FHS 2012

History

Examiners’ Report
REPORT OF THE EXAMINERS IN THE FINALHONOURSCHOOL

OF HISTORY 2012

A. EXAMINERS’ REPORT

Introduction

This is a new style Examiners’ Report. It concentrates on candidates’ performance in the exam. Administrative matters will henceforth be reported separately to the Faculty’s Exam Committee and are not included. Statistical tables have been moved to the end (see Appendix 2). For the sake of transparency and continuity these include the traditional columns giving raw percentages for men’s and women’s performance. In order to interpret these raw data, readers should turn to the new Appendix 1, a long-term quantitative analysis of gender performance in the History FHS, undertaken by an external expert, which: a) highlights any statistically significant outcomes; and b) analyses all of our FHS data since 2005, in order to determine whether there are statistically significant trends over time in examination results by sex, by type of paper, and/or by type of examination.

It is hoped that these improvements in data collection and analysis will be continued in coming years, and that they will enable the Faculty to take a more accurate and longitudinal view of any biases in our existing system of examination.

Overall Performance

Just over 22% of candidates gained Firsts this year. That is a drop compared to the 29% awarded in each of the past three years (2009, 2010, 2011), though that level was itself a historically unprecedented peak – between 1996 and 2003, the proportion of Firsts awarded in the FHS had fluctuated between 15% and 23%; between 2004 (when classification-by-average was imposed) and 2008, it had varied between 21% and 24%.

The lower proportion of Firsts this year compared to last was not the result of any change in classification procedures. As before, most candidates were classified on the basis of their average mark: only a few achieved Firsts through the ‘alternative route’ (i.e. by gaining a majority of First class marks despite an average below 68.5).

The overall outcome is thus largely the result of the marks given and agreed by Assessors across the Faculty. Without taking a view on whether any particular overall proportion of Firsts is desirable, the Board strongly believes that many markers are still too wary of using the full first-class mark scale, with the result that even outstanding candidates are achieving marks and averages that are only in the low 70s. Previous Boards and External Examiners have made this point repeatedly in recent years, and our experience this year confirms it. We therefore reiterate that the Faculty as a whole must embrace the principle that clearly first-class work should be awarded marks of 75 and above, with marks of 69 to 74 reserved for work that is only borderline or marginally first-class.

At the other end of the scale, only two candidates this year (<1%) gained Lower Seconds, and there were no Thirds, Passes, or Failed candidates. That is, pleasingly, a historic low.

Not surprisingly, the compulsory thesis produced the greatest spread of marks. This was the type of examination that allowed the highest proportion of our candidates to produce first-class work, whilst also producing a fair crop of marks below 60. The results of the Disciplines exam this year were encouraging (see the specific report in section B below). As in 2010, the poorest results came in the History of the British Isles. The seven HBI papers together produced the lowest proportion of first-class marks and the highest proportion of marks below 60. This may be the area of our syllabus and pedagogy that is most in need of refreshing. (Full statistics are given in Appendix 2).

Performance of men and women

See Appendix A.

C. REPORTS ON INDIVIDUAL PAPERS

History of the British Isles I: c.3701087

Sixteen candidates sat this paper (14 from the Main School, one from AMH, one from HPOL). The scripts were of good, if not outstanding, quality: there were three first class marks, twelve II.I marks, and one II.II mark. The most popular questions were those requiring candidates to consider the limitations of the primary evidence for classic topics (the fall of Rome, the conversion, the Vikings). A question on 1066 was also popular, as was one, pleasingly, on ethnicity. Nearly half the questions (10/24) had no takers, the majority of these being the starred questions requiring candidates to supply their own examples from across the period. Ethnicity excepted, candidates seem more comfortable approaching this period through particular topics than general concepts. Thus a starred question on gender attracted no takers, but one on Queen Emma attracted three. We should all consider whether this topic-centred approach is the intended learning outcome of the Outline papers.

History of the British History Isles II: 10421330

Twenty-one candidates took this paper, achieving five firsts, eleven 2.1s and five 2.2s. The range of questions answered was broad: twenty of the twenty-six questions were attempted by at least one candidate (the six that were untouched were on Ireland, Richard I, religious patronage, Edward I, knights, and architecture). The most popular questions were on the Norman Conquest (nine answers) and Jews (seven answers), with four other questions following closely with six takers each (on aristocratic attitudes to royal government, unsuccessful kingship, English attitudes to the rest of the British Isles, and Scottish/Welsh national identities). This is a good spread, and the less popular questions added more breadth: there were answers on education, warfare, urbanisation, the idea of freedom, legal treatises, Edward the Confessor, Anglo-Norman dominance of Wales, Matilda, Magna Carta, inflation, Anselm, women, the Anglo-Scottish border, and pilgrimage. A lot of candidates focused mainly on the political but it was encouraging to find this mixed with a thoughtful and varied engagement with social, cultural and economic topics. As usual, some of the best answers were to the less popular questions.

It was notable, however, that the two most favoured questions tended to produce the weakest answers. It was astounding how many candidates chose to answer the question ‘Was the Norman Conquest revolutionary in its effect on lordship?’ with little or no specific knowledge about lordship. The scripts gave a strong impression of unfamiliarity with important modern historiography: George Garnett’s arguments were not well understood, and only one candidate mentioned Stephen Baxter. Depressingly, the most competent answers were framed in relation to a rather tired debate about knight service quotas. The answers to the question ‘How did Jews differ from other resident aliens in this period?’ were only slightly better. Most candidates lacked the knowledge to make a comparison of any depth (and two failed to comprehend that resident aliens meant foreigners).

The issues visible in these two questions characterised the weaker answers throughout the paper. Too many candidates were inattentive to the questions they answered: they wrote, for example, about Scottish/Welsh political unity rather than national identity, about women’s influence rather than their authority. Many candidates appeared to have chosen their questions badly, opting for topics which were familiar in broad terms but for which they lacked specific knowledge. This applied particularly to the specific political questions: nearly all the answers on Edward the Confessor, Matilda and Anglo-Norman dominance of Wales were insufficiently detailed and prone to irrelevance. The examiners agreed that many of these candidates might have done better to attempt the first two starred questions (on unsuccessful kingship and aristocratic attitudes to royal government). These questions posed conceptual challenges and required careful thought, but they also allowed candidates to choose to construct their arguments with familiar evidence. They suited candidates who had revised political material but were flexible enough to approach it from a new angle in the exam. Most of the answers these questions elicited were good; some were outstanding. The smattering of truly excellent answers, the healthy number of firsts achieved overall, and the range of questions tackled are all encouraging signs for this paper. However, the number of answers which simply failed to address the question – whether through ignorance or inattention – is a cause for concern.

History of the British Isles III: 13301550

27 candidates took this paper, a slightly smaller number than usual. In general, the paper was competently but not brilliantly answered, with three firsts and three 2iis awarded, the rest 2is – mostly of the middling sort. The questions most popular with candidates showed indications of students recycling tutorial essays on well-worn topics, resulting in rather pedestrian attempts at questions on revolt and peasant life. Many candidates neglected the opportunities proved by more broadly thematic questions and instead produced answers with a narrower focus, often based on personalities of the period. For example, the very popular question on whether a king’s reputation was dependent on his military success largely resulted in answers about Edward III’s successes and Henry VI’s failures; very few candidates engaged with the broader remit of the question. On a positive note, the question on Ireland proved to be very popular (and was largely well answered), and the questions on Scotland and Wales were also attempted, indicating that effortsare succeeding to broaden the scope of this paper beyond England. A number of candidates attempted the early Tudor questions, although comprehension of the Henrician Reformation was, with a couple of exceptions, a little shallow. It is also encouraging that most candidates showed a solid understanding of the period, and there were few factual inaccuracies. The question on women is perhaps the best example of the range of this paper in microcosm. The best answers were astute, sharply engaging with theory and historiography and making pertinent use of examples. The worst were poorly organised, showing a lack of awareness of up-to-date scholarship and utilising a handful of clichéd examples. Sadly, the best answers were in short supply, but most candidates made a respectable, if not particularly imaginative, attempt at addressing the question.

History of the British Isles IV: 1500-1700

This paper was taken by 72 candidates. Most gained 2.1 marks; (11.1%)were awarded first-class marks; and (20.8%)scored below 60. The two questions most attempted were those on the Henrician Reformation (30) and on popular participation in politics (27). Also popular (13-16 takers each) were gender relations, conceptions of monarchy, Stuart power, Mary I and Elizabeth, and the 1559 religious settlement. Answers were generally solid, showing a sound knowledge of developments within England, from a variety of perspectives. There was a clear concentration on England (especially England before 1640, though a significant minority also tackled the later seventeenth century and/or answered starred questions with reference to the whole period). Regrettably few candidates wrote on Scotland or Ireland. Knowledge of continental affairs was often quite shaky, even among those candidates who tackled the question on Elizabethan foreign policy. There were, though, some subtle and effective answers on the Henrician Reformation that considered the world beyond the British Isles. Overall, the scripts were competent rather than adventurous, with candidates often describing historiographical controversy rather than developing their own argument.Weaker candidates tended not to think very hard about the precise question posed, e.g. simply describing a series of major rebellions when answering the question on popular participation in politics. The best answers, by contrast, really engaged with the questions, providingsharp and sophisticated analyses of the issues at stake; it was the candidates who were willing to take intelligent risks who stood out,and gained the higher marks.

History of the British Isles V: 16851830

Thirty two candidates sat this examination. Only two achieved a first class mark overall; 25 achieved a 2:1 mark; and five were in the 2:2 bracket. This spread is indicative of the rather undistinguished quality of too many of the scripts. A recurrent feature of weaker scripts was the inability of candidates to engage directly with the questions set, to substantiate claims with relevant evidence, and to integrate a sufficient understanding and knowledge of current historiography. It is obviously hard to know why this happened, but the impression conveyed by many of the answers was that candidates simply lacked detailed and wide knowledge of topics, and had done very little to build upon and look beyond tutorial essays. In too many cases, candidates seemed to be content simply to write what they knew about a topic – this was particularly so on the general questions, such as questions 2-4 - or clearly struggled to find a third question which they felt comfortable answering. One can only urge students to use more fully the Faculty Bibliography for this paper and the lectures, and to show more intellectual ambition. As in previous years, knowledge of the early nineteenth century was weak, and there were often as a consequence surprising omissions from answers to more general questions. Quite a few candidates turned up good opportunities to demonstrate knowledge of events beyond England, such as on q.6 on the constitutional and political significance of the Declaration of Rights, where comparison with the Scottish Claim of Right would have considerably aided analysis. While most questions gained at least one taker, no one, perhaps surprisingly, answered question 13 (on the impact on Irish politics and political culture of either the American or French Revolutions), or 20 (the Whig revival of the early nineteenth century), 24 (debates on poverty), 25 (moral panic), 27 (notions of masculinity) or 28 (the stability or instability of eighteenth century Scotland). As in previous years, the most popular question was on the Glorious Revolution, although too many sought to answer this in overly general terms rather than, as prompted by the question, subjecting the Declaration of Rights to careful analysis. Also popular were questions on the law, enlightenment, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, ideas of empire, the strength of the state, the nature of the middling ranks, and Jacobitism. There remains plenty of scope for students to plot more adventurous and intellectually challenging routes through this paper, but the absolutely key thing is to make sure that the question as set is being answered in a direct, properly analytical and well supported fashion.

History of the British Isles VI: 1815-1924

37 candidates took this paper. The range of topics covered by candidates was fairly broad, but clustered around Chartism, women, imperialism, and liberalism. On the whole these responses secured safe, respectable answers. Students who tackled imperialism tended to write particularly lively and engaged answers, even if only a handful delved with confidence into the more subtle reaches of the relevant scholarship. A problem inherent in many scripts was the handling of working-class experience, especially (but not exclusively) in the question concerning women and class. Apart from a tiny handful of exceptions most working-class women were deemed to be too oppressed and impoverished to do much beyond simply subsist, suggesting that candidates were often oblivious to the extensive literatures on working-class political activity and social and cultural engagement in this period. A number of questions failed to attract any takers including those on melodrama, republicanism, railways, and immigration; and there was little enthusiasm to evaluate the relative significance of local factors in assisting Conservative Party success.

Questions which required students to range more imaginatively, and less predictably across the period (for example, questions on religious congregations, political leadership, and the city) resulted in very mixed responses. Some candidates demonstrated an inventive and flexible approach to their material and often produced their best responses in these essays; but weaker candidates stumbled significantly here. This was especially the case with a question on the three reform acts which was often poorly handled. More generally, a lack of attention to the specific wording of some questions was a persistent factor in a number of scripts; and more worryingly, the absence of detailed evidence marred many. The range of marks was somewhat lower than might be expected, with 6 candidates being awarded a mark below 60 and only four candidates securing a grade of 70 or above.

History of the British Isles VII: since 1900

Facts and figures

Number taking paper:64 (up from 39 in 2011)

Joint school candidates:7

Number main school candidates:57

I 22 / 38.6% (13 women and 9 men)

II.1 39 / 60.9%

II.2 3 / 4.9%

Spread of answers

Sexual revolution25

Imperialism20

Class and politics15

Thatcher13