinical thinking with the same level of confidence that came across in writing.
There are many possible reasons for this. Interviews are stressful, and some people naturally express themselves more confidently in writing than they do verbally. None of this, on its own, suggests anything about an applicant’s potential.
However, if AI has done too much of the work during the application process, it may unintentionally widen that gap.
For interview panels, this can create uncertainty. They’re rarely trying to catch anyone out. Instead, they’re trying to answer a much simpler question:
Does this application accurately reflect this person’s current level of understanding, reflection and readiness for training?
How to use AI when preparing for an EMHP or CWP interview
AI is likely to become an increasingly normal part of preparing applications, and for many applicants it can be a genuinely helpful tool. The question probably isn’t whether you should use it, but how you use it.
Here are a few ways AI can support your preparation without taking over your thinking.
AI can be helpful for…
- Organising your ideas. If you’re struggling to structure an answer or organise an example using the STAR technique, AI can provide a useful framework.
- Improving clarity. Once you’ve written something yourself, AI can help improve grammar, simplify complex sentences and make your writing easier to follow—while keeping your ideas at the centre.
- Practising interview questions. AI can generate mock EMHP interview questions, CWP interview questions and follow-up questions, giving you the opportunity to practise explaining your thinking out loud.
- Identifying gaps in your preparation. AI can suggest areas you may not have considered or help you identify experiences that could strengthen your answers.
Where you might want to be more cautious
The difficulties can begin when AI starts creating the content rather than supporting it.
For example, asking AI to write reflective examples based on experiences you haven’t fully processed yourself may make it harder to discuss those examples naturally during an interview.
Similarly, relying on AI-generated answers that you haven’t taken the time to understand or personalise can create a disconnect between the application you’ve submitted and the person sitting in front of the interview panel.
If AI repeatedly rewrites your work until it no longer sounds like you, it’s worth asking whether the application still reflects your own thinking—or whether it now reflects AI’s.
Ultimately, interview panels aren’t looking for perfectly polished applicants.
They’re trying to understand how you think.
How you reflect.
How you respond when you’re unsure.
And whether you’re ready to learn.
Those qualities don’t require perfect wording.
They require authenticity.
A final thought
AI is likely to become an increasingly normal part of preparing applications and interviews, and I don’t think that’s something to fear. Used well, it can be an incredibly valuable tool that helps applicants organise their thoughts, improve the clarity of their writing, identify gaps in their preparation and practise interview questions with greater confidence.
The key, perhaps, is remembering that AI works best as a thinking partner rather than a replacement for your own thinking. Use it to organise your ideas, challenge your assumptions and improve how you communicate your experiences—but don’t let it replace the reflection that only you can bring.
Ultimately, interview panels aren’t looking for the most polished application. They’re trying to understand who you are as a future practitioner. They want to see how you think, how you reflect, how you approach uncertainty and whether you’re ready to learn.
If AI helps you communicate those qualities more clearly, it’s probably doing exactly what it should.
If it begins speaking instead of you, it may be time to take a step back.
After all, the person who walks into the interview should feel like the same person who wrote the application.
Deya Roberts for CBT Hub