Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

HAP - Empires (Examiners reports (2013 (Professor Abulafia (:forbidden:…

- - - - :forbidden: some of the essays were preprepared (negative)
      - :forbidden: some people merely listed the bibliography of the topic without really arguing
      - :forbidden: even criticises that people used edward said as a source who apparently was proved wrong
    - - :forbidden: Students with lower marks tended to be those with prefabricated answers for big topics, where a closer attention to the
        actual question would have been warranted.
    - - :check: The best of these popular answers deployed examples and case studies from papers across the course
        and displayed evidence of reading around the subject.
      - :forbidden: However, a good number were formulaic, citing the same scholarly authorities and historical examples, which were obviously drawn from a common set of lecture notes. Other over-prepared answers were not sufficiently focussed upon the question, the students preferring to tell the examiner all that
        they knew about a subject.
      - :check: It is a shame that so many students stuck to what they
        believed were safer bets. Those students who succeeded in this paper demonstrated an ability to think critically and originally, deploy a broad historical knowledge and sustain an
        argument over an extended piece of writing.
    - - :check: While there were a number of exceptional answers showing advanced grasp of appropriate concepts, an ability to characterise and comment on reflective writing and an impressive range of case studies,
      - :forbidden: far too many fell back on a form of microwave history, offering prepared answers to a topic that was all too inadequately adapted to the questions actually set.
      - :forbidden: student stuck to much to the university reading list
    - - :forbidden: The few weak essays I read displayed little concern for conceptual clarity, often putting together diverse examples lacking a coherent argument articulating them. In some cases it also seemed that candidates were not answering the question but
        instead fitting in material they knew about a given theme.
      - :check: good understanding of the concept discussed, and evidenced acquaintance with the historiography. Most candidates drew from British and European history to illustrate their argument, although several succeeded in making interesting connections and comparisons across regions and time periods.
    - - :forbidden: Candidates must be aware that they will be marked down if they cannot demonstrate that they have worked through and critically engaged with a number of 4 historians working with different approaches and on different periods, in order to scrutinize how effectively they work with central historical concepts or problems.
      - :forbidden: Candidates must also refrain from rehearsing the position of Faculty Members.
    - - :forbidden: I was struck by how limited the range of questions that are attempted is:
      - :check: Those who ventured into other areas produced what seemed to be more creative responses simply by showing
        initiative.
  - - - The overall level of scripts was high and answers displayed a good balance between argument and evidence. The best answers were thoughtful, provocative and original and
        tended to be based on readings and materials that had been generated from the range of papers and certainly from beyond the Faculty reading lists. : :check:
      - While students are of course encouraged to read, know and
        engage with influential arguments and books, they are advised to reflect and critically engage with arguments. Essays on empire by contrast displayed a wide range of examples
        from the range of the historical periods studied. :!:
    - - Students with lower marks tended to be those
        with prefabricated answers for big topics, where a closer attention to the actual question would have been warranted. :forbidden:
    - - I was pleasantly surprised to find relatively few essays displaying
        4 egregious degrees of pre-fabrication, although those on empire did rather betray some tendency to take examples and historiographical formulae from a common set of lectures. :check:
      - The best candidates were able to craft genuinely interesting essays, with an analytical line
        sustained impressively with the use of an array of examples over time and space,
        judiciously deployed. :check:
    - - At worst, the scripts were poorly written and a dense amalgamation of information which was linked to the question in only a tangential or ineffective fashion. Some essays started well
        and petered out, but many of the weaker scripts failed to set up the question well in the introduction. In a number of cases, quantity was favoured over quality. Future candidates should definitely be warned against this.
    - - The best scripts offered an original synthesis and an
        independent perspective on the questions set and sustained an argument throughout :check:
      - in many other scripts candidates were very clearly led by and reliant upon the lectures and by the key works listed in the HAP bibliography :no_entry:
      - Scripts awarded 2.2 marks were those which
        failed to focus on the question asked or which offered generalised and unstructured
        answers. :no_entry:
    - - candidates who scored the highest marks had evidently given much thought to crafting their arguments and were able to draw on diverse historical examples to illustrate their points. As
        a result, they were able answer the specific question posed with an essay that was noticeably original and interesting to read. :check:
      - Weaker answers tended to regurgitate material
        without sufficient attention to the precise question and lacked analytical sharpness :check:
  - - - Characteristic weaknesses include essays with far too much evidence-free opinion, conjecture and speculation; insufficient detailed engagement with historiographical issues; and lack of development in the illustrative historical material that is adduced. Very few essays really try to mount a discussion posing both (or even multiple) sides of an argument. :forbidden:
      - Kapila
        
        The best scripts were written with a sense of strong engagement and even passion and deftly combined illustration and comparison across regions and time-periods with historiographical perspectives and individual analysis and insight. First Class scripts displayed a strong authorial voice. :check:
        
        The weaker set of scripts could be described as superficial with a tendency for repetition of aspects that ultimately came across as ‘padding’ to hide lack of reading.
      - Berend
        
        There were some stellar candidates who wrote long, original essays, using a wealth of examples from different periods and geographical areas, weaving these into a strong argument. :check:
        
        The weakest candidates did not have enough historical knowledge or used vague assertions instead of demonstrating their claims. :no_entry:
      - Watkins
        
        This was a good batch of scripts. The best among them made good use of the intellectual freedom offered by HAP, and candidates reflected upon a range of issues and debates in the discipline of history, clearly drawing upon the breadth of their studies.
        
        Weaker answers tended to confine themselves more narrowly to the HAP reading list, rather than using it as a springboard to wider discussions. Essays were often interesting to read and original in their interpretation of the question. However, sometimes the quality of an argument was not sustained, which could be attributed to a lack of sufficiently careful planning. It is vital that candidates take time to plan and structure their essays, and set out an academic approach in their introduction. A concise, well-written and sharp argument that engages with the question posed will always be rewarded more highly then a lengthy ramble of knowledgeable but tangential historical examples. :forbidden:
      - Wlasham
        
        Weaker scripts failed to focus sufficiently on the question set, approached them at a tangent, offered a pre-packaged answer, and/or relied too much on the lectures and drew on familiar examples. Long rambling answers were often less effective than concise and tightly constructed and argued ones. :forbidden: