REPORT ON BA EXAMINATION
4AAH 1001: THE MAKING OF BRITAIN
The distribution of marks obtained by students who took this exam in 2009 and 2010 is as
follows:
1st
2:1
2:2
3rd
Pass
Fail
Total
2009
4
12%
11
32%
12
35%
7
21%
0
0%
0
0%
34
100%
2010
5
26
15
2
1
1
50
10%
52%
30%
4%
2%
2%
100%
This represents a pleasing trajectory of improvement following a disappointing first year: the
proportion of thirds and 2:2s in 2010 is much lower, and the proportion of 2:1s and above
correspondingly higher than in 2009.
This improvement can be attributed to a range of factors. The Department was fortunate in
having a group of extremely able and committed Graduate Teaching Assistants this year, and
as convenor of the module, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the quality
of their work, which is undoubtedly reflected in the results. The course has also been
restructured to make it more tightly focused; the bibliography now offers suggestions for
questions, problems and ideas for students to consider while doing preparatory reading; and
the core reading has been modified to facilitate this. Students have been encouraged to read
as widely as possible, drawing on a much fuller range of the material listed in the
bibliographies, and avoiding narrow dependence upon the lectures and core reading – which
is explicitly intended as an introduction to each topic, and not sufficient material on which to
base coursework and exam answers. They have also been encouraged to engage directly with
primary source evidence, which this module in particular strongly encourages. As a result,
students seemed much better prepared to answer questions in informed and engaging ways.
They were also able to answer a much wider range of questions, which is a further indication
that students approached the course in more imaginative, open-minded, independent ways.
With the exception of one question (on lordship), all the questions attracted at least one
answer. As usual, some topics were much more popular than others: 44% of students
attempted the question on national identity, 40% that on queenship, 38% that on Magna
Carta, 20% that on King Alfred, and 18% that on the Norman Conquest. It was a slight
disappointment that so few students answers questions on Britain, Scotland and Wales (6%,
6% and 4% respectively): this was perhaps because these lectures came at the end of the
course, and they will be taught earlier in the course next year to correct this. But overall the
paper achieved a more healthy balance than in 2009.
Dr Stephen Baxter
July 2010
4AAH1002: European History, 400-1500
We only covered the period 400-1200 this year due to the absence of one of the lecturers
on the course. Of the 55 students present at the examination, 4 achieved a first class
mark; 34 a II.1 mark; 14 a II.2; 2 a third and 1 failed. All questions on the paper were
answered by at least one candidate.
On the whole candidates acquitted themselves well, and were adequately prepared and
reasonably well-informed. In some cases the mark was brought down due to poor or
insufficient knowledge or glaring factual errors, but these were relatively few in number;
most candidates had done enough revision to be able to draw on specific examples.
A far more prevalent flaw was imprecise, incoherent or „fuzzy‟ argumentation, and/or
candidates not giving themselves enough time to think through the wording of the
question at the planning stage.
As an example of the latter, perhaps the most common case of misreading involved
question 1 („what role did “barbarians” play in the creation of Europe?‟), attempted by
many candidates: the question was in section A, signalling the need to take the whole
chronological range into account, but most answers dealt only with the most obvious
„barbarians‟ (those of the fifth-century invasions and the early sixth-century successorstates) in unnecessarily great detail – usually forgetting about Vikings or East European
pagans of later centuries. The use of the word „barbarian‟ as a strategy (a „them‟ to our
sources‟ „us‟) was also rarely noted or explored.
Another instance of frequent misreading was in question 5 („Is it possible to identify any
major transformations in the history of Europe‟s peasantry between 400 and 1200?‟),
where candidates often failed to distinguish peasants from slaves, leading them to answer
a rather different question from the one that had been asked, since not all slaves were
rural slaves and not all peasants were unfree. Answers to question 17 on the feudal
revolution also often suffered from too partial a coverage (exclusively social or
exclusively political). In these as in other questions, insufficient or misfiring coverage
could not be fully compensated even by a high degree of factual detail and accuracy.
Practising essay planning and getting used to identifying clues and pointers in the
wording of the questions on the whole tended to be the area most in need of
improvement.
Report on BA Examination
4AAH1003: Early Modern Britain, 1500-1750
2010
Of the 30 candidates who sat the examination this year 13% were awarded firsts, 63%
2.1s,and 20% 2.2s. There were no thirds or fails. Most candidates answered competently,
with a solid sense of the main themes and events of the course and some awareness of
historical arguments. The range of questions answered was rather narrow, focusing
heavily on the Reformation, the Civil War, London, witchcraft and gender. Few
candidates answered the more general questions in Section A, though those that did make
good attempts. The best answers were able to critically comment on historiography as
well as mobilise the relevant material. At the weaker end of the scale, few people
managed to answer „Why was Charles I eventually executed‟ well, most settling for an
answer on the causes of the civil war. Answers on the Reformation, in particular, tended
to be too narrative. It was good to see many answers on Ireland, most of them well done.
But candidates were less successful at distinguishing between England and Britain – the
witchcraft question, for example, required an answer that discussed the differences
between English and Scottish/European witchcraft.
While most candidates wrote coherent and competent answers, few scripts demonstrated
the originality and adventurousness that would result in higher and first class marks. The
examiners hope to see more candidates reflecting on the evidence, as well as summing up
existing historical arguments. Questions are written to encourage reflection and critical
commentary; the more loosely worded ones especially should prompt a more individual
approach. It was clear that more and wider reading was needed: the more basic answers
could easily have been written from lecture notes and core reading. Articles in particular
are recommended as a way to think more deeply about a topic. The general questions, too
– such as those on the state and monarchy – should prompt students to consider the larger
themes of the field, and reflect on those in passing in their more specific answers. It is
always worth thinking not just about what the answer to the question is, but why it is
worth asking, and how the answer changes things.
Presentation was often poor and we were tempted to ask for some scripts to be retyped.
Many candidates also refolded their scripts so that pages came in the wrong order. All
this creates a poor overall impression. Candidates are reminded that handwriting and
presentation is part of the assessment, and recommended to use a fibre-tip or fountain pen
rather than an old biro.
Examiner’s report
4AAH1004: Power, Culture and Belief in Early Modern Europe
2009-2010
The exam scripts for Power, Culture and Belief in spring 2010 were mostly very good,
and the distribution of marks showed this. Of 34 students sitting the exam, 7 received
marks in the 70s, 16 in the 60s, 9 in the 50s, and 2 in the 40s. There were no failures.
A number of reasons can be given for this good showing. The essays of the better scripts
were full, making a reasoned argument and bringing in examples to demonstrate the
points of argument. On Section A questions, which are to some degree more general
(although there is perhaps less distinction between sections A and B on this exam than
some others), the more successful answers drew on material from a number of different
periods and countries. Thus, for example, questions about whether the power of kings
showed continuity over the period drew answers that looked at the way this differed in,
say, Russia and France, and considered the situation in both the sixteenth and the
eighteenth century. The Section A question on overseas expansion, which was very
popular, gave students the opportunity to range widely and to make a broad argument, so
that some answers considered a number of geographical locations and the way they
changed economically over the period, while others considered arguments about
intellectual effects. These answers were admirable for their broad range of evidence.
In Section B, the most popular questions this year included those on the Reformation,
printing, witchcraft, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment. Section B
questions require to some degree different skills from those in Section A, because of the
specificity of the questions. The best answers attempted to deal historiographically with
the issues concerning these topics, and most saw that the question on printing, for
example, was a question about the debate concerning Eisenstein and were able to answer
with specific reference to her book and the debate around it, while relating this to wider
knowledge of the field of early modern history. Similarly, the essays on the Scientific
Revolution, some of which were admirably done, succeeded best when thinking about the
meaning of the question, how this related to historiographical debate, and cited examples
to consider the argument about whether science changed radically in the seventeenth
century.
The key to doing on well on this paper is to listen carefully to what is said in lectures and
in class, as this will give clues to what kinds of historical arguments are considered
important by those teaching the course, and, as well, to thinking about what topics are
raised in the readings and how these relate to each other. As the course is mainly
thematic, topics such as monarchical power, the relation of culture to social change, the
changing role of religion, and so forth will come up repeatedly over the course of the
year. Thinking about the relationship of the different topics to each other and the way
change occurs or does not occur will help to answer questions in both sections A and B.
In addition, being aware of general arguments and selecting key pieces of evidence to
support those arguments when revising for the exam will help to clarify how to construct
an essay in the exam room. The answers in 2010 suggest that many students had learned
this lesson.
REPORT OF EXAMINERS 2010
4AAH1005
Since only nine candidates sat the May 2010 examination, generalisations
concerning performance are not possible and the examiners are aware of the
absurdity of providing any analysis in percentage terms. Of the 20 questions on the
paper, 12 received answers - the most popular being (5) ‘the constitution’, (11)
‘Gladstone’, (12) ‘the Tory party’, (18) ‘political extremism’, and (19)
‘appeasement’. Five candidates merited a mark in the upper second class and four
in the lower second class. The scripts were otherwise unremarkable. As always,
candidates must remember that factual accuracy matters and that it is essential to
answer the questions set and not write generally about topics in an unfocused
manner. Few answers provided more in one hour than has hitherto been written by
candidates in 45 minutes and even those few attained greater length by repetition
rather than by developing lines of argument.
4AAH 1006: EUROPE FROM 1793 TO 1991
This Level 4 module was taken by approximately 105 candidates in 2009/10.
The examination consisted of a three-hour paper. Candidates were required to
answer three questions, with at least one from each section. The exam paper
contained nineteen questions in total, grouped evenly between the two
sections. Section A was broadly thematic, whilst section B was organized
according to the more familiar pattern of countries and historical events. The
questions reflected the lectures to a great extent, though as ever students
must be careful not to view their lectures, seminars or indeed the exam paper
questions as narrowly-focused, discrete ‘topics’.
As is generally the case, the best answers were those that displayed a wider
knowledge, and deployed information gleaned from across the course in an
imaginative and original way. The weaker answers in contrast failed to engage
with the questions, either because they were misunderstood or, more
commonly, because the candidate had organized revision around a limited
number of narrow ‘topics’ and then arrived in the examination hall with prepackaged answers that only partially connected with the questions; this
approach to examinations must be discouraged.
Fortunately, the majority of students avoided this, and hence performed well.
Of the 105 candidates 9 (or 9%) achieved marks in the 70s; the majority (68,
equivalent to 65%), attained marks in the 60s; 26 (25%) in the 50s; 1 (1%) in the
40s; and 1 student failed. Equally satisfying was the fact that all questions
were attempted by at least one candidate, and that answers were more evenly
distributed among the questions than in previous years. All the same, some
questions were more popular than others. Question 3 on anti-Semitism, and
question 4 on the rural-urban divide were amongst the more popular from
section A. The leader in Section B was question 10 on Napoleonic Europe,
though here the spread was still more even.
Overall, students can be pleased with their performance on this new-style
module/exam on modern Europe. The subject matter is challenging, covering
as it does numerous countries and complicated themes. Nonetheless, the
majority of this year’s cohort rose to the challenge.
Report on BA Examination for 2010
4AAH1007: Worlds of the British Empire
71 candidates were entered for this examination in 2010: 14 of these were ranked in the
First Class , 47 in the Upper Second Class, 8 in the Lower Second Class, and two were
absent. All 20 questions on the paper attracted answers, with a generally high level of
competence. The most popular topics were the American Revolution, the Eureka revolt,
violence, and the Indian mutiny/rebellion, although the essays generated tended be
regurgitations of detail, often not wholly digested, rather than attempts to think through
the problems posed. This reflects two problems, particularly recurrent among the weaker
scripts, which teachers and students need to address: (1) the failure to read and answer the
2010 questions, and the assumption that it was enough to offer essays prepared for the
sample questions used in the GTA classes, and (2) a lack of respect for the mastery of
factual information (dates, places, and names in their precise form and chronological
order), complemented with a habit of name-checking authors, lecturers, and secondary
authorities, with glib, often inaccurate, references to their views. There were very strong
essays on the British empire as an intellectual space (suggesting that those who
complained about the topic in lecture evaluations were among the weaker candidates), on
race and identity, economic history, and decolonisation. Given that this is a paper
prepared by students in their first year --- and the descendent of a Cambridge paper
which was reserved for finalists --- it is clearly, overall, working well.