Miss Zoe Allwood
FOI Manager
Daniel Darwood
By email
Reference: FOI-2019-843
07 January 2020
Dear Mr Darwood,
Your request was received on 5 December 2019 and I am dealing with it under the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’).
You asked for:
History Examiners’ Reports, Part I and Part II for the years 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016
Your request is refused under section 14(1) of the Act because the University considers it to be
vexatious. This is not because of the tone or content of your request but instead because of the grossly
oppressive burden that would be imposed on the University by the requirement to manually review all
these reports to ensure that none of the information requested is subject to any substantive exemptions
(in particular those for personal information) set out in Part II of the Act. While there is no obligation to
provide advice and assistance when refusing a request under section 14(1) of the Act, we have
attached the redacted External Examiner reports and Chair's reports for the relevant years.
Please note that the attached document should not be copied, reproduced or used except in
accordance with the law of copyright.
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request and wish to make a
complaint or request an internal review of this decision, you should contact us quoting the reference
number above. The University would normally expect to receive your request for an internal review
within 40 working days of the date of this letter and reserves the right not to review a decision where
there has been undue delay in raising a complaint. If you are not content with the outcome of your
review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the
Information Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints
procedure provided by the University. The Information Commissioner may be contacted at: The
The Old Schools
Trinity Lane
Cambridge, CB2 1TN
Tel: +44 (0) 1223 764142
Fax: +44 (0) 1223 332332
Email: xxx@xxxxx.xxx.xx.xx
www.cam.ac.uk
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
(https://ico.org.uk/).
Yours sincerely,
Zoe Allwood
HISTORICAL TRIPOS PART I 2016
External Examiner’s Report:
It is a pleasure to write in my third and final year as external examiner for Part I of the Historical
Tripos. I can confirm that, as has been the case throughout my term, I have total confidence in the
academic standards, processes for assessment and the determination of awards; special mention
must be made in this respect of the work undertaken by
as chair of the board of
examiners, and by
, Principal Secretary, in supporting the process. The Board and
processes connected with assessment and classification have run smoothly, allowing appropriate
academic discussion and judgment, within the clear framework of agreed regulations and guidelines.
Moving from these points about formal process to the substantive, I have no doubt that Cambridge
History continues to deserve its reputation as the destination of choice for budding undergraduate
historians in the UK and beyond. Even at Part I, the best scripts were stunning, with one prize
winning long essay I saw this year being worthy of publication. What shone through was the ability
of the best students to encounter a diverse range of cutting edge work, in dialogue with which they
developed their own approaches. This strength is something more or less unique to the Cambridge
system with its particular division of responsibilities between Faculty and College, and in terms of
assessment process it is reflected in the practice of classifying on the basis of two unreconciled
marks for each paper, which particularly rewards students who develop original syntheses rather
than textbook answers. This year, moreover, the overall standard was higher than previously, with
very little tail other than a few incomplete scripts. The strength of the very many of strong 2:1
students, with median marks in the high 60s and first class performances in areas, is a striking
feature of the Cambridge cohort; my sense is that in other Russell Group and comparable
institutions many of these students, who are ‘normal’ in a Cambridge context, would be seen as very
strong verging on outstanding.
This broad based strength is something to be celebrated, and examiners are very consistent in
policing the crucial first class boundary in order to differentiate the very good from the outstanding;
they do so assiduously, consistently and with careful reference to their own criteria. It is striking that
one result is a set of markbooks where there is a huge clustering in the high 60s, with 69 frequently
being the most commonly deployed mark. As I have no doubt whatsoever that this boundary is
being applied consistently and carefully, in a way deeply embedded in the institution’s culture and
following from its student intake, I would urge against artificially attempting to move it. Nonetheless
colleagues might usefully reflect on the mark distributions they award (very helpfully the board
tables for each paper and examiner averages and % in each class, but a scatter diagram of actual
frequency of particular marks might be instructive).
This extreme bunching does create challenges in classification of awards, where it is possible for
candidates to achieve a run of marks entirely or almost entirely in the high 60s, with four or five first
class marks, and a very high overall aggregate, and emerge under the regulations with a very high
2:1. Aside from the obvious issues about the huge range of performances between the top and
bottom of the upper second class, it is my sense that in most if not all other major UK Universities
students with the profile sketched above would be awarded a first class degree. Again, I would not
urge artificial change led by instrumental or externally facing concerns, but the issue around
classification does seem to me to be of a different order from that around marking: the latter rests
on consistent and coherent standards shared by examiners and culturally embedded in the Faculty’s
practice, whilst the former is the outcome of a particular set of regulations. In each of the previous
two years I have made the point that at Cambridge the bar to be awarded a first is set differently
than elsewhere, and I know colleagues have looked closely at it; I am particularly grateful for the
detailed work done which shows that there is no gender imbalance in those high aggregate students
who do not under current regulations qualify for a first. Ultimately, one of the strengths of the
Faculty is that it is guided by academic as opposed to instrumental concerns in these matters, and it
may be that colleagues are happy to confirm that they wish a Cambridge first to continue to be
different from a first awarded elsewhere. If they do so, I would simply urge that they think about
how they explain and justify this difference more explicitly than at present, as external pressures and
policy change are likely to make it more visible in the future. I would add that in terms of standards I
would have no problem whatsoever with some tweaks being made to the classification system - for
example allowing discretion where a student with a mean of more than (say) 68, who had a first
class mark from at least one examiner in 4 or 5 papers, or allowing a first for 5 marks over 70 with a
significant number of other marks with alpha quality signalled.
Over the last three years I have been really refreshed and impressed by the way in which Tripos
operates, and the constructive and engaged discussions that take place within the Faculty each year
to improve and refine the assessment and classification process. New initiatives agreed last year, for
example around divergence, have had a noticeable effect this year and the marking, which has
always been careful and excellent, was the most coherent and consistent I had seen this year. The
one area for concern which I would highlight, where discussions and suggestions have not yet born
fruit, is around the gender gap in Part I performance. This year of a cohort of 196 (55% female) only
11/107 women were awarded firsts or starred firsts, as opposed to 24/89 men, whilst all the lower
seconds awarded were to women. Whilst 33% of firsts going to women represents an improvement
on last year (21%), which was itself an improvement on the 10% of the year before, I would be
concerned about the continued structural imbalance, and would take relatively little comfort from
the slow upward trend (especially when it is remembered that given the relatively small numbers
where 2 or 3 first class awards make a 10% difference). A more meaningful way to put the statistics
would be to consider that of the women taking Part 1, 87% were awarded upper seconds and 10%
firsts; whereas for men 73% secured upper seconds and 27% firsts. These raw statistics, and the fact
that they are not aberrations, and that the initiatives considered and in some cases implemented
after previous discussions have not yet had an effect, must be real causes for concern. I would also
be concerned that there might be similar structural attainment gaps linked to currently ‘invisible’
factors of educational and family background, and as last year would urge the Faculty to widen the
scope of its analysis to consider these factors. I know that the Faculty has looked into those
candidates falling just below class boundaries, and discovered that their gender profile did not
materially differ from the cohort, so recalibrating classification guidelines will not in and of itself
remove the imbalance. This must suggest more deeply rooted structural factors are at work here,
and it would surely be worthwhile hearing student voices on this matter, as well as undertaking
further investigation to understand causation. My one regret is that I won’t be here, as an external,
to see how this crucial issues resolves, and I would hope that it will continue to be at the forefront of
colleagues’ minds as it strikes me that continuous and determined action over a number of years is
going to be crucial: rectifying action must be an absolute priority.
External Examiner’s Report:
In the first place I would like to refer to the most fundamental aspects of the process. The standard
of the scripts was high and there was plenty of evidence of outstanding teaching. For what it is
worth, and for whatever it might be considered to mean, I would give it as my judgment that the
significant gap between the attainment of Cambridge students and those at a Russell Group
university with a good history department is as marked as ever. I was happy to confirm the number
of firsts agreed at the examiner’s meeting. I was also very happy with the award of prizes.
If I may offer a reflection of a slightly different sort which is a comparison of these students and the
Cambridge students of my own generation, I think that the range of knowledge of these students is
wider but not perhaps as deep, in the sense that depth was based then on intense reading of literary
sources. I noticed that, among the very best students, allusions to classic texts such as Marx’s
Eighteenth Brumaire or Bury on progress were slightly cack-handed. I also noticed at times an
inability to place events in their proper intellectual context – particularly noticeable in the discussion
of French anti-Semitism and 1930s theories of Totalitarianism. Particularly because of the great
variety of talented historians available for teaching duties in Cambridge and partly because of their
own innate ability, these students do, however, probably have a wider range of knowledge and
interests than that of a previous generation.
Report of the Chair of Examiners 2016
The following matters emerged from the examination this year, and I would like to draw them to the
attention of the Faculty Board and the Committee on Examining Matters.
1. Irregularities in central/College exam administration
A great many more irregularities came to light this year than the previous, both with the central
University administration and with colleges, such as lost scripts, scripts sent to the wrong
addressee, other delays in scripts reaching examiners, scripts with named cover-sheets on them.
There is concern that staff in both areas have not been adequately advised on procedures. This
caused delays and extra work for both examiners and the Faculty’s staff. It was decided to draw
up a list of the irregularities and forward it to relevant authorities. In future, all examiners should
be advised to check scripts immediately on receipt, for missing scripts that cannot be accounted
for, or wrong scripts.
2. Handbook for examiners
This year was the first year in which the new rule reducing the mark divergence that triggers an
‘R’ mark (or sending to the external if unresolvable) was reduced from 9 to 7, with the proviso
that this must be across a class boundary. It would be a good idea to monitor the effect of this
change, even though there were no reports of anyone finding it problematic; indeed it seemed
generally welcome.
3. Profiling materials made available to examiners
It was suggested that it might be helpful, on examiner profiles by paper, to include the mean
overall mark.
4. Continuing gender gap
Part I results, by gender and class 2016:
Class
F
%
M
%
Total
*1
1
20%
4
80%
5
1
10
33.3%
20
66.7%
30
III.1
93
59.2%
64
40.85%
157
II.2
3
100%
3
Total
107
52.8%
85
47.2%
196
Gender breakdown based on individual marks by class:
Class
I
%
II.1
%
II.2
%
III
%
Fail
% Total
F
232
18%
917
71.2%
134 10.4%
5
0.4%
1288
M
323
30.4%
676
63.5%
61
5.7%
4
0.4%
1064
Total
555
23.6%
1593
67.7%
195
8.3%
5
0.2%
4
0.2%
2352
The board was disappointed that yet again, this year, the final statistics showed a disquietingly
large gender gap in achievement. Once again, internal and external examiners supported the
Faculty’s continuing efforts to get to the root of the problem, with one external repeating his
previous suggestion that the Faculty needs to take a comprehensive approach including school
type, ethnic origin and other potential factors that may affect History candidates. Future exam
boards need to continue to look at what factors related to exams, specifically, may be in play,
and take measures to address them.
5. Thanks
In my second and final year as Chair, I have been exceptionally appreciative yet again of the hard
work, including long hours beyond the working day, that the Faculty’s staff put in to making the
process run smoothly, and especially to
, who makes the Chair’s job infinitely easier
than it might otherwise be.
HISTORICAL TRIPOS PART I 2017
External Examiner’s Report:
This is my first year acting as external for Part I of the Cambridge History Tripos. The administrative
support and guidance provided throughout the year has been excellent, underpinning the smooth
efficiency of the examination process itself. I would like to record my sincere thanks to
(as Chair) and especially to
and
administrative team. I have no doubt
whatsoever that the academic standards evident in the Cambridge History Tripos Part I exceed those
of similar programmes within the U.K. The quality of candidates and teaching is outstanding, as
demonstrated by the strong cohort of starred firsts, firsts and 2.is.
In addition to acting as third reader on a handful of scripts (as required), I was asked to moderate
one set of ‘Themes and Sources’ essays (option vii, ‘Nature and the City in Medieval Thought’), in
addition to two sets of scripts: Papers 2 and 12. I moderated fifteen essays for ‘Themes and Sources’
option vii. Overall, this was a genuinely impressive set of scripts suggesting an exceptionally well
designed and well taught course. Both markers’ sets of comments were carefully weighed, full of
evaluative detail and explanation and scrupulously fair. As to be expected, weaker candidates
tended to treat the essay as if it was being written for a historical outline paper. Stronger candidates’
essays had an analytical drive that was anchored in primary source evidence, but also pushed
beyond that evidence to develop independent arguments. There was the usual smattering of slips
and errors, but there were no common or general misconceptions. Section A of the paper was more
popular than Section B (which allows the candidate to develop their own question on the basis of a
specific prompt). There may be a case here for encouraging stronger students to attempt section B,
thus giving them valuable experience in how to construct viable research questions - but I have no
doubt that those who teach this course have already thought of this. It was a genuine pleasure to
read through this set of essays.
For papers 2 and 12 I moderated fifteen scripts each. Paper 12 was a strong set. In the upper range
of marks candidates deployed both primary and secondary sources to excellent effect, with some
deeply impressive analytical abilities on show in the first class answers. The weaker scripts tended to
use primary source evidence ineffectively and/or failed to structure a convincing overarching
argument. The standard of marking and comments was, again, first rate. An excellent level of care
and attention to detail was shown by both markers. There were a couple of significant disparities,
but I was able to see the exact reasons why these divergences had occurred. The sample set for
Paper 2 had one outstanding first class script, with no scripts classed lower than 2.i. A relatively good
spread of questions was attempted, with 10th century England and Aethelstan proving particularly
popular. The marking was crystal clear and even-handed, with some helpful critique that was clearly
related to the grading scale (making my task as moderator that much easier).
The pre-meeting for the exam board and the board itself were both run smoothly and efficiently. I
endorse the board’s decision to include a new general rule to cover cases where candidates make a
mistake on the exam paper rubric. I am also happy to see the seriousness with which the Part I
Chair, the examination board and the gender working party are addressing the problem of gender
disparity in first class awards - thus responding to a central concern raised by
in his
final examiner’s report. I look forward to this work bearing (further) fruit in years to come.
External Examiner’s Report:
Once again the standard was high and the marking exemplary.
I have one substantive comment about the final meeting to make. I made a number of comments on
particular papers – all of them subjects for debate as much as anything. Afterwards I was told that
the examiners were not present to hear my remarks. There can be very good reasons for this – but I
would be grateful if I had the full information on this point beforehand, if only to save time at the
meeting.
Report of the Chair of Examiners 2017
The following matters emerged from the examination this year, and I would like to draw them to the
attention of the Faculty Board and the Committee on Examining Matters.
1. Irregularities in central/College exam administration
The number of irregularities which came to light this year was not exceptional, but vigilance is
still needed to reduce extra work. This year there were a number of candidates whose answers
did not follow the required rubric in regards to requirements for answering a question from
different sections, and it was decided that in the future the handbook should include a
statement about the penalty for breach of rubric by answering more questions than permitted
from either Section A or B. It was also decided that markers of papers to be moderated would
receive a clear and direct reminder of this fact, early in the process. Not all examiners found the
use of encrypted data-sticks straightforward and ways to simplify the process will be explored.
2. Handbook for examiners
The new rule reducing the mark divergence that triggers an ‘R’ mark (or sending to the external
if unresolvable) was reduced from 9 to 7, with the proviso that this must be across a class
boundary was monitored and it was again unproblematic and worked well.
3. Profiling materials made available to examiners
This year it was decided, in consultation with the Gender Working Group, to supply each
individual examiner, who examined last year, with their personal gender profile to take into
consideration while marking.
4. Continuing gender gap
Part I results, by gender and class 2017 (presented as a percentage of the whole cohort)1:
% of
% of
whole
whole
Class
F
%
cohort
M
%
cohort
Total
%
*1
3
3.0%
1.6%
4
4.3%
2.1%
7
3.6%
1
10
10.1%
5.2%
19
20.5%
9.9%
29
15.1%
II.1
85
85.9%
44.3%
67
72.0%
34.9%
148
77.1%
II.2
1
1.0%
0.5%
3
3.2%
1.6%
8
4.2%
Total
99
100%
51.6%
93
100%
48.4%
192
100%
Gender breakdown based on individual marks per script, by class:
Class
I
%
II.1
%
II.2
%
III
%
Fail
% Total
F
251
20.9%
852
71.0%
88
7.3%
5
0.4%
4
0.3%
1200
M
306
27.4%
726
65.1%
77
6.9%
5
0.4%
2
0.2%
1116
Total
557
24.1%
1578
68.1%
165
7.1%
10
0.4%
6
0.3%
2316
1 In previous years, these figures have been presented as percentage of students achieving each class.
This year the percentage of individual first class marks awarded to single papers for women rose
quite significantly from 18% to 20.9%. However, this had almost no effect on the classification,
which remained at a disappointing level of 12% for men and 6.8% for women. New classification
schemes will be introduced for the two new joint Tripos degrees this year and it will be
important for future exam boards to compare, and consider if this new form of classification has
any effect on gender performance.
5. Thanks
In my first year as Chair, as with past Chairs I have been helped enormously by the hard work,
including long hours beyond the working day, that the Faculty’s staff put in to making the
process work, and especially to
, whose organisation and attention to detail makes
the Chair’s job run smoothly. Special thanks must also be given to the computing staff for doing
the extra work needed for the individual gender profiles this year, and for the entry and analysis
of a large amount of data in a very tight timeframe.
HISTORICAL TRIPOS PART I 2018
External Examiner’s Report:
This is my second year acting as external for Part I of the Cambridge History Tripos. The administrative
support and guidance provided throughout the year has, again, been of the highest standard. My
sincere thanks to
(as Chair) and to
,
and their
administrative team. The 'Handbook for Examiners', provided in advance, was, again, exceptionally
useful. As I noted last year, the academic standards evident in the Cambridge History Tripos Part I
clearly exceed those of similar programmes within the U.K. The quality of candidates and teaching is
excellent and the examination process is conducted with rigour and thoroughness, within a clear
framework of agreed regulations and guidelines. As other HE institutions across the sector move to
less exacting moderation practices, it is a genuine pleasure to see the Faculty of History at Cambridge
University continuing to uphold - and exceed - standards. In addition to acting as third reader on ten
scripts (as requested), I was asked to moderate one set of ‘Themes and Sources’ essays: option ii,
‘Royal and Princely Courts’, in addition to two sets of scripts: Papers 3 and 9. I read (a full set of)
nineteen essays for ‘Themes and Sources' option ii. This was a strong set of essays and the top four
essays were exceptional. It is a genuine strength of the Cambridge system that it enables candidates
to get to grips with complex and challenging research whilst testing out their own, independent,
analyses of evidence and data. Th
e standard of teaching, in addition to the standard of assessment,
was obviously extremely high. It is a testimony to the option coordinator / tutor(s) that eleven out of
the nineteen candidates chose to craft the wording of their own questions. As I know from experience,
it takes a great deal of concerted effort to keep eleven students on track with developing viable
research topics / questions. The payoff, however, is immense in terms of giving those students
valuable experience of crafting an independent research question in Part I - preparing them for the
demands of Part II. Both markers’ sets of comments were detailed and meticulous. There were a
number of essays where the marks diverged widely, but in most cases it was obvious why these
divergences had occurred.
For papers 3 and 9 I moderated fifteen and twelve scripts respectively. Paper 3 was an excellent set.
There were no obviously weak (2.ii or below) scripts in the sample that I looked at. In the upper range
of marks candidates demonstrated an excellent level of knowledge of both primary and secondary
sources. The standard of marking and the care taken in providing evaluative comments was excellent
throughout, with clear justifications given for marks awarded. The practice of trying to reconcile marks
to within a set number of points of each other makes eminent sense and works well. It would be
useful, however, from an external examiner's point of view, to have just a brief sentence from the
examiner / assessor explaining how a given 'R' mark had been arrived at.
The sample set for Paper 9 also suggested a very high standard in both student ability and teaching. A
good spread of questions was attempted. The marking was exceptionally careful and balanced, and I
could see a clear correlation between the marking scale and awarded grades. On three scripts within
my sample set, the grades given by the examiner and assessor differed by a class - with justifications
clearly laid out in the comments.
The pre-meeting for the exam board and the board itself were run with exceptional efficiency and
included a number of constructive discussions around how to improve and refine the assessment and
classification process. There was one case of plagiarism reported to the board, which was obviously
handled in a timely, fair and balanced manner. As discussed at the pre-meeting, the board may like to
consider adding a compulsory on-line element to the students’ ‘Good Academic Practice’ training
(thus, perhaps, getting around any problems associated with having to maintain hand-written
attendance lists?). The board also noted the ‘baggy-ness’ of the 2:i classification, namely the fact that
there can be a huge qualitative difference between a ‘high’ and ‘low’ 2.1 script - but both result in the
same award. This is, of course, a sector-wide challenge and Cambridge is not alone in currently
conducting a review of its degree classifications.
Finally, I would like to commend the Part I Chair and examination board for the seriousness with which
they continue to address the problem of gender disparity within classification bands (in particular, this
year, with reference to both 1st and 2.ii awards). The 1st class results this year indicate an
improvement in the male:female ratio, but - as everyone is fully aware - there remains more work to
be done.
External Examiner’s Report:
This is my final report as external examiner for History. In summary, the standard was excellent and
there was evidence of superb teaching.
Report of the Chair of Examiners:
The following matters emerged from the examination this year, and I would like to draw them to the
attention of the Faculty Board and the Committee on Examining Matters.
1.
Irregularities in central/College exam administration
There were no notable irregularities which came to light this year and the use of encrypted
data-sticks worked well.
2.
Turnitin
This year Turnitin identified one themes and sources essay where it was deemed necessary to
investigate further with the involvement of the Senior Proctor. This investigation concluded
that there was no deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage in the examination, and
instead the essay was marked down for poor scholarly practice. However the Proctors made
a recommendation that attendance be kept at the faculty’s study skills session to ensure that
all students attended, in addition to the declaration that all first years are required to sign.
3.
Handbook for examiners
The new penalty for breaches of rubric set out in the Examiners’ Handbook seem to have
worked well as none occurred this year.
4.
Profiling materials made available to examiners
This year the practice of supplying each individual examiner, who examined last year or the
year before, with their personal gender profile to take into consideration while marking was
continued and will be continued in future years.
5.
Gender gap
Part I results, by gender and class 2018 (presented as a percentage of the whole cohort):
%
of
% of whole
Class
F
%
M
%
whole
Total
%
cohort
cohort
*1
2
2.0%
1.0%
4
4.3%
2.1%
6
3.1%
1
14
14.1%
7.3%
18
19.6% 9.4%
32
16.8%
II.1
79
79.8%
41.4%
69
75.0% 36.1%
148
77.5%
II.2
4
4.0%
2.1%
1
1.1%
0.5%
5
2.6%
Total
99
100%
51.80%
92
100%
48.20%
191
100%
Gender breakdown based on individual marks per script, by class:
Total
I
%
II.1
%
II.2
%
III
%
F
267
22.6%
817
69.0%
94
7.9%
6
0.5%
1184
M
331
30.0%
692
62.7%
76
6.9%
5
0.5%
1104
Total
598
26.10%
1509 66.0%
170
7.4%
11
0.5%
2288
This year the percentage of first class marks awarded to women continued to rise. Individual
first class marks awarded to single papers rose from 20.9% in 2017 to 22.6% and from 18% in
2016. More significantly, this year the percentage of female candidates awarded firsts rose
from 13.1% in 2017 to 16.1%, and the gender gap between female and male firsts awarded
was reduced from 12% to 8%. Although this is certainly welcome, the gender gap remains
large and the Gender Working Party will continue its investigation of different forms of
classification.
6.
Thanks
This year as always I have been helped enormously by the hard work, including long hours
beyond the working day, that the Faculty’s staff put in to making the process work. After
serving for many years
stepped down as Part I Secretary and was replaced by
who did an excellent job in her first year. Special thanks must also be given to
the computing staff for doing the extra work needed for the individual gender profiles this
year, and for the entry and analysis of a large amount of data in a very tight timeframe.
HISTORICAL TRIPOS PART I 2019
External Examiner’s Report:
This is my third and final year acting as external for Part I of the Cambridge History Tripos. My sincere
thanks to the (new) Part I Chair
and to
and
administrative team
for their support and guidance throughout the year. There were a couple of minor issues in the final run-
up to the exam board, completely understandable given the incredibly pressured exam timetable, but the
process itself is robust, rigorous and functioning smoothly. The academic standards evident in the
Cambridge History Tripos Part I clearly exceed those of similar programmes across the U.K and the
examination process operates within a clear framework of agreed regulations and guidelines.
In addition to acting as third reader on four scripts, plus advising on a number of borderline classifications
and potential rubric infringements, I was asked to moderate one set of ‘Themes and Sources' essays
(option i) and two sets of scripts: Papers 14 and 19. I read a full set of eleven essays for 'Themes and
Sources' option i. This was a strong set of essays, with a number of candidates taking up the invitation to
craft their own question around a one-word ‘prompt (under the guidance of their supervisor). As noted
last year, the ‘Themes and Sources’ papers are an excellent way of preparing candidates for the
challenges of Part II, enabling them to get to grips with complex and challenging research topics whilst
testing out their own, independent, analyses of evidence and data. The standard of assessment for
Themes and Sources Option (i) was extremely high, with full sets of careful and meticulous comments
from both the examiner and assessor. There were a number of essays where the two marks diverged
across class boundaries, but it was obvious why these differences had occurred. For papers 14 and 19 I
moderated eleven and twelve scripts respectively. Paper 14 was an excellent set of scripts. The standard
of marking and the care taken in providing evaluative comments was impressive, with clear justifications
given for marks awarded. My set of Paper 19 scripts showed a very good spread of attempted questions
across the exam paper. The marking was exceptionally careful and detailed. In the upper range of marks,
candidates demonstrated an exceptional level of knowledge of primary source material. Finally, all of the
examiners and assessors for papers 1(i), 14 and 19 should be praised for their efforts in reconciling marks
to within the required range (i.e., no more than a seven point divergence). This year, in contrast to last, it
was crystal clear how and why all ‘R’ grades had been arrived at - thus addressing my main
recommendation from last year.
The pre-meeting for the exam board and the board itself were run efficiently and – as in previous years -
included a number of constructive discussions around how to improve and refine the assessment and
classification process. The Faculty / University process for detecting and handling potential cases of
plagiarism is running efficiently; likewise, the new practice of applying standardized penalties for late
submission of Paper 1 essays. The one-off difficulty with the administration of the exam for Paper 20 was
dealt with rigorously and robustly by the relevant examiners and especially by the Part I Chair. I am
satisfied, as external examiner, that every measure has been undertaken to ensure that the no candidate
was adversely affected in terms of their Paper 20 / overall class result. It is a pleasure to note that an
almost perfect correlation between the male:female percentage ratio and class results was achieved
across this year’s Part I cohort. As I know from my work as external over the last three years, this year’s
gender parity is the result of a focused, sustained and collaborative effort. The Faculty should
congratulate itself on achieving this important milestone – the challenge now, of course, will be to
maintain this gender parity in Part I results throughout the years to come.
External Examiner’s Report:
This was my first year as external and I would like to start by thanking
and
for
their help in guiding me through Cambridge’s practices and procedures, and
in particular for his
hospitality.
I moderated three papers: Themes and Sources (Conversion); Paper 4 (British Political History 1485-
1714); and Paper 17 European History 1715-1890. I was asked to adjudicate on 21 scripts where there
were irreconcilable differences between the two internal markers.
Overall, the process worked well and it was pleasing to read high quality work by the students. I found
the most interesting and innovative work to be in the Themes and Sources paper, a point to which I will
return later, where students evidently relished the freedom and scope to explore a topic of their
choosing in some depth. The standards achieved at Cambridge were comparable with other UK
institutions and the examination process was conducted fairly and in line with internal policies and
regulations.
Inevitably, though, particularly as a new examiner, there were aspects of the process and assessment
structure that struck me as worthy of some comment.
1. Process:
There was a troubling report from the Chair of the Exam Board that a question on a paper had been
replaced
during an exam in response to a student complaint. Clearly this is an unacceptable practice. The
Chair handled the issue well, asking the internal examiners to scrutinise all candidates who could
potentially have been affected, and fortunately it was found that the incident had not materially affected
the degree classification of any student.
There was also a significant hitch at the beginning of the Exam Board, when it appeared that a number of
students had not been included on the final grid of marks. Again, the Chair handled the situation as best
he could but the process by which student data reaches the final grid should be reviewed for next year.
The only scripts I received prior to my arrival in Cambridge (on the night before the prelim board) were
those for Themes and Sources, which meant that I had a large amount of reading to do in a short space of
time. I understand that the constraints of the exam timetable meant that it was impossible for me to be
sent any exam scripts at an earlier stage, so I would put in a heartfelt plea that the exam/marking
schedule is altered slightly so that the externals can see more scripts prior to the exam meetings and
hence perform their moderating function more easily.
There was very little reference in the comments made by internal examiners to the marking guidelines.
This is more than just a box-ticking exercise, since it could help markers decide on the right mark. For
example, on one adjudication script a marker gave 43 for a two-sentence answer, even though that
clearly fits the fail descriptor of ‘Work which makes no attempt to develop a sustained argument’. I would
encourage more reference to the guidelines, especially where internals are unsure about the mark.
Marks tended to bunch in the 65-72 range and I would encourage markers to make greater use of the
marking range. I appreciate that the aggregate makes no difference to the final outcome (apart from
starred firsts), but it would be good to see more use of the upper range of marks – there were a number
of instances on the Themes and Sources paper where higher marks could have been awarded.
There was a variance between the practices of the Part One and Finals boards about which mark, in cases
of adjudication, should be retained (either the one nearest the third mark, or the higher of the two
original marks). I would strongly urge that a single policy is adopted across the two parts of the
assessment, for the sake of coherence and clarity. The current Part One policy (taking the mark nearest
the third mark) seems to me to be the better of the two but that is for the Faculty to decide.
It wasn’t clear to me how a revised mark, agreed between the two internals, had been arrived at. Some
comment from one or other of the internals would be useful.
It was excellent to see that the gender balance for part one classifications was almost exact and the
Faculty is to be congratulated on this, since I gather that efforts have been made to ensure this over
recent years. In the light of a recent RHS report on inequalities for ethnicities and the University’s
widening participation agenda, I would now strongly encourage the Faculty to examine performance in
relation to BAME students and students from different school backgrounds.
2. Structure of assessment:
As noted above, I thought the standard of work in the Themes and Sources paper was generally much
higher than that produced in the exams and I would encourage the Faculty to think about the balance of
assessment, which is currently out of line with other UK institutions where at least 50% is assessed
coursework. Clearly exams are a time-honoured and valuable part of assessment at Cambridge and I
certainly think they should continue to have a very important place; but they do not assess the whole
range of skills that students gain or hone during their studies and arguably favour a certain set of skills
over all others. It would be interesting, for example, to compare results in Themes and Skills, which
clearly assesses research skills far more effectively than an exam, with those achieved on other papers,
since I saw at least some students who did far better on Paper 1 than on the exam-focused others. I
would recommend consideration of moving towards a more mixed economy of assessment patterns. I
heard, in conversation with colleagues, that there may be movement in that direction and if so, I would
strongly encourage it.
Most other institutions now routinely offer exam feedback to students and, especially (though not only) if
the Faculty retains the very strong emphasis on exams, this seems a helpful innovation that can only
assist students approach their final year. Such feedback can be relatively painless for markers if their
comments are recorded in a way that is presentable to students. In my experience, this does not
prejudice the robustness of the process, and feedback can be revised to reflect the resolution of any
disagreement between markers (which would also address a point raised earlier). The feedback needs, of
course, to be done in a structured way, showing students what they did well but also how to improve,
and this is perhaps best done at the beginning of the next academic year, though practice across
universities varies.
3. Moderated papers
Themes and Sources (Conversion): I saw some really excellent work, equal perhaps to final year
dissertations at times. I could see students stretching themselves in a way that they were able to do far
less frequently in exams. So this paper is clearly a very valuable alternative form of assessment.
Examiners’ comments often mentioned skimpy bibliographies. This suggests that more guidance needs to
be given to the students about this. On occasion I also felt that students needed more guidance with the
choice of their title – some didn’t have a sharp enough question.
Answers on paper 4 had very little historiographical framing. I gather, in conversation, that this may have
been in response to the views of a previous internal examiner who had let it be known that ‘name-
dropping’ should be avoided. There may be a case for reminding students of the guidelines on this issue
which do clearly require an engagement with secondary literature. I also understand that the scope of
the paper is being changed and I would welcome this, since I felt that at times students were able to
answer the paper based on quite narrow knowledge and were often overly-reliant on A level material.
Given that the paper is taught early in a student’s career, there is a good case for signalling the difference
between A level and University approaches through a redesigned paper.
Answers on Paper 17 also sometimes lacked an adequate historiographical/conceptual framing – in
response to a question about Enlightened Absolutism I saw a couple of papers which only invoked the
1975 work of Betty Behrens and seemed unaware of more recent debates, though this was not true
across the board and some students did have a good conceptual framework derived from scholarship
over the last thirty years. More generally, the paper’s focus is on Europe but it did seem to me that
Europe might be treated in a more expansive way, at least to examine more of the margins of Europe and
the interactions between Europe and the wider world - but perhaps that encroaches on Papers 21/22
(which seem to have to carry a huge amount of weight, given the vast increase in the amount of
literature in their fields, let alone that which connects both Britain and Europe to imperial contexts)?
I hope these are useful comments and I look forward to hearing the Faculty’s response to them.
**********************************************************************************
*******
Report of the Chair of Examiners 2019
The following matters emerged from the examination this year, and I would like to draw them to the
attention of the Faculty Board and the Committee on Examining Matters.
1.
Irregularities in College exam administration
I received complaints from examiners that a script sat by a candidate in College had been typed up
without the examiners having requested that it be typed. On further investigation, it transpired that this
was due to an intervention by the DRC. Efforts need to be made to ensure that, in circumstances such as
these, the Faculty is informed in advance.
2.
Irregularities in the examination process
A major irregularity occurred with respect to the conduct of one of the Political Thought papers (Paper
20). At the start of the examination, a candidate complained that there was no question on a topic on
which there was supposed to be one. Rather than simply over-riding the complaint and allowing the
examination to proceed normally (and the candidate to complain down the line), the examiner present
decided, in consultation with the Proctors, to remove an existing question and insert a new one. This
inevitably caused considerable disruption, not least because it took some time for the information to
reach Colleges. None of this should have been allowed to happen and, as a former Proctor, I still do not
understand how the Proctors agreed to it. I am uncomfortable with the idea that candidates should be
able to expect topics with such a degree of specificity. But more seriously, as I made clear to the
examiners and re-iterated to the Board, once a paper has been agreed by the Board, it becomes the
property of the Board, and is not to be altered or tampered with save to emend typographical errors.
Examination papers must not be re-written in the Examination Hall.
As I say, none of this should have happened. Thereafter, however, the examiners were scrupulous in
scrutinising the scripts of all candidates taking this paper to see if any showed signs of having been
adversely affected by the disruption. The marks of all candidates for this Paper were scrutinised further
by the Chair and External Examiners. No candidate was found to have been significantly disadvantaged by
what had transpired, and subsequent claims to the contrary by individual candidates were rejected by
the University.
3.
Irregularities in Faculty exam administration
At the start of the final meeting of the Board, it transpired that several candidates had been entirely
omitted from the markbook, whilst others were listed as having been entered for papers which they had
not, in fact, taken. As a result, an entirely new markbook had to be generated, printed and re-checked.
This caused considerable delay and disruption, and also meant that there were candidates whom the
Chair and External Examiners had not been able to discuss at the pre-Meet. Even once that was sorted
out, it soon became clear that, even in the new markbook, the marks for scripts that had been
moderated or re-marked by virtue of examiners having been unable to reconcile their initial marks
satisfactorily, had been entered in a haphazard manner, requiring correction. As a result, all of these
marks had to be checked, leading to further delay. I have never been provided with any satisfactory
explanation as to how any of this happened, and the Academic Secretary should look into it as a matter
of urgency.
With respect to the pre-Meet itself, I was somewhat surprised to find, as a new Chair, that I was provided
with no guidance as to how it was to be conducted. A ‘crib sheet’ should be produced for Examination
Board Chairs setting out how such meetings are to proceed: I had to rely on the memory of one of the
External Examiners.
4.
Turnitin
This year Turnitin identified one themes and sources essay for which the candidate was deemed guilty of
‘poor academic practice.’ A penalty was applied, although this made no difference to the candidate’s
ultimate classification.
5.
Late submission
The new penalty for late submission of themes and sources work appears to have operated well.
Penalties were applied for late submission, although in no case did it affect the candidate’s ultimate
classification.
6.
Handbook for examiners
I received complaints from examiners that they had been sent instructions from the Faculty, over and
above those set out in the handbook, as to how they should examine scripts (in this instance, so as to
avoid gender bias). The view was strongly expressed that instructions to and guidelines for examiners
should be limited to the handbook, and others should not interpose.
7.
Profiling materials made available to examiners
This year the practice of supplying each individual examiner, who examined last year or the year before,
with their personal gender profile to take into consideration while marking was continued and will be
continued in future years.
8.
Gender gap
This year, the figures presented to the Board revealed that there was no significant difference in the
overall performance of male and female candidates in terms of classification
Part I results, by gender and class 2019 (presented as a percentage of the whole cohort):
Class
F
%
% of
M
%
% of
Total
%
whole
whole
cohort
cohort
*I
2
2.1%
1.1%
2
2.4%
1.1%
4
2.2%
I
19
19.6%
10.6%
19
23.2%
10.6%
38
21.2%
II.1
75
77.3%
41.9%
60
73.2%
33.5%
135
75.4%
II.2
1
1.0%
0.6%
1
0.6%
III
1
1.2%
0.6%
1
0.6%
Total
97 100.0%
54.2%
82
100.0% 45.8%
179 100.0%
Gender breakdown based on individual marks per script, by class:
I
%
II.1
%
II.2
%
III
%
Fail
%
Total
F
310
26.7%
788
67.9%
59
5.1%
3
0.3%
1160
M
316
32.0%
618
62.6%
48
4.9%
2
0.2%
4
0.4%
988
Total
626 29.1%
1406 65.5%
107 5.0%
5 0.2%
4 0.2%
2148
This is excellent news. I am strongly of the opinion that we now need to expand our scope to include
analysis of the performance of BAME students, and students from different school and, especially, social
backgrounds.
9.
‘Third marks’
At the start of the final meeting of the Board, we were informed that the Part II Board had decided to
change the way it dealt with ‘third marks’ resulting from moderation or the inability of examiners to
reconcile. Rather than keeping the original mark closest to the third mark provided by an External or
other examiner, the Part II Board had decided that the highest of the original two marks should always be
retained. We were invited to follow suit, but declined on the grounds that we simply regarded this as a
means of achieving grade inflation. Obviously, an agreed position needs to be established or (preferably)
reverted to. It should be noted that the errors in the Part I markbook concerning ‘third marks’ were
not simply the result of following the new procedures adopted by the Part II Board.
10.
Examination Timetable
The credibility of our examination process depends, to a considerable extent, on the ability of our
External Examiners to moderate effectively. The extraordinarily short period of time which the External
Examiners had to moderate the scripts with which they were presented placed an almost intolerable
burden on them. We probably need to start our examinations earlier.
11. Thanks
This year, I have been helped enormously by the hard work, including long hours beyond the working
day, that the Faculty’s staff put in to making the process work. Particular thanks are due to
and those involved in the final number crunching on the day. As a new Chair, I was also especially grateful
to the External Examiners for their assistance and forbearance.
EXAMINERS' REPORT: PART II OF THE HISTORICAL TRIPOS, 2016
External Examiner’s Report
This was my final year serving as an external examiner for Part II of the History Tripos.
As in previous years the examination process was undertaken with care and collegiality by all
concerned. The meeting of the examination board and the pre-meeting was serviced and
administered efficiently by
and the whole process was overseen by the chair of
the board,
, who acted throughout with efficiency and good humour.
Examiners this year attended more consistently to the marking conventions and remembered to
indicate with asterisks scripts which contained a first class mark but were not of first class standard
overall.
Cambridge attracts excellent students and they are well-served by a wide and exciting range of
papers.
There are some other matters that require comment.
The Cambridge History Faculty awards a large number of first class degrees in Part II and it is rare for
a student to fall below the upper second category. For some Faculty members this is a matter for
congratulation, for others it is a concern. Doubtless this pattern of classification reflects the quality
of the intake at Cambridge and the teaching students receive. However, the pattern of awards may
also reflect ways in which the Cambridge History Faculty classifies students. First, by its very nature,
classification in Part II does not take account of work undertaken in the first two years of a student’s
undergraduate career. To the best of my knowledge, the work undertaken by History students in
their final year in other universities is weighted more heavily but it is unusual for earlier work to be
of no account when their degree is classified. Second, the practice of not reconciling marks between
examiners allows candidates to gather first class marks, which may contribute to a first class result,
even though markers for a particular paper disagree on whether the work is first class. In my
experience of other universities, it is usual for examiners to have to reconcile marks. In these
marking systems it is likely that a portion of these cases would be resolved as higher upper second
marks. The Faculty may want to consider whether the structure of the degree and the marking
system give students in Part II of the History Tripos advantages which students at other universities
do not enjoy.
External Examiner’s Report
I was appointed at short notice only for the preparatory pre-board, and the examination board itself,
to cover the absence of another external examiner, and I will not be continuing in this role next year.
(I am indeed joining the Faculty of History next academic year, so will be part of the examination
process from the ‘inside’). I therefore cannot comment upon earlier elements of process and
procedure prior to the board itself.
I am satisfied by the care taken in recording grades, calculating outcomes, and the collegial and
reflective practice of the board in deciding borderlines. The work of the chair of the Board and of the
key administrative staff was exemplary, and considerable effort had been put into briefly me clearly
about procedures, and running things smoothly on the day. The Part II element of the Tripos is very
strong pedagogically, with some fascinating papers on offer and some wonderful teaching; though it
is unusual – in fact possibly unique in a UK context – that students do not
have to produce a
dissertation as part of the assessment (though I understand that this may be subject to change in the
near future). The standards of work and grading are roughly comparable to other UK institutions,
though it is notable that Cambridge markers are loathe to reward stellar performance with marks
higher than the low 70s. This does not materially affect the outcome for students given the use of a
preponderance system for awarding degrees (though see further my comments below); but it may
be something that members of Faculty need to reconsider particularly with regard to flagging stellar
performance – both for the award of ‘starred Firsts’, and in terms of ensuring that extremely bright
students who wish to go on to further study are marked out in a way that is clearly legible to other
institutions.
There was much work and performance of a very high standard on display, and this was rightly
reflected in the high attainment of the students. With regard to the high number of firsts, the
Faculty may wish to reflect a little on its practice and rules here, in comparison with procedures in
almost all other UK institutions. There is no real reconciliation of grades between internal markers,
other than where grades differ by more than 7 marks and fall across a class boundary; the
classification of Firsts is then awarded on preponderance across the 10 marks garnered for the 5
papers sat, with 5 first-class marks
across any of the papers being sufficient to award a First-class
degree. This would appear on first sight to be notably robust, and one may perhaps feel that the lack
of reconciliation of grades prevents one marker talking another ‘up’. However, because the 5+ first-
class grades necessary for a First can come
anywhere in the transcript, this means that a goodly
proportion of finalists gained a first where only one internal marker thought the performance in a
particular paper merited that outcome; in fact, by my calculation, about 1/3 of all the First-class
degrees awarded fell into this pattern. In the system of reconciliation used in almost all other
institutions, at least some proportion of these grades would have then fallen to a 2.i, and the
preponderance needed for an overall First would have been lost. I am not decrying the system
Cambridge currently employs, and it is possible, as already noted, to argue that reconciliation could
also result in a second marker being ‘talked into’ proffering a First – but it is important for the
Faculty to note that in this regard its practice differs notably from other institutions, and it is also
important for the Faculty to understand what it is actually doing (i.e. not assuming that its system is
‘tougher’ or ‘more robust’ than in fact it is). In noting this, I am
not raising an issue of concern
regarding quality assurance, but passing on critical reflection for colleagues to consider in their
future practice. Overall the examination processes were conducted fairly, and marking was for the
most part exemplary.
I am very grateful for the exemplary hard work and care shown by the administrative staff tasked
with running the examination board, and for the highly professional fashion in which the exam board
itself was run.
Part II Chairman's Report,
Thanks. Firstly, I again wish to thank
for all her friendly assistance and timely
efficiency in handling queries, scheduling meetings, chasing up copy and revisions from examiners in
the History Faculty and elsewhere, and generally for her huge contribution to the smooth working of
this complex process. Thanks are also due again this year to
for managing the IT
dimension of the examining process, ensuring in the inevitably short time-frame available, that the
Board was provided with updated aggregates, examiner and result profiles and class lists. We are
also grateful to
for her assistance in the final meeting of the examinations Board.
oversaw the setting and revising of HAP with efficiency. Finally, I am grateful to fellow-
examiners and assessors for all the care they invested in setting, revising and marking their papers
and especially for the submission of good, clean copy in the form required by the printers, in
response to a request emphasizing the need for this. Due to University and College Union industrial
action one of our external examiners,
, resigned from
post on 23rd May. This
necessitated searching for a new external examiner in order to keep our examinations procedures as
robust as possible. In the event we were very grateful to
from
, for stepping in at such short notice. It was thus a great pleasure to have
the benefit of these two excellent colleagues,
and
, whose
support was invaluable, particularly of course in the work of reading through and assessing
borderline cases at the pre-meeting, the day before the main Examiners’ meeting.
2. The Candidates. There were 179 candidates for Honours (97 females and 82 male).
3. The Papers. There were no changes to the standard format. This year there were 12 Special
Subjects (of which candidates chose one) examined by a 3-hour source-based paper and a Long
Essay submitted in early May; 20 Specified Subject papers (plus three Section C political thought
papers), from which candidates chose one or two, depending on whether they had elected to do an
optional dissertation or not; the optional dissertation, which was offered by 99 students; and the
compulsory Paper 1 (Historical Argument and Practice).
Paper 7 (Transformation of the Roman World) was shared with the Classical Tripos Part II; Paper 11
(Early Medicine) was shared with the Department of HPS [Paper 2 of History and Philosophy of
Science] within Part II of the Natural Sciences Tripos; and Paper 4 (History of Political Thought c.1700
– 1890) and 5 (Political Philosophy and the History of Political Thought since c.1890) were shared
with The Social and Political Sciences Tripos.
4. Preliminaries. The early stages of this year's proceedings—division of responsibilities in
November, scrutiny and revision of question papers in January, proof readings in March—all passed
without problems, thanks to the efficient support provided by
. The collaboration
with partners in other faculties worked smoothly.
5. The pre-meeting and final meeting. The preliminary meeting attended by the chair and the
external examiners made it possible to identify the borderline cases for classification on the basis of
the profiles. The external examiners read all the scripts in which there were unreconciled marks (i.e.
seven or more and a class apart) and all problem scripts. We were able to concentrate in particular
on unreconciled marks that were likely to be crucial for classification. The excellent work of the
externals greatly facilitated the work of the full Board on the following day, though due note was
taken of the importance of taking full account of the judgements of examiners in borderline cases
and an effort was made where appropriate to open the discussion in this direction. The number of
borderline cases this year decreased yet again, confirming that the new policy of allowing only 6
marks difference across a class before reconciliation appears to be having the desired effect. I would
like to thank this year’s academic secretaries for their work improving the Examiners’ Handbook
during the year.
6.
Plagiarism/Turnitin All dissertations and long essays are uploaded to Turnitin via Moodle and the 20% with the highest
text-matching score are further scrutinized by the Academic Secretary for plagiarism. Thirty-six Long
Essays and twenty dissertations were scrutinized for plagiarism.
7.
Applications Procedure
The Chairman received 11 notices advising of dyslexic/dysgraphic/dyspraxic candidates, which were
circulated to Examiners. The Chair is not informed of the existence of other types of warning letters,
such as notably medical matters. There were also 3 requests for modest time extensions made to
the Chair for the Special Subject Long essays. In each case these were granted on production of
medical evidence by the colleges.
There was one informal appeal about the outcome of the exam. There were also three formal
appeals, which came via Applications Committee. A small ad hoc committee was convened to
consider the appeals and it was determined that there were no grounds to revise the marks in each
of the three cases. I am grateful to those colleagues who assisted me on the committee.
8. The outcome. The breakdown of results (distinguishing by gender) was as follows.
Female
% Male
% Total
1*
0
4
100.0%
4
I
33
55.0% 27 45.0% 60
IIi
63
55.3% 51 44.7% 114
IIii
1 100.0%
1
III
0
0
0
Total
97 54.2% 82
45.8 % 179
What is notable in these statistics is that the shortfall of female Firsts, the cause of much concern
over recent decades, is NOT in evidence this year (starred Firsts excepted). Obviously we will need
data from future years (and Part I results) to determine whether our gender policies have
established a new more positive trend but the results to represent a pleasing departure from recent
years.
9. Dissertations. 99 candidates out of the 179 opted to submit a dissertation – a decrease of about
9% from the last three years.
10. Prizes.
The Board's final task before candidates were identified by name was to award prizes and nominate
for external prizes:
The Cambridge Historical Society Prize for the Best Dissertation in Tripos was awarded to a
dissertation entitled ‘The experience of first-wave female immigrants from Pakistan to West
Yorkshire, 1960-80’; furthermore, this dissertation was nominated for the Gladstone Memorial Prize
(in competition with entries from the Economics and SPS Tripos) and also nominated for the Royal
Historical Society's
History Today Prize.
The Board agreed that the Alan Coulson Prize for the best dissertation in the field of British imperial
expansion (including North American history before 1776) should be awarded to a dissertation
entitled ‘The English Levant Company in the age of Ottoman Crisis, 1620-1660’.
The Junior Sara Norton Prize in American political history was awarded to a dissertation entitled
‘Latino Americans and the 1992 Los Angeles Riots’.
The following dissertation was nominated for a prize awarded by the Society for the Study of French
History: ‘English Policy in Gascony 1413-1437’.
The following dissertation was nominated for a prize awarded by the History of Parliament
Dissertation Competition: ‘The Blasphemy Act of 1698’.
It was agreed that a dissertation entitled ‘Gift Giving and Reciprocity in European Diplomacy with
Southeast Asia, c1500-1824’ should be submitted for the Prize for Undergraduate Achievement in
Maritime History awarded by the British Commission for Maritime History.
The Board agreed that the Faculty Prize of £300 for the best overall performance in Part II should be
awarded to two candidates who both achieved ten 1st class marks in their papers.
Finally, the following dissertation was nominated for the new CUQM Quantitative Dissertation Prize:
‘Retailers’ records as evidence for a ‘Consumer Revolution’ c.1660-1780’.
11. External Examiners’ Reports:
The role of External Examiners Like last year both external examiners commented on the difficulty which they perceive in carrying
out the function which the Handbook allocates to them of guarantor of
‘independent assessment of
academic standards’, given that they no longer see a random selection of scripts to mark as
previously (when there were three externals one was marking and the other two moderating; now
both are moderating, only). At present they only get to see the set of borderline and disputed
scripts, which they are called on to reassess at the pre-meeting and hence have little chance of
reaching a broad view of standards. Once again external examiners regretted that the wealth of
detailed commentary on exam scripts by examiners and assessors is seen by no one other those who
write it.
Members of the Exam Board expressed concern that the moderators were in effect unable to
moderate and recommended that they were sent, at the very least, specimen dissertations and sets
of long essays. This should be possible if examiners keep to marking deadlines.
Plagiarism and Turnitin:
There is a good deal of material on the Faculty and University webpages defining plagiarism and a
useful flowchart outlining procedure for suspected cases. However, members of the Board were
concerned that there was not enough guidance on what to do when plagiarism is detected. There is
need for a set of guidelines, which detail a scale of penalties for cases of plagiarism ranging from
crass derivation and sloppy referencing to a wilful desire to mislead. It is clear that the Proctors are
only interested in the more serious cases of plagiarism. In the absence of detailed guidelines from
the University it was suggested that the Faculty writes its own. The Board endorsed this decision.
12. Other matters:
Borderline marks
While the Exam Board reserves the right to raise border line marks – 49, 59, 69 - it would be helpful
if examiners and assessors, particularly those not on the Board, provide a clear steer on the matter
i.e. whether their mark was simply borderline and should remain as such or whether they were
ambivalent and open to having the mark modified in the light of the candidate’s overall
performance.
Late submission of marks
While recognizing the hard work and dedication of examiners and the increasing pressures we are all
under, it was nevertheless regrettable that colleagues missed deadlines, sometimes by two or more
weeks, in returning marks to
. This was particularly the case with long essays and
dissertations. Indeed, two examiners returned marks for these just two days before the final Exam
Board. The late return of marks has a number of serious consequences: it wastes the administrator’s
time at an otherwise hectic moment in the term; it makes impossible our resolution to send work to
externals for moderation; and endangers the viability of the final meeting of the Exam Board where
ALL marks need to be tabled for the awarding of degrees. There is no alternative to colleagues
making marking their absolute priority during Easter Term.
EXAMINERS' REPORT: PART II OF THE HISTORICAL TRIPOS, 2017
External Examiner’s Report –
Following my year’s service as external examiner for Part II of the History Tripos at Cambridge, I have
no hesitation in commending the History Faculty for its programme of third year teaching and
assessment. My thanks must go to the Chair of Examiners,
, and the exams
administrator,
, for the clarity and efficiency with which they navigated the workload.
There is a very tight turnaround between the submission of marks and the meeting of the board.
Hellen and Tim were extremely organised in getting the work I needed to read to me in a timely
fashion. I note that this was
last year in the role. Given the tight timetable and the
importance of the task, I urge the Faculty to put in place a suitably experienced successor.
The standards set were appropriate and comparable with other institutions with which I am familiar,
and the quality of the work I read, both as a moderator and as a second-marker, was extremely
good. The spread and range of marks seemed appropriate for a cohort of this size, and I note that
the Faculty is tracking the marks profiles of individual examiners, which is an important and valuable
mechanism for ensuring parity across different markers. In general, markers used the full range of
marks. The actual levels the students achieved was considerably higher than those at (say) my own
non-Russell Group university, as one would expect. The best work was astonishingly good, but it was
also gratifying to see the sizeable number of students who achieved consistently high marks spread
across several courses.
The assessment tasks were well-designed and appropriate for study at this level. HAP worked very
effectively in encouraging students to think conceptually and allowing the best students to
demonstrate their ability to turn the in-depth learning of their final year to more general historical
problems. Dissertations and long essays gave students the opportunity to reflect upon historical
problems in considerable depth. The dissertations enabled some of the best students to shine, and
shine they certainly did – there were a few excellent dissertations amongst those I read. Most
markers clustered their distinctions between 70 and 80, only a few went beyond. As I did not read all
dissertations, I cannot say whether this reflects different marking styles or differences in the quality
of the work submitted. Nonetheless, it might be worth profiling the marks of individual dissertation
markers as is done for HAP and other elements of assessment. At the very least, with dissertation
marking spread over such a very large pool of markers, it is worth consistently reminding all markers
of the upper range, as inconsistent use amongst examiners in using the post-80 range might
discriminate students in competitions for prizes and external funding.
The assessment criteria and the course materials were clear and well presented. The assessment
methods and the quantity of work that the students were expected to submit seemed appropriate
for this course, and I was very impressed by the extent of the markers’ engagement with the
students’ work. Their comments were constructive and in most instances extremely comprehensive
as well. I was very surprised to discover that all the comment books were to be immediately
destroyed, particularly in the cases of the extended essays and dissertations. Such feedback is useful
to those who intend to continue their studies and the destruction of feedback, whilst clearly
understandable in the context of our increasingly litigious students, flies in the face of initiatives
across the sector to improve the quality and quantity of the feedback we provide.
The processes of the exam board and of degree classification were exemplary. All assessment was
blind double-marked, and borderline candidates were identified ahead of time, so that they could be
fully considered in advance of the board. I must, however, draw attention to a fly in the ointment
outside the Faculty’s control. One course offered outside the Faculty was returning exam scripts
with one agreed mark, rather than the two unreconciled marks required, leaving them with nine
rather than ten marks in total. As an ad hoc solution, the ninth mark was doubled, and as it
happened this did not raise any issues for the students concerned, as none, fortunately, were
borderline cases. Clearly, however, the time will come when one of these candidates is a borderline
case, in which case the missing tenth mark would play a critical role in determining the candidate’s
degree classification. This strikes at the issue of fairness across candidates, both those taking
courses external to the Faculty and those who don’t. It is not unreasonable to expect that
departments which offer courses to History students, must also agree to mark them according the
History Faculty’s criteria.
As must be clear, I have no substantive concerns with the History Faculty’s Part II Tripos. The degree
includes a very wide range of content and a good range of assessment, which stretches the students
in the manner that one would expect at this level. All elements of the marking and assessment run
extremely well. The degree is a credit to the University of Cambridge and it has been a pleasure to
have been so closely involved in it.
External Examiner’s Report –
This is my first year as an external examiner. Shortly after my appointment,
, the Part
II administrator, sent me all the relevant material relating to last year’s examinations and board
meetings. I also saw the documentation for the meetings that approved this year’s exam papers and
had the opportunity to make suggestions for changes to draft papers.
Before I arrived in Cambridge, I received scripts, long essays, and dissertations for moderation and,
in a small number of cases, for remarking when the first and second examiners could not reconcile
wide variations in the marks that they had awarded. I saw further material in Cambridge, on the
evening before the pre-meeting of the board. Though I viewed only a small sample of the total
volume of work for the examination and assessment, I saw enough to say that the whole process
seems both rigorous and fair.
Internal examiners in nearly every case that I saw produced thorough and helpful comments on all
the work that they assessed. I did not always agree with their marks, but their comments gave me a
clear sense of why they had awarded them. In most cases where there was a wide discrepancy
between the two marks, internal examiners had made an effort to reconcile their differences, which
spared me from having to third mark too many pieces of work.
the Chair of the Board, led the pre-meeting, on Wednesday 21 June, at which he
and the two externals considered the individual candidates and deliberated on borderline cases.
This pre-meeting, though long, proved a valuable preliminary to the meeting of the board the next
day.
ran both meetings with good humour, great thoroughness, and scrupulous
fairness to all candidates.
handling of the administrative side of the process was
exemplary.
The general standard of the work that I saw was high. In nearly every case, candidates displayed
knowledge and understanding, and illustrated their arguments with well-chosen examples. Most
importantly, they demonstrated analytical, evaluative, and rhetorical skills. The best of the work
was truly exceptional; some of it was of publishable quality.
Given the high standard of the student intake, impressive work is perhaps to be expected. Even so,
the way in which most candidates structured and presented their work and their engagement with
the historiography and handling of primary materials suggests excellent training by History Faculty
teachers.
I have only two recommendations. The first is that examiners go a little bit farther in rewarding truly
outstanding work. I saw evidence of willingness to go into the mid- and even late-seventies, which
was pleasing, but very few marks of eighty and only one mark (I think) above 85, which in many
institutions would be a sign of publishable work. My second recommendation is that the faculty
secures an experienced and able replacement for
, for whom this was the last year of
distinguished service to the Part II Board.
Part II Chairman's Report:
1. Thanks Special thanks this year go to
, who has guided the Chairs of many Part II Boards with
such skill, friendliness and dedication over the years. This year was no exception, and this was also
the final year she undertook this task, before her retirement. It is significant that both external
examiners drew attention to her outstanding work and cautioned the Faculty about the difficulties
of replacing her. As in previous years, the Board was also most grateful to
for her help
on the increasingly demanding IT side of the operation, to
for her reassuring presence
at the final meeting, and to
for additional administrative assistance.
I am most grateful to my fellow examiners for their hard work, helpfulness and care. The process of
setting, revision and marking was handled with great skill and dedication, not least under tightened
time-frames in some cases.
provided excellent leadership and oversight of the task of
setting HAP. This year, due in part to the unusual circumstances last year, noted by my predecessor,
we had two new external examiners.
,
were hugely dedicated and hard-working externals, who were asked to put in more time, and do
more by way of marking than their predecessors. Their input and wisdom was vital at every stage of
the process.
2. The Candidates.
There were 198 candidates for Honours (109 females and 89 male).
3. The Papers.
There were no changes to the standard format. This year there were 13 Special Subjects (of which
candidates chose one) examined by a 3-hour source-based paper and a Long Essay submitted in
early May; 20 Specified Subject papers (plus three Section C political thought papers), from which
candidates chose one or two, depending on whether they had elected to do an optional dissertation
or not; the optional dissertation, which was offer 126 students; and the compulsory Paper 1
(Historical Argument and Practice).
Special Subject A (Constructing the worlds of Archaic Greece. c. 750–480 B.C.), Paper 7
(Transformation of the Roman World) and Paper 9 (Writing History in the Classical World) were
shared with the Classical Tripos Part II; Paper 11 ‘Early Medicine’ was shared with History and
Philosophy of Science within Part II of the Natural Sciences Tripos; and Paper 4 (History of Political
Thought c.1700 – 1890) and 5 (Political Philosophy and the History of Political Thought since c.1890)
were shared with the Humanities, Social and Political Sciences Tripos. Paper 18, ‘Japanese history in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ was shared with Part IB of the AMES Tripos.
4. Preliminaries.
The allocation of examiners, setting and proofing of scripts passed without problems.
5. The pre-meeting and final meeting.
At the Preliminary meeting, and with the invaluable help of the external examiners, we identified
borderline classes for discussion and they reread problem scripts. This allow us to focus on the
borderline cases for classification at the Full Board meeting, whilst not pre-empting the Board’s
discussion.
The final meeting proceeded to class candidates. It had not been possible at the pre-meeting stage
to look closely at the candidates' aggregates to check for anomalies between profile and mark score.
Members of the Board were therefore instructed to look out for any such anomalies as each
candidate was considered in turn. It was also necessary for the Board to classify those borderline
and other candidates whom the members of the Preliminary Meeting had not felt able to classify
provisionally.
It was noted that two Assessors for Paper 18, Japanese history in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries (Paper J6 Part IB AMES) had not followed the marking pattern of the History Faculty so in
fairness to those candidates at the pre-meeting they agreed double the one agreed mark. This
matter has been raised by the external examiners.
6. Plagiarism/Turnitin
The work of the Faculty’s Compliance Officer,
, was carried out with exemplary
diligence and fairness. Twenty-five dissertations were scrutinised for plagiarism or poor scholarly
practice. Two dissertations raised sufficient concerns that they were passed on to me for further
scrutiny, but I took the view that they were not in breach of plagiarism guidelines.
Forty-two Long Essays were scrutinised for plagiarism or poor scholarly practice. One long essay
raised serious concerns and was subject to a procedure of a Special Meeting to investigate the case.
On the recommendation of that meeting, the candidate’s marks for the long essay were revised.
7. Applications Procedure
The Chairman received 13 notices advising of dyslexic/dysgraphic/dyspraxic candidates, which were
circulated to Examiners. The Chair is not informed of the existence of other types of warning letters,
such as notably medical matters. I granted 4 requests for extensions to long essay/dissertation
deadlines, on medical grounds, which had been forwarded by the Applications Committee.
There were three formal appeals. In one case, made on alleged procedural irregularity, there were
found to be no grounds for granting the appeal. However, the class list was revised in two appeals
made on the basis of medical/tutorial evidence. In deciding these cases, as per usual practice, I
consulted with two examiners. I am grateful to
and
for
their assistance.
8. The outcome.
The breakdown of results (distinguished by gender, as a percentage of the whole cohort) was as
follows
:
% of
% of
whole
whole
Class
F
%
cohort
M
%
cohort
Total
%
*1
3
2.6%
1.5%
7
7.9%
3.5%
10
5.1%
1
26 23.9%
13.1%
30 33.7%
15.1%
56 28.2%
II.1
78 71.6%
39.0%
52 58.4%
26.3%
130 65.7%
II.2
2
1.9%
1.0%
0
0%
0%
2
1.0%
III
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
Total
109
100%
55.1%
89
100%
44.9%
198
100%
What is immediately noticeable is that the shortfall in female Firsts, which was not in evidence last
year (when female firsts were 55% of the total), has returned this year. Clearly more data from
future years is needed to ascertain the trend in the light the Faculty’s work in this area over past
years.
The one candidate for the Preliminary to Part II examination was deemed to have passed.
9. Dissertations.
This year, 126 candidates out of the 198 opted to submit a dissertation – this was up from a slight
dip in numbers (99) in the previous year.
10. Prizes.
i.
Alan Coulson Prize: awarded for the best dissertation in the field of British imperial
expansion to a dissertation entitled: An Oral History of Colour and Identity in the Making of Modern
Nepal.
ii.
Junior Sara Norton Prize: awarded for the best dissertation on some aspect of American
political history to a dissertation on: The Culture Wars and the Supreme Court Nomination of
Douglas Ginsburg.
iii.
Gladstone Memorial Prize: The Board selected the following two dissertations for
consideration for the Gladstone Memorial Prize: on The Making and Breaking of Trust during the
British Savings Banks Scandals, 1848-1860, and on Changing patterns of female employment in
Westmorland 1787-1851.
iv.
Royal Historical Society [2 prizes]
: History Today Prize, and History of Scotland Prize: For
the History Today Prize, the Board nominated a dissertation on The Making and Breaking of Trust
during the British Savings Banks Scandals, 1848-1860. For the Scottish history prize, the Board
nominated a dissertation entitled: The Evolution of the Scottish Diplomatic Subculture, c.1740-
c.1793.
v.
Cambridge Historical Society Prize: awarded to a dissertation entitled: The Making and
Breaking of Trust during the British Savings Banks Scandals, 1848-1860.
vi.
Undergraduate Dissertation/Extended Essay Prize: The Society for the Study of French
History: The Board nominated a dissertation entitled: French non-state actors in the Caribbean during the
French Revolutionary Wars.
vii.
The History of Parliament Dissertation Competition: The Board nominated a dissertation
entitled: The Conservative Party and British Indians, 1975-1990.
viii.
Achievement in Maritime History: The Board nominated a dissertation entitled: The male
occupational structure of Kent in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
ix.
Faculty Prize: The Board agreed that the Faculty prize of £300 for the best overall
performance in Part II should be awarded to a dissertation entitled: The Making and Breaking of
Trust during the British Savings Banks Scandals, 1848-1860.
x.
Istvan Hont Prize: awarded to a dissertation entitled: The role of credit in John Locke.
xi.
CUQM Quantitative Dissertation Prize: The Board nominated a dissertation entitled:
Changing patterns of female employment in Westmorland 1787-1851.
xii.
Winifred Georgina Holgate-Pollard Memorial Prizes –
new this year for each Tripos: The
Board nominated a dissertation entitled: The Making and Breaking of Trust during the British Savings
Banks Scandals, 1848-1860.
xiii.
GHS Undergraduate Dissertation Prize –
new this year: The Part II Board did not wish to
nominate a dissertation for this prize.
11. External Examiners’ Reports:
Concerns were raised in 2015 and 2016 by external examiners on the difficulty which they perceive
in carrying out the function of guarantor of
‘independent assessment of academic standards’, given
that they no longer saw a random selection of scripts to mark as previously. It was very gratifying
that revised measures for moderation of scripts and specimen dissertations and sets of long essays,
set in motion by my predecessor and the previous Board, met with the approval of the examiners
this year.
This was helped by the improved performance of colleagues in keeping to marking deadlines
(another concern raised last year), and by the willingness of the externals to undertake a heavier
workload under time pressure.
One of the externals raised again the issue of examiners using the entire range of marks in rewarding
outstanding work. This is a matter for the Faculty to continue to keep in consideration, in its review
of the documentation and training given to examiners.
12. Other matters
Last year, my predecessor raised the issue of clarity of guidance in raising borderline marks. Both the
narrowing of the margin for reconciliation (to seven or more and a class apart) and the emphasis this
year on more clearly signalling the ‘raise-ability’ of 49, 59 and 69 marks, seemed to be working
effectively this year. Some excellent work had been done on the handbook during the year towards
this, particularly by the Academic Secretary,
, and the Chair of Part I,
.
EXAMINERS' REPORT: PART II OF THE HISTORICAL TRIPOS, 2018
External Examiner’s Report –
This has been my second year’s service as external examiner for the Part II of the History Tripos at
Cambridge. Firstly, I would like to commend and thank both the chair of examiners,
,
and the administrator,
. There is a large amount of work to complete in a very short time-
frame and the competence and professionalism certainly made my role as external both
straightforward and enjoyable.
As I observed previously, standards are appropriate for the final year of an undergraduate degree, the
processes for assessment are sound, and the marking rigorous and fair. I have seen evidence of
excellence with respect both to the students’ work and the faculty’s teaching, assessment, and
administration of the degree. I have no concerns about the systems of assessment and degree
classification that are currently in place.
The History Faculty’s range of third-year courses is imaginative and stimulating. There was clear
evidence in the work that I saw that many students had been engaged by their courses, and there
seems considerable evidence of committed and inspiring teaching. Some students had really
immersed themselves in the long essays and dissertations and gone far beyond the minimum reading
required. The best work was truly excellent and certainly of a publishable standard.
The mode of assessment is clearly weighted towards exams, but the dissertation and extended essay
provide the opportunity to reflect upon historical problems in considerable depth and for assessment
by coursework rather than exam. The format of exams is also varied, with the long essay of HAP and
the gobbet questions on the Special paper, sitting alongside the more traditional one-hour thematic
essay questions. The varied modes of assessments provide opportunities for students with different
aptitudes to excel.
I was highly impressed by the feedback provided by markers, particularly given that none of this
feedback is made available to students. The detailed comments were extremely useful in cases where
externals were needed to provide third marks or consider discrepancies between markers. The
assessment methods and the quantity of work that the students were expected to submit seemed
appropriate for this course. It is clear that the dissertation is a high-reward but high-risk choice.
Certainly the best dissertations achieved higher marks than the best exam scripts, but on the other
hand there were two cases this year of dissertations that had gone badly wrong. The preponderance
principle for the classification of degrees meant that these did not alter the final result, but these cases
are a salutary reminder that not all undergraduates are suitable candidates for extended research
projects.
The exam board and the pre-board meeting were both very well conducted. All the borderline
candidates had already been identified, and the chair had done considerable work in collecting data
from previous years for comparative purposes. The system of degree classification is complex, and
the whole system relies heavily on institutional memory. When we encountered a couple of unusual
cases, the handbook was not sufficiently clear on how the process works and were ultimately resolved
by the chair without reference to the handbook. The handbook should really contain clearer guidance,
so that it – rather than individuals – contains the answers required.
Our decision-making in several instances was made easier by the historic information (concerning the
proportion of firsts and starred firsts that had been awarded in the previous six years, as well as the
cut-off point for the award of starred firsts) that the chair had brought to the meeting. As attention
within the sector is increasingly focussing on grade inflation, the board’s knowledge of recent trends
provides a helpful guard against an unwanted, upwards creep. The historic information about starred
firsts simply spares each new exam board rethinking how to set about awarding starred firsts from
scratch each year. I would recommend formalising this innovation, so that this information is routinely
collected and kept on the exam board’s agenda.
Can I finally thank all my colleagues on the Board for another very enjoyable and intellectually
stimulating experience of the Board at work. This is an excellent programme, serving its equally
excellent candidates very well indeed.
External Examiner’s Report –
This is my second and final year as external examiner for Part II of the History Tripos. As last year, I
was impressed by the thorough and meticulous care taken by the board in the process of classification.
Every candidate was treated fairly, with time given to discussion of difficult and borderline cases. I
wish to thank
for the very calm and efficient service she gave to the board; it was hard to
believe that this was her first year as the administrator for Part II. My thanks are also due to this year’s
chair,
, who led the process with care, precision, and great humanity. His skilful chairing
of the board meeting was no doubt facilitated by the time and effort he had taken to prepare, but also
reflected his abilities as a chair; he conducted the meeting with good humour, rigorous fairness, and
a willingness to listen to all points of view. As last year, a pre-board meeting of the external examiners,
chair and administrative officers greatly aided the efficient dispatch of business at the board meeting
itself.
The quality of the marking made my task straightforward in most cases; the internal examiners gave
ample and clear justification for the marks that they had awarded. As an external examiner, asked to
moderate (and in a few cases third mark) in areas in which I was far from expert, the detailed
comments of the internal examiners proved an invaluable guide. I saw some very impressive work, a
reflection, no doubt, of the quality of the History Faculty’s intake, but also of the quality of the teaching
and supervision, which seems to have been of an exceptionally high standard. The students benefited,
as well, from the availability of a wide range of interesting and exciting courses.
Students who opted to do a dissertation generally fared well; my impression was that many achieved
their highest marks on this independent study. A few, however, under-performed on the dissertation,
as compared with taught courses. This suggests (on the positive side) that dissertations give a boost
to the best students, but (more negatively) can, through circumstances not entirely in the control of
the candidate, lead to disaster.
The overall results this year were strong; a record proportion of candidates ended up in the first-class
category. The proportion, however, is not out of line with the results achieved by students in other
institutions, including those that might reasonably be compared with Cambridge. Most pleasingly, the
higher proportion of firsts seems to have led to a narrowing of the gender gap; this year the proportion
of men and women emerging with first-class degrees seems to have been closer than ever before.
It might seem perverse, given the record number of firsts, to urge internal examiners to award higher
marks. But my impression was that the large number of firsts was at least partly the result of a
willingness on the part of internal examiners to give 70 or 71 for work that, in previous years, might
have been rewarded with only 68. Outstanding first-class work, it seems to me, is still not sufficiently
differentiated from work that just makes it into the first-class category. I gained the impression that
more candidates secured marks of 80 than in previous years, but noted that none (as far as I could
see) obtained a mark higher than 80. As the Handbook for Examiners and Assessors notes (p. 1),
‘examiners are encouraged to use marks in the high 80s and the 90s for truly outstanding work’. In
many institutions, 85 or above is regarded as an appropriate mark for work of publishable or near
publishable standard. I saw some work that appeared to me to be in this category.
I do not wish to close my report with a criticism (mild though it is). My view of the examination and
assessment process is overwhelmingly positive. My experience this year confirms the impression I
gained last year – that History students at Cambridge enjoy access to a wide range of interesting and
well-taught courses and that their work is assessed with great rigor.
Part II Chairman's Report:
1. Thanks
It was pleasing that during the year in which she took over from
, both Externals
commented on how smooth and professional had been the support offered to them by
throughout the process; and as Chair I would certainly agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. It
is only a shame that the Faculty has not been able to retain
services for Tripos 2019. The
Board was again also most grateful to
for her help on the increasingly demanding IT side
of the operation, and to
for her reassuring presence and wisdom at both the pre- and the
final meeting of the Board.
As Chair I am also most grateful to my fellow examiners for all their hard work, helpfulness and
diligence, not least during the second half of the Lent Term and the Easter vacation when they
responded with great efficiency and professionalism to the Chair’s need for extra information due to
the unusual circumstances created by the pensions strike. In the event, thankfully, the strike caused
minimal disruption, overall, to the examining process. The process of setting, revision and marking
was handled with great skill and dedication and
provided excellent leadership and oversight
with the task of setting HAP. This year we had the benefit of two experienced external examiners,
and
. They were highly supportive and hard-
working externals, whose advice, many contributions and good humour were much-appreciated
throughout the process.
2. The Candidates
There were 194 candidates for Honours (100 females and 94 male).
3. The Papers
This year there were 15 Special Subjects (of which candidates chose one) examined by a 3-hour
source-based paper and a Long Essay submitted in early May; 21 Specified Subject papers (plus three
Section C political thought papers), from which candidates chose one or two, depending on whether
they had elected to do an optional dissertation or not; the optional dissertation, which was offered
by 122 students; and the compulsory Paper 1 (Historical Argument and Practice). There were no
changes to the standard format.
Special Subject A (Roman Religion: Identity and Empire); Paper 7 (Transformation of the Roman
World); Paper 9 (Writing History in the Classical World); and Paper 10 (Living in Athens) were shared
with the Classical Tripos Part II; Paper 11 ‘Early Medicine’ was shared with History and Philosophy of
Science within Part II of the Natural Sciences Tripos; and Paper 4 (History of Political Thought c.1700
– 1890) and 5 (Political Philosophy and the History of Political Thought since c.1890) were shared with
the Humanities, Social and Political Sciences Tripos. Paper 18, ‘Japanese history in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries’ was shared with Part IB of the AMES Tripos.
4. Preliminaries
The allocation of examiners, setting and proofing of scripts passed without problems.
5. The pre-meeting and final meeting
At the Preliminary meeting, and with the invaluable help of the external examiners, we identified
borderline classes for discussion and they reread problem scripts. The external examiners prepared
non-binding recommendations for borderline cases.
An irregularity regarding the gobbets paper of Special Subject (L) ‘The Transformation of Everyday Life
in Britain, 1945-1990’ was discussed. One gobbet had appeared in error, which was not a set primary
source in the current academic year, so in effect the students had only four, not five, gobbets to
choose from for question two of that exam paper. No student had attempted to answer on that
gobbet. Statistical analysis showed that the first examiner awarded 0.3 fewer marks on average to
question two compared with question one (the other gobbet question on the paper); while the second
examiner awarded 0.8 fewer marks. The Board agreed unanimously with the proposal of the Chair and
the external examiners to raise the marks of all students taking this paper by 2-marks per examiner
and the marks were duly adjusted ahead of classing.
The final meeting proceeded to class candidates. Borderline candidates were discussed individually
and classed by unanimous agreement.
6. Plagiarism/Turnitin
The work of the Faculty’s Academic Integrity Officer,
, was carried out with exemplary
diligence and fairness. Twenty-five dissertations were scrutinised for plagiarism or poor scholarly
practice. Two dissertations raised serious concerns and both were subject to a procedure of a Special
Meeting to investigate. On the recommendation of those meetings, both candidates’ marks for the
dissertation were revised.
Forty-two Long Essays were scrutinised for plagiarism or poor scholarly practice. None raised
significant concerns.
7. Applications Procedure
The Chair received twelve notices advising of dyslexic/dysgraphic/dyspraxic candidates, which were
circulated to Examiners. The Chair is not informed of the existence of other types of warning letters,
such as notably medical matters. Nine applications for extensions had been received from six
candidates, four in respect of dissertation submission and five in respect of Long Essay submission. All
had been granted on medical grounds.
The Chair reported that two Representations to Examiners had been received for procedural
irregularities. The Board considered the students’ cases and concluded that neither student’s
examination results had been adversely impacted as a result of the irregularities described and
therefore their marks would not be changed.
8. The outcome
The breakdown of results (distinguished by gender, as a percentage of the whole cohort) was as
follows
:
% of
% of
whole
whole
Class
F
%
cohort M
%
cohort Total
%
*1
3
3.0%
1.5%
9
9.6%
4.6%
12
6.2%
1
38
38.0%
19.6%
33
35.1%
17.0%
71
36.6%
II.1
59
59.0%
30.4%
51
54.3%
26.3%
110
56.7%
II.2
0
0%
0%
1
0%
1.1%
1
0.5%
III
0
0%
0%
0
0%
0%
0
0%
Total
100
100%
51.5%
94
100%
48.5%
194
100%
The five candidates for the Preliminary to Part II examination were deemed to have passed.
9. Dissertations
This year, 122 candidates out of the 194 opted to submit a dissertation – this was up from a slight dip
in numbers (99) in the previous year.
10. Prizes
i.
Alan Coulson Prize: awarded for the best dissertation in the field of British imperial expansion
to a dissertation entitled: Bholanauth Chunder, a Global Bengali in British India, 1845-1869.
ii.
Junior Sara Norton Prize: awarded for the best dissertation on some aspect of American
political history to a dissertation on: Kennedy on the ‘New Frontier’: The Western, Rhetoric, and the
Cold War,
1960-1963.
iii.
Gladstone Memorial Prize: The Board selected the following two dissertations for
consideration for the Gladstone Memorial Prize: Rethinking middle-aged women’s sexuality in
England, 1700-1815; and: Anglo-Jewish Humanitarianism and the Jewish Relief Unit, 1943-50.
iv.
Royal Historical Society [2 prizes]
: History Today Prize, and History of Scotland Prize: For the
History Today Prize, the Board nominated the following two dissertation, which it would not
distinguish between, both being considered equally meritorious: Rethinking middle-aged women’s
sexuality in England, 1700-1815; and: Anglo-Jewish Humanitarianism and the Jewish Relief Unit, 1943-
50. For the Scottish history prize, the Board nominated a dissertation entitled: Scottish Covenanters
and "Loyalist Resistance" to Charles I in 1638.
v.
Cambridge Historical Society Prize: the Board awarded the prize to the following two
dissertation, which it would not distinguish between, both being considered equally meritorious:
Rethinking middle-aged women’s sexuality in England, 1700-1815; and: Anglo-Jewish
Humanitarianism and the Jewish Relief Unit, 1943-50. The fund managers were asked to consider
raising the prizemoney, which would need to be split.
vi.
Undergraduate Dissertation/Extended Essay Prize: The Society for the Study of French
History: The Board nominated three dissertations, the maxiumum number that could be put
forward, for the following dissertations: Louis XIV’s mistresses and the political implications of
favour, 1664-1674; The role of time in the political writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau; and The
Revolution in Saint-Domingue and the Historicity of Liberty, 1791-1797.
vii.
The History of Parliament Dissertation Competition: The Board nominated a dissertation
entitled: Grassroots Liberalism and Irish Home Rule, 1910-1914.
viii.
Achievement in Maritime History: The Board nominated a dissertation entitled: Ludwig
Horner and Scientific Research in the Dutch East Indies, 1800-1850.
ix.
Faculty Prize: The Board agreed that the Faculty prize of £300 should be awarded to the two
students who had the highest aggregates of those students achieving all ten First Class marks, which
in the Board’s view constituted the ‘best overall performance’ in Part II of the Historical Tripos. The
Faculty was asked to consider raising the prizemoney, which would need to be split.
x.
Istvan Hont Prize: awarded to a dissertation entitled: The Materialist Conception of
History’ in Marx’s Dispatches for the New-York Daily Tribune, 1852-1862.
xi.
CUQM Quantitative Dissertation Prize: The Board nominated a dissertation entitled:
Derivatives, secondary markets and credible commitment in the City of London, 1688-1734.
xii.
Winifred Georgina Holgate-Pollard Memorial Prizes: The Board awarded the Winifred
Georgina Holgate Pollard Memorial Prize for the ‘most outstanding result’ to the student with the
highest aggregate.
xiii.
GHS Undergraduate Dissertation Prize: The Board nominated a dissertation entitled:
Anglo-Jewish Humanitarianism and the Jewish Relief Unit, 1943-50.
xiv.
Ellen McAthur Undergraduate Prize – New for Tripos 2018: The managers of the Ellen
McArthur Fund had instituted a new annual prize of £250 for the best undergraduate dissertation
in Economic and Social History, which would be awarded for the first time at their Michaelmas
2018 meeting. The Board of Examiners nominated four candidates for consideration for the
following dissertations: Women and Work in Bradford and Halifax, 1838-51; Domesday Book as
Evidence for Sheep Farming in Later Eleventh-Century Essex; Derivatives, secondary markets and
credible commitment in the City of London, 1688-1734; and South Asian families and the welfare
state in two West London boroughs, c.1967 to 1983.
11. External Examiners’ Reports:
Evidently the most significant general outcome this year was the step-change in the proportion of
First-class degrees awarded to candidates by the Board, which reached fully 43% of the total (having
never previously been above 36%). It is extremely reassuring that the same two External examiners
served this year as last year (when 33% achieved a First) and that they have each endorsed the validity
of this significantly larger proportion of first-class degrees awarded, based on their comparative
knowledge of proportions awarded at other institutions and their moderating reviews of a varied
sample of scripts, long essays and dissertations, continuing the practice initiated last year.
, the retiring external examiner from
, another Russell Group university, also repeated his
view that examiners in Cambridge are not marking the very best dissertations sufficiently highly and
should venture more confidently into the range above 80 for those deemed publishable or near
publishable.
, the returning external examiner, also noted that dissertations appeared to
have been a risky activity for a small number of students, ‘a salutary reminder that not all
undergraduates are suitable candidates for extended research projects’.
also pointed out how
helpful and important (to guard against notions of ‘inflation’) it was to the Board to have available to
them the historic information on proportion of Firsts and numbers of starred Firsts and their
aggregates, for each of the previous five years when determining the award of starred firsts.
12. Other matters
Firstly, it should be noted that along with the increased proportion of Firsts awarded this year, the
proportion of female students achieving a First in Part II was an enormous relative improvement on
this same cohort’s capacity to achieve a First when they took Part I last year. In Part I 13% of females
got a First; 25% of males ie nearly 100% greater chance of getting a First for males. In Part II 41% of
females got a First; 45% of males; ie only 10% greater chance of getting a First for males.
Secondly, several colleagues on the Board raised the issue of the unfortunate coincidence of timing of
Part II Tripos examining of scripts with both deadlines for examining on many M.Phils and also for the
Faculty’s RAE exercises for all first-year PhD students. It was strongly represented that the deadlines
for the latter, whose timing lies within the Faculty’s discretion, should be brought forward
significantly, to ensure that all RAEs are completed before the end of May each year, the date at which
Tripos examining commences.
EXAMINERS' REPORT: PART II OF THE HISTORICAL TRIPOS, 2019
External Examiner’s Report –
This is my third and final year as external examiner for the Part II of the History Tripos at Cambridge,
and I would like to thank both the exams administrator,
, and the two chairs I have
worked with –
and
– for their unfailing courtesy and attention to my
observations over the last three years. It has been hard work, but also an immense privilege to act
as external on a degree which affords the opportunity each year to read work of outstanding quality
As already indicated, I have no concerns about the operation of the degree for which I have been
external examiner. I was kept fully informed by the chair of examiners and the relevant
administrators of the assessment procedures and deadlines. In light of the very tight deadlines, the
work for moderating and re-reading was delivered to me as swiftly as practicable, and I was allowed
sufficient time to assess the work and return feedback. The degree includes a wide and varied range
of courses, both chronologically and geographically, and despite a weighting towards three-hour
exams as the mode of assessment, there is also some variety – dissertations and long essays, as well
as the one-essay HAP exam and the gobbets element of the Special exam. In all, the content and
methods of assessment stretch the students in the manner that one would expect at this level. In
particular HAP encourages students to think outside the narrow frames necessarily imposed by
subject-specific questions and enables them to think about the creation of historical knowledge
more broadly and imaginatively.
Once more, I received work (both essays and exams) from moderated courses, and spent the pre-
exam board meeting and the Tuesday evening looking at some additional work to which I was
directed by the chair. The work was once again of a very high standard and standards of written
English were also high. There is clear evidence of markers venturing above 80 to reward outstanding
work. The best work is simply excellent and very much of the standard one hopes to see at this
level. The marking standards in the department are in line with the relevant external reference
points. I would reiterate my comments of previous years about the overall level of performance in
this degree being significantly higher than would be found in level work in other institutions. There
are candidates who fall below the line for a first-class degree who would easily achieve the same on
programmes elsewhere. The number of first-class degrees awarded is rising, as they are across the
sector. At Cambridge, the welcome shift towards using a fuller range of marks above 80 is clearly
contributing to the rise in the overall number of firsts, as well as to the number of very strong
performances and higher aggregates. Whilst grade inflation is not to be encouraged, the precise
factors at work reflect the policy decision (and one which I fully support) to use a wider range of
marks above 70.
The university’s processes for assessment are transparent and fair. With almost no exceptions, the
written feedback on the work I assessed was clear, detailed, and constructive. In many cases,
written feedback was extremely extensive as well. The process of reconciliation between the two
markers was clearly explained. For the most part there was considerable parity between markers
across different courses, though inevitably some disagreements between markers did need to be
resolved. In cases of disagreements, it is extremely helpful that we have all work and such detailed
comments to hand. In the case of HAP scripts, one examiner is usually present too. It is helpful that
the faculty collects and distributes information about marking profiles. The sharing of such
information seems a valuable and non-intrusive way of ensuring parity between markers and
ensuring against unintended grade inflation.
This year’s exam board was conducted with particular swiftness, owing in part no doubt to the
chair’s close knowledge of all procedures, in particular concerning the proportion of firsts and
starred firsts that had been awarded in recent years. I have a few very minor points concerning
procedure so that this efficiency can be maintained in future. As the chair’s role is a rotating
position, it may be useful to formalise the collection and presentation of historic data so that this is
available to the board independent of the chair’s expertise. It would also be possible to expedite the
nominations and awards for prizes if members of the board received an additional print-out of
dissertations that had been awarded a mark higher than 70, listed in rank order. The list of prizes is
also listed in a slightly haphazard fashion, with no distinction between nominations and actual
awards. If this list could be further rationalised, the task of awarding prizes and nominations would
be simplified.
Clearly, these are all very minor suggestions. As must be clear, I have no serious concerns with the
quality of assessment for the History Faculty’s Part II Tripos. All elements of the marking and
assessment run extremely well. The degree is a credit to the University of Cambridge and it has been
a pleasure to have been so closely involved in it.
External Examiner’s Report –
It is my great pleasure to submit my first report as External Examiner for the History Tripos Part II,
for the academic year 2018-2019.
From the beginning of my involvement in scrutinising draft exam papers, to the final meeting of the
Board, I was hugely impressed with the care, the time and the level of professionalism given over to
this process, from all staff, working at all levels.
The standard of marking is wholly appropriate for the award of a History Degree from Cambridge
University, and the criteria and process are both extremely fair. In particular, there is a great deal of
attention given to making sure students are given their due credit, with marks of a ‘9’ carrying
potential significance of being raise-able into the higher threshold. Thus many cases are discussed
in detail.
I was given in advance, samples of marked work across all class boundaries from high firsts to fails,
and across a number of papers. I found the marks awarded to be appropriate for the degree in
relation to all assessed work: long essays, dissertations and examination essays. The guidelines for
marking and for the degree classification are extremely well thought through and comprehensive.
Moreover, the detailed justification of marks each examiner supplies in typed format for each
question, and in an overall summary, is extensive and robust. I have not seen such time and care
given over to a long written justification for marks awarded (or not) within the examining process at
the universities of
, where I have examined in the past
and/or run the undergraduate examination process (
).
In advance of the Board meeting and at the Board meeting itself, there was plenty of time allocated
for full discussion of any borderline cases. The externals were involved in any cases that required
discussion and we were consulted throughout the process on all issues. I thank and congratulate the
Chair,
, and
on their professionalism and attention to detail
throughout.
It was extremely gratifying to see the healthy number of first class degrees awarded including a
number of starred firsts. From my experience in other Russell Group universities, the quality of
history being produced here is by far the best it gets. I was delighted to see academic staff using
more of the full range of marks and would encourage that further in relation to work in dissertations
and long essays judged to be publishable quality (which it certainly was).
The fact that this year there are as many women graduating with a first class degree as men, puts
the Faculty ahead of many others in History and is extremely laudable. The long term effort which
has gone into producing such a result ought to be acknowledged and celebrated.
My only two minor suggestions for consideration were discussed and resolved by the Board. These
were (a) to produce some brief guidelines on what constitutes a marginal fail, a serious fail and a
catastrophe; and (b) that perhaps, despite the impressive number of prizes available, the range of
topics attached to some prizes, did not quite reflect all subjects being studied with aplomb, so the
list might be widened further.
Finally, as closing thought, since it appears that Cambridge is not immune either to the rise in
students battling mental health issues during their studies, as we have also experienced at
recently, I would underscore the need for the University to make extra funding available to meet the
current situation.
All good wishes, and many congratulations to the Part II Board, on an outstanding set of results, the
result of hard work and inspirational teaching.
Part II Chairman's Report:
1. Thanks
For the second year in a row the Part II Exam Board has been served by an administrator new to the
role.
provided a most diligent and efficient service throughout the process and both
Externals commented on how much they valued the helpful assistance she has provided. The Part II
Board was again also most grateful to
for her help on the IT side of the operation, and,
in particular, to
, who provided a much-appreciated presence during the pre-meeting
day and at the commencement of the final meeting of the Board.
As last year, I am also most grateful to my fellow examiners for all their hard work, helpfulness and
diligence. The process of setting, revision and marking was handled with great skill and dedication
and
provided excellent leadership and oversight with the task of setting HAP. This year our
two external examiners were
, returning for a second year in the role,
and
. They were highly supportive and hard-working externals, whose advice,
many contributions and good humour were much-appreciated throughout the process.
2. The Candidates
There were 195 candidates for Honours (101 females and 94 male).
3. The Papers
This year there were 14 Special Subjects (of which candidates chose one option) examined by a 3-
hour source-based paper and a Long Essay submitted in early May; 21 Specified Subject papers (plus
three Section C political thought papers), from which candidates chose one or two papers,
depending on whether they had elected to do an optional dissertation or not; the optional
dissertation, which was offered by 113 students; and the compulsory Paper 1 (Historical Argument
and Practice). There were no changes to the standard format.
Special Subject A (Roman Religion: Identity and Empire); Paper 7 (Transformation of the Roman
World); Paper 9 (Writing History in the Classical World); and Paper 10 (Living in Athens) were shared
with the Classical Tripos Part II; Paper 11 ‘Early Medicine’ was shared with History and Philosophy of
Science within Part II of the Natural Sciences Tripos; and Paper 4 (History of Political Thought c.1700
– 1890) and 5 (Political Philosophy and the History of Political Thought since c.1890) were shared
with the Humanities, Social and Political Sciences Tripos. Paper 18, ‘Japanese history in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ was shared with Part IB of the FAMES Tripos.
4. Preliminaries
The allocation of examiners, setting and proofing of scripts passed without problems.
5. The pre-meeting and final meeting
At the Preliminary meeting, and with the invaluable help of the external examiners, we identified
borderline classes for discussion and they re-read problem scripts. The external examiners prepared
non-binding recommendations for borderline cases. At this meeting, there was also a re-marking of
scripts whose marks remained unreconciled (i.e. seven or more and a class apart). Marks were
revised where necessary, and new marks indicated in the markbook by a dagger. In total, eighteen
scripts were considered for re-assessment and re-reading. Out of those eighteen, four remained for
consideration at the final meeting, in the presence of the examiners for those papers. The Chair
extended his gratitude to
who attended the pre-meeting and offered her valuable
advice with regard to procedural matters.
The final meeting proceeded to class candidates. Borderline candidates were discussed individually
and classed by unanimous agreement.
6. Plagiarism/Turnitin
The work of the Faculty’s Academic Integrity Officer,
was carried out with
exemplary diligence and fairness. Seventeen dissertations (15%) were scrutinised for plagiarism or
poor scholarly practice. One dissertations raised minor concerns and, in consultation with the
examiners, it was concluded that it should be treated as ‘very minor’ and the candidate was not
interviewed internally. On the examiners’ recommendations, marks for the dissertation were not
revised.
Thirty (15%) Long Essays were scrutinised for plagiarism or poor scholarly practice. One of these was
considered to be ‘relatively minor’ and the candidate was not interviewed internally. In consultation
with the examiners, a five-mark deduction from each examiner was applied. The other long essay
raised significant concerns and it was thought necessary to interview the candidate. The Chair, one
of the examiners, the senior tutor and the candidate met on Friday 14 June to investigate the case
further. As a result of this interview, the examiners recommended a fifteen-mark deduction. The
case was considered very carefully and discussed with the external examiners, who agreed with this
deduction. It was deemed that the plagiarism was not sufficiently serious to warrant the
involvement of the Proctors.
7. Applications Procedure
The Chair received sixteen notices advising of dyslexic/dysgraphic/dyspraxic candidates, which were
circulated to Examiners. The Chair is not informed of the existence of other types of warning letters,
such as notably medical matters. Thirteen applications for extensions had been received, two in
respect of dissertation submission and eleven in respect of Long Essay submission. All had been
granted on medical grounds.
8. The outcome
The breakdown of results (distinguished by gender, as a percentage of the whole cohort) was as
follows
:
% of
% of
whole
whole
Class
F
%
cohort
M
%
cohort
Total
%
*1
4
4.0%
2.1%
7
7.4%
3.6%
11
5.6%
1
41
40.6% 21.0%
35 37.2% 17.9%
76 39.0%
II.1
52
51.5% 26.7%
49 52.1% 25.1%
101 51.8%
II.2
4
4.0%
2.1%
2 2.1%
1.0%
6
3.1%
III
0
0%
0%
0 0%
0%
0 0%
Fail
0
0%
0%
1 1.1%
0.5%
1 0.5%
Total
101
100%
51.8%
94 100%
48.2%
195 100%
The two candidates for the Preliminary to Part II examination were deemed to have passed.
9. Dissertations
This year, 113 candidates out of the 195 opted to submit a dissertation – this was a slight dip,
relative to the number (122) in the previous year.
10. Prizes
a) Alan Coulson Prize: The Alan Coulson Prize for the best dissertation in the field of British
imperial expansion was awarded to
for
dissertation entitled, ‘The
Bristol press and the Crisis of Empire, c.1765 – c.1785’.
b) Sara Norton Junior Prize: The Sara Norton Junior Prize for the best dissertation in the field
of American political history was awarded to
for
dissertation
entitled, ‘Irish-Catholic history and the experience of Irish American sectarianism in
Antebellum America’.
c) Gladstone Memorial Prize: The Board nominated
] for
dissertation
entitled, ‘Community life on the Park Hill estate, 1953-1969’ and
for
dissertation entitled, ‘Irish-Catholic history and the experience of Irish American
sectarianism in Antebellum America’ for the
Gladstone Memorial Prize which would be
awarded by three adjudicators to the candidate offering the best dissertation from amongst
students of Economics, History, and Social and Political Sciences.
The Board were grateful to
for acting as the Historical Tripos adjudicator.
d) Royal Historical Society [2 prizes]:
History Today Prize, and History of Scotland Prize: The Board nominated
] for
dissertation entitled, ‘The Franks Casket and Elite Culture in
Eighth Century Northumbria’.
In addition
was nominated for the best dissertation on Scottish
history for
dissertation entitled, ‘Secrecy, Materiality, and Authority in Elizabeth I’s
Scottish Correspondence, 1583-1603’.
e) Cambridge Historical Society: The Board awarded the prize to
for
dissertation entitled, ‘The Franks Casket and Elite Culture in Eighth Century
Northumbria’.
f) The Society for the Study of French History: The Board nominated
for the best dissertation concerning any aspect of French history: for
dissertation entitled, ‘Interpretations of the Iranian Revolution in France, 1978-1989’.
g) The History of Parliament Dissertation Competition: The criteria for nominations for this
prize are for a dissertation relating to British or Irish parliamentary or political history
before 1997. The Board proposed to nominate
for
dissertation
entitled, ‘Reimagining Labour Party ‘Modernisation’ in an affluent suburb, c. 1996-2001’,
but noted that the range of dates of this dissertation may exclude it from eligibility. A
second nomination was therefore also proposed:
for
dissertation
entitled, ‘Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair, and the root of new Labour’s political marketing strategy,
1983-1997. The Faculty would therefore put forward
, if the range of dates fit the
criteria or
if that were not the case.
h) Achievement in Maritime History: The Board nominated
for
dissertation entitled, ‘A Social History of Smuggling in North East England during the
Eighteenth Century’ for the best dissertation in maritime history.
i) Faculty Prize: The Board awarded the Faculty prize for the best overall performance to
who achieved the highest aggregate (this was achieved without offering a
dissertation) of those students achieving all ten First Class marks.
j) Istvan Hont Prize: The best undergraduate dissertation in the field of political thought and
intellectual history was awarded to
] for
dissertation entitled,
‘Empire, Socialist republicanism and the path to 1916 in James Conolly’s Political Thought’.
k) CUQM Quantitative Dissertation Prize: The Board did not propose a nomination in this
category.
l) Winifred Georgina Holgate Pollard Memorial Prizes: The Board nominated the Winifred
Georgina Holgate Pollard Memorial Prize for the ‘most outstanding result’ to the student
with the highest aggregate (this was achieved without offering a dissertation),
m) German Historical Society (GHS) Undergraduate Dissertation Prize: The Board nominated
for
dissertation entitled, ‘The International Thought of Johann
Gottlieb Fichte, 1792-1808’, for the best undergraduate dissertation that addresses a theme
in German history.
n) Ellen McArthur Undergraduate Prize: The Board of Examiners nominated two candidates
for consideration for the best dissertation in Economic history:
] for
dissertation entitled, ‘Sex work, surveillance, and everyday life in New York
City, c. 1916-1930’, and
for
dissertation entitled ‘’A Social History
of Smuggling in North East England during the Eighteenth Century’.
o) NEW –Levantine archaeology or history and Contemporary Levantine studies: The Board
was notified that The Council for British Research in the Levant (CBRL) has instituted a new
annual prize of £250 for the best undergraduate dissertation for topics relating to the
Levant (Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine and Jordan), ancient or modern for the first
time in 2019. The Board nominated
] for
dissertation entitled,
‘Hizbullah’s print media and the formation of a Shia identity, 1985-2006’, under both
categories.
The Board proposed the creation of a Faculty Prize for a dissertation in i) Social and Cultural
history and ii) Gender and Sexuality history, as it was deemed that these categories are not
represented in the current prizes available.
11. General Observations:
Last year, in response to many years of exhortation from External Examiners, there was a step-
change in the proportion of First-class degrees awarded to candidates by the Board, which reached
fully 43% of the total (having never previously been above 36%). This was consolidated as a new
norm this year, with 44.6% of the 195 candidates entered achieving a First Class degree.
The standout, and indeed historic, statistic this year was the outcome of complete gender equality
in the proportion of Firsts achieved at Part II by female and male candidates, which was 44.6% and
44.7% respectively. While it would be foolish to declare this issue no longer a concern, given that
the Part II cohort last year reached within 10% of gender equality, there does seem cause for
cautious optimism that, at least at Part II, our pedagogic and examining practices are no longer
generating a strong gender bias in outcomes.
A second significant feature, which was beginning to be evident last year, is that examiners are
more regularly using the range above 75-80 for the most outstanding scripts, though venturing
above 80 is still a relative rarity, even where examiners have, for instance, commented on the near-
publication quality of a dissertation. Again, this is a development which has been encouraged for
several years by External Examiners.
In the Part II Tripos of 2018, 19 individual marks of 80 and above were awarded but every single one
of them was just the bare mark of exactly 80; i.e. no marks were given above 80. This year for the
first time a number of marks above 80 have been awarded. Altogether 32 marks of 80 and above
were awarded in Part II Tripos 2019; and 14 of these marks were in the range 81-85. This indicates
that examiners are beginning to become accustomed to fully using and discriminating within the
range 75-85. It would be helpful to monitor these figures in the future.
12. Other matters
It was a sensible initiative, which could be adopted as advisory in future when a new Chair of
Examiners will take over in the subsequent year, that next year’s Part II Chair,
,
elected to sit-in in an observational capacity on a substantial part of the pre-meeting with External
Examiners.
This year there was a notably strong performance by one of the two-year Part II candidates, which
revealed the fact that there are no handbook guidelines for the criteria for awarding a star to those
taking 7 papers. In particular, whether 12 or 11 first-class marks should be required for
consideration. The question of the appropriate aggregate to be achieved can be read-off from the
aggregate defined by the Exam Board as ‘extremely high’ for the one-year Part II students. The latter
figure varies somewhat from year to year and it is not unlikely that it may increase slightly in the
future if the mark range of 75-85 is used more extensively. However, whatever level it is set at, to be
awarded a starred performance, the two-year, 7-paper student(s) should be expected to achieve
more or less the same average number of marks per paper as those 5-paper students accorded a
starred first in the year in question.
The tendency for more examiners to use the range 75-79 as well as 80-plus also resulted in the need
for a new guideline to be adopted. This emerged at the pre-meeting and was put as a resolution to
the exam board at the beginning of the final meeting, where it was passed unanimously and
immediately adopted.
This new guidance principle applies where a paper is re-read by the External due to one mark in the
sixties (typically in the range 65-69) and another well above 70 and usually above 75. If the 3rd mark
comes in above 70 but nearer the original lower mark in the 60s than the mark which was originally
above 70, then, under extant rules, the two lower marks would be taken and the higher mark
knocked out, leaving the candidate still with one mark in the 60s, even though the External’s 3rd
mark explicitly refuted that judgement and gave a mark of 70 or above. Therefore, the new
guidance acknowledges that in the first-class range the preponderance principle trumps the
numerical proximity principle; and that in such a case it is the two first-class marks which are
retained, if a re-read by an External examiner results in a 3rd mark of 70 or above, even if it is
numerically closer to the lower original mark that was in the sixties.
