link to page 2
Natural Sciences Tripos 2023/2024
Part III Physics/Masters in Advanced
Study in Physics
Examiners’ Report
2nd July 2024
Examiners
1. Introduction
The course structure for the 2023/24 Part III Physics (NSTPHY) and the Masters in Advanced
Study in Physics (MASt/MAPY) examinations was similar to previous years and is summarised in
Table
1. In Michaelmas Term, candidates selected at least three Major Topics courses from a
choice of eight, seven of which were examined at the start of Lent Term, from 15 to 19 January
2024. In Lent Term, candidates selected at least three Minor Topics courses (or equivalents) from
a choice of 16, 9 of which were then examined at the start of Easter Term, from 22 to 26 April
2024. One of the Major Topics and several of the Minor Topics (or equivalents) were shared with
other Departments and were examined later, in Easter term.
The Major Topic: Quantum Condensed Matter Field Theory replaced Theory of Quantum
Matter, the Minor Topics; Formation of Structure in the Universe, Non-linear Optics and Quantum
States of Light, Col oid Physics and Quantum Computation (from DAMTP) were not available this
year but Physics of Nanoelectronic Systems was. All candidates undertook a Research Project,
which ran throughout the year, and sat a three-hour General Physics Paper in Easter Term,
which examined material from the core Physics courses in earlier years. The Research Project
takes up 1/3 of the total mark, each of the three Major Topics 1/9 of the total, each of the three
Minor Topic or equivalent 1/18 of the total and the General Physics Paper 1/6 of the total.
2. Preparation of the papers
The examinations and solutions were prepared in the standard way using LaTex templates, with al
concerned able to use the University’s secure OneDrive system for file storage and exchange. The
setters were asked to include substantive bookwork components, and to clearly indicate in the
solutions which elements were bookwork and which were unseen. Recently, the University has
substantial y brought forward the deadlines for submitting final version of the papers (by about
6 weeks). For this year once again,
was able to negotiate significant extensions.
As a result, lecturers were able to prepare papers on a suitable timescale.
3. Conduct of the examinations
All examinations were held in person. The Cavendish-run examinations were in the Pippard LT
(Major Topics) or in the IB labs (Minor topics and GPP). Of these, the Major Topics were timed at
1
2 hours, the Minor Topics at 1.5 hours, and the General Physics Paper at 3 hours. One
longstanding aim has been to reduce the effects of time pressure for both the Major and Minor
Topics exams; these should be doable in 1.5 hours and 1 hour respectively. During the
lockdown periods of online-only exams, a new approach for communicating corrections online
had to be developed. This has been very successful, and we continue with in this way even
though examinations have now long since switched back to in-person.
Table 1: NSTPHY/MAPY Physics Degree Components 2023-24
Michaelmas Term – Major Topics
Choose at least 3
Course
AOP, Atomic and Optical Physics
AQCMP, Advanced Quantum Condensed Matter
Physics
BP, Biological Physics
PEP, Physics of the Earth as a Planet
PP, Particle Physics
QCMFT, Quantum Condensed Matter Field Theory
RAC, Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology
*QFT, Quantum Field Theory
Lent Term – Minor Topics and Other Courses Course
GFT, Gauge Field Theory
MP, Medical Physics
PNS, Physics of Nanoelectronic Systems
PT, Phase Transitions
QI, Quantum Information
SQC, Superconductivity and Quantum Coherence
QS, Quantum Simulation
ASM, Advanced Statistical Mechanics
EXO, Exoplanets and Planetary Systems
*TLQM, Topological Quantum Matter
**IDP1, Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Change
**IDP2, Climate Change and the Carbon Cycle
**IDP3, Materials, Electronics & Renewable Energy
*AQFT, Advanced Quantum Field Theory
***NPE 4M16, Nuclear Power Engineering
Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Physicists
* From Part III Mathematics, ** Interdisciplinary Paper, *** From Part IIB Engineering
Other requirements
Research Project
General Physics Paper
2
For each exam, a chat is opened on Teams, which the assessor or examiner fol ows throughout the
duration of the exam. If a question arises (which is communicated by the student writing on a
standard form), it is copied onto the chat and answered there. This quickly communicates the
answer to everyone on the chat and thereby makes sure that corrections can be distributed to
remote locations such as college exam rooms very quickly.
All Cavendish-run examinations went smoothly. There were a few queries raised which were
answered with ‘correct as written’. For the Major Topics, in PP there was a very minor typographic
error which was announced after 35 minutes. In AOP a few minutes after the start of the exam a
student noticed that there were 18 lines in the diagram in Q1. The text in the question says there
are 20 lines three times, a correction was announced correcting the ‘20’ to ‘18’ in the three
locations, and the Col eges were informed. In QCMFT after 40 minutes a student noticed a mistake
in Q3(e) where a pair of brackets and square had been left out of the equation. The correct version
was written on the board in the Pippard Lecture theatre and pointed out to the students.
Unfortunately, the Teaching Office staff were not informed as quickly as normal y, and a message
was sent out to the students in Col eges at a late stage. The scripts of these students were
scrutinsed and marked to avoid those students being at a disadvantage. For the Minor Topics, in
ASM after about 20 minutes a mistake was noticed in Q1(d), an extra ‘V’ in the right-hand side of
the equation. This was announced in the exam and the Col eges were informed quickly. For GFT,
the Lecturer/Assessor made a change to the examination before the start, in the first line of Q3
replacing “Lagrangian” with “Lagrangian density”. This was announced to the students in the main
exam hal and the information was sent to the Col eges a few minutes later. The General Physics
Paper ran smoothly with no queries raised by the students.
The Senior Examiner received two representations concerning the examinations. The first related
to the error in AOP described above where one of the students taking the exam in Col ege
commented that they were informed of the correction significantly later than the others. this was
discussed with the relevant Lecturer/Assessor and Examiner, careful attention was paid to marking
of the script. This candidate finished a significant distance from a border and it was decided that
there was no detriment. The second was that a student could not believe they had exactly the
same raw mark for three Major Topics exams. This was checked and it was indeed the case.
The invigilators appointed by the University were different for al the exams (due to the
implementation of the Casual Worker System), while they general y carried out their duties wel ,
for each exam they had to be informed of the protocols operated in the physics-run exams and
in one case (QCMFT), unfortunately, these were not fol owed. It would be better if fewer
invigilators were used for the exams.
4. The 2023/24 Cohort
A total of 98 candidates were originally entered for the examination, composed of 90 NSTPHY
students and 8 MAPY students. The assessment procedures for NSTPHY and MAPY candidates
are identical in all respects. Of the NSTPHY students XXXXX was entered but later withdrawn
having taken one examination. XXXXX has split Part III over two years, taking three Major
Topics last year and completing the remaining requirements this year. This year’s marks
were combined with scaled marks from 2022/23 to form an overall class and to allow the
student to graduate this year. XXXXX is a visiting student only talking some of the
courses (In addition
3
there were 21 students from the Institute of Astronomy, 11 from Engineering, 4 from Earth
Sciences and 8 from Chemistry who took some of exams organized by Physics). The remaining 87
NSTPHY candidates and 8 MAPY candidates submitted a full complement of examination
elements. The number of students in the 2023/24 cohort is a little lower than size of the cohorts
in the years prior to 2020/21. The year 2020/21 was an outlier with a comparatively large NSTPHY
cohort, which may be attributed to the lack of an upper second class hurdle for progression into Part
III in that year and to the lack of other opportunities outside university. The year 2021/22 was a
relatively small cohort, perhaps due to continuing effects of the pandemic on student attainment
and aspirations. The introduction of the upper second hurdle at Part II in 2013/14 caused the
fraction of the cohort receiving first class degrees to be higher from 2013/14 onwards compared to
before 2013/14, due to the pre-selected incoming cohort. This hurdle was suspended for
2020/21, but has been reintroduced. The 2022/23 and 2023/24 cohort compositions are similar
to that of the pre-pandemic 2013/14-2018/19 cohorts. It may therefore be expected that the
distribution of grades should be similar to the distributions seen in those years.
5. Marking procedures
The marking fol owed the usual procedures, with anonymity of scripts enforced using the
standard University blind grade codes. As in previous years, in advance of marking, Major
Topics and Minor Topics Lecturers/Assessors were asked to aim for an average mark of about
70%, it is recognised that this is not possible in all cases, but the deviations of the averages
from this value was quite large for some courses. Such targets cannot be imposed on papers
borrowed from other departments. An indicative target mark of 70% was also suggested to the
Examiners of the General Paper marking. Following marking of each question by the relevant
Assessor or internal Examiner, the marked scripts and completed spreadsheets were passed to
a second marker, who checked the marking of at least 10% of the scripts. The addition and
transcription of al marks were checked either by the second marker, or by
in
the Teaching Office. A few minor errors of addition or transcription were discovered and
corrected at this stage for some exams.
The QFT, AQFT and TLQM marks were received very shortly before the final examiners’ meeting
from DAMTP. In years before 2022-2023, the raw (unscaled) marks were used for those
examinations run by DAMTP. However, this is questionable for classes with very small cohorts
for which our Moore scaling cannot reasonably be applied. The larger cohort examined by
DAMTP, as wel as the insights of the DAMTP assessors into the examination process, al ows
them to make a more informed scaling adjustment. Changing from the raw marks to the
DAMTP-scaled marks also brings most Moore factors closer to unity. We have therefore used
the DAMTP-scaled marks as initial input to our analysis. The marks are still subject to our own
scalings.
The completed spreadsheets were sent to the Senior Examiner. They were combined into Major
Topics, and Minor Topics spreadsheet workbooks. A General Paper spreadsheet was also completed and
checked. Results from these spreadsheets (both scaled and unscaled) were then copied into an overal
spreadsheet along with project marks, this transfer was careful y checked by the Senior Examiner.
Where a candidate submitted more than the minimum number of three Major Topics, or three
Minor Topics, the three highest marks were used to compute the total mark. Following the final
examiners’ meeting a final mark sheet was produced and entered into CamSiS using the Grade
Rosters procedure. In a few cases where the module mark was greater than 100% (due to the
Moore scaling) the Grade Roster mark was truncated to 100%. The contribution of these marks
to the overal mark was not truncated.
4
6. Scaling and grade boundaries
The examiners fol owed the standard methods, applying two mechanisms to ensure a
reasonably fair distribution of final marks: firstly, the raw module marks were subjected to
Moore scaling to bring module averages broadly into line with the strength of the cohort taking
a particular module; secondly, the grade boundaries were chosen to produce a class distribution
consistent with the overall strength of the cohort and with historical class distributions.
Moore Scaling. As in previous years, to ensure that candidates are treated fairly when they
choose among options whose examinations are inevitably of varying difficulty, scaling factors
may be applied to the raw marks. The scaling factors make use of the expected performance of
the candidates taking a particular option using the average overal mark obtained in Part II by
the subset of these candidates who also took the examination. This scaling method redistributes
marks across options so that students are not disadvantaged if they choose more difficult
options.
The scaling factors
Sc for each course
c were computed using Moore’s algorithm. The
“Moore factors”,
R (the ratios of the average Part III mark to the average Part II cohort mark
c
for each course) are scaled by the average of al Moore factors, weighted with the number of
students enrol ed in each course,
nc : giving the Moore scaling factor
S =
R ×∑
n ∑
R n . A high Moore scaling (
S
c
c
c /
c c
c > 1) suggest an easier exam, a low
c
c
Moore scaling (
Sc < 1) suggests a harder exam. Moore scaling is not applied to exams with 5 or
less students, or Projects, and its application to the General Physics Paper is usually decided
separately by the Examiners.
The Moore Scaling process may be modified so that exams with anomalously low scaling
factors (e.g.
Sc < 0
.9) do not affect other exams. Scaling factors are recalculated without the
outlier exams and applied to non-outliers, as has been done in some previous years This
modified procedure can only improve marks compared to the default Moore Scaling
procedure.
Some candidates submit more than the minimum number of topic choices. All submitted work
was used in computing the Moore scaling factors, but only the best three marks (after
scaling) were used to determine the total overall scaled mark for each candidate.
After the Moore scaling is undertaken for the Major and Minor Topics, and if necessary, the
General Paper, these marks are added to the project mark in the correct proportions to give an
overall mark for each student. In order to match the historic distribution of classes, it is usually
necessary to scale the overall marks to give a distribution matching the conventional 40%, 50%,
60%, 70% class boundaries. Piecewise linear scaling (PLS) is implemented so that the final marks
conform to the usual boundaries (e.g. if 69% becomes a first, the candidate’s transcript will show
70% and not 69%).
7. Summary of Major Topics Marks
The Examiners have used the Part II marks with the Moore Scaling algorithm, and the results
are seen in Table 2.
5
Table 2: Major Topics - Scaling
Part II cohort
AOP
AQC
BIO
PEP
PP
QCM
RAC
QFT
No. in cohort
37
34
27
15
43
38
37
38
Cohort Part II mark %
73.34
72.68
68.97
65.63
69.89
74.37
69.37
71.98
Part II NSTPHY mark %
70.14
69.31
66.51
62.11
77.97
88.68* 69.37
67.24
Rc = (I I mark)/(I mark)
0.956
0.954
0.964
0.946
1.116
1.071
1.000
0.934
Moore scale factor,
Sc
0.956
0.953
0.964
0.946
1.115
1.070
0.999
0.933
*Raw mean mark, marks for this course were scaled to give a mean of 79.65% (see below)
There were two courses with Moore factors significantly different from 1, PP and QCMFT. In
both cases the Lecturers/Assessors were encouraged to look again at their marking. In the case
of QCMFT it was felt the discrepancy (Pt III/Pt II=1.192) was too large for a Major Topic, so the
raw data was rescaled using a piecewise linear scaling to spread the marks away from 100%
without penalising those at the lower end of the distribution. The revised Pt III/Pt II ratio
reduced to 1.071. Moore scaling was then applied.
Major Topics exams before and after modified Moore Scaling is shown in Table 3. Further details can be
seen in the Appendix. The provisional marks, with no scalings applied, for the seven Major Topics papers
taken at the start of Lent Term (i.e. excluding QFT) were fed back to candidates via their Directors of
Studies to help inform their choice of Minor Topic courses.
Table 3 Major Topics Results
AOP
AQC
BIO
PEP
PP
QCM
RAC
QFT
All candidates (NSTPHY and 40
37
30
16
47
41
41
41
MAPY)
Mean Mark (%) before scaling
69.0
68.9
67.3
62.7
76.5
88.6
68.2
66.7±
±14.7
±14.0
±12.7
±13.3
±16.1
±8.8
±12.8
14.3
Mean Mark (%) after scaling
72.3
72.3
69.8
66.3
68.6
74.2
68.3
71.5
NSTPHY only
37
34
27
15
43
38
37
38
Mean mark (%) after scaling
73.4
72.7
69.0
65.7
70.0
74.4
69.4
72.0
MAPY only
3
3
3
1
4
3
4
3
Mean mark (%) after scaling
58.1
67.6
77.0
75.8
54.6
71.4
57.6
64.6
8. Summary of Minor Topics (and equivalents) Marks
As for the Major Topics, the examiners have used the Moore Scaling algorithm taking into
account the cohort Part II marks. The results are seen in Table 4. More variation is seen in the
Minor Topics Moore scalings as the students have a larger number of choices than for the Major
Topics, resulting in fewer students per topic. For some topics, IDP1, IDP2 and TQM there are 5
or less students and the Moore scale factor is set to 1.000.
Table 4 Minor Topics (or equivalents) Scaling
Part II cohort
GFT
MP
PNS
PT
QI
SQC
QS
ASM
No. in cohort
38
10
7
23
45
20
19
43
Cohort Part II mark %
71.30
67.34
69.47
75.06
69.87
73.08
74.40
72.03
Part II NSTPHY mark %
79.01
79.50
79.64
70.11
74.17
74.63
71.18
88.55
Rc= (III mark)/(II mark)
1.108
1.181
1.146
0.934
1.062
1.021
0.957
1.229
Moore scale factor, Sc
1.023
1.090
1.058
0.862
0.980
0.942
0.883
1.134
6
link to page 7
Part II cohort
EXO
TQM
IDP1
IDP2
IDP3
AQFT
NPE
IEP
No. in cohort
14
3
2
1
13
9
19
8
Cohort Part II mark %
69.87
82.71
62.37
62.22
70.33
70.29
67.31
68.29
Part II NSTPHY mark
86.70
78.67
76.00
69.00
62.50
59.33
78.33
78.58
Rc= (III mark)/(II mark)
1.241
0.951
1.218
1.109
0.889
0.844
1.164
1.151
Moore scale factor, Sc
1.145
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.820
0.779
1.074
1.062
The average mark for each of the Minor Topics exams before and after modified Moore Scaling
is shown in Table
5. Further details can be seen in Appendix A.
Table 5: Summary of the Minor Topic (or equivalents) Results.
GFT
MP
PNS
PT
QI
SQC
QS
ASM
All candidates (NSTPHY and 42
10
7
24
50
20
19
47
MAPY)
Mean Mark (%) before scaling
78.5
79.50
79.64
69.58
73.25
74.63
71.18
86.76
±11.30 ±9.63
±12.22 ±14.33 ±14.38 ±11.56 ±12.12 ±12.73
Mean Mark (%) after scaling
76.8
73.0
75.3
80.7
74.8
79.2
80.6
76
NSTPHY number
38
10
7
23
45
20
19
43
NST Mean mark (%) after scaling
77.3
73.0
75.3
81.3
75.7
79.2
80.6
78.1
MAPY number
4
0
0
1
5
0
0
4
MAPY Mean mark(%) after scaling 72.1
66.7
66.3
59.5
All candidates (NSTPHY and
EXO
TQM
IDP1
IDP2
IDP3
AQFT
NPE
IEP
MAPY)
All candidates (NSTPHY and 16
3
2
1
16
10
10
MAPY)
Mean Mark (%) before scaling
84.38
78.7±
76.00
69.00
63.28
58.5
77.78
78.12
±16.09 6.35
±11.31
±13.56 ±18.5
±13.0
±3.07
Mean Mark (%) after scaling
73.7
78.7
76.0
69.0
77.2
75.1
72.4
73.6
NSTPHY number
14
3
2
1
13
9
19
8
NST Mean mark (%) after scaling
75.7
78.7
76.0
69.0
76.2
76.2
72.9
74.0
MAPY number
2
0
0
0
3
1
2
2
MAPY Mean mark(%) after scaling 59.5
81.3
65.5
67.5
71.8
9. General Physics Paper
The General Physics Paper (GPP) tests the ability of students to apply core physics skil s
acquired in the first three years of their degree or in school to unseen problems. It was taken
by 96 candidates. The Examiners took care to ensure that the questions did not rely on
materials that were too specific to the Cambridge courses, and that the majority of marks
could be obtained using a sensible and straightforward approach. This year the students
performed better than has been the case in the past with an average mark of
67.2% for all students. The number of attempts at different questions varied
widely, from 10 to 84 for the short A questions and 9 to 93 for the longer B questions, indicating that
students were much more comfortable with some subject areas than others. The performance in
the GPP differs significantly between the Cambridge-grown cohort of NSTPHY students and
the MAPY cohort. The NSTPHY students tracked from Part II into Part III achieved an average
7
mark of 69.6% (comparable to GPP scores of 64.6% in 2023 and 65.4% in 2022), close to their
Part II cohort average of 71.1% (Table 6). The 8 MAPY candidates performed poorly,
averaging 44.9%, worse than cohorts of previous years (in 2023 the average was 51.8% and in
2022, 45.4%). It should be noted that the Department provided significant General Paper
teaching for the MAPY students with seven examples classes of 90-minute duration covering
al the subject areas in the paper.
If a Moore-like scaling were to be calculated for the GPP as ratio of the average Part II/NSTPHY
marks, it would be 0.98, resulting in a small correction of 1.02 for the GPP marks. Consequently,
it was decided on this occasion not to scale the GPP marks.
Table 6 Moore Scaling for General Paper
Part II cohort
General Physics paper
Number in cohort
86
Cohort Part II mark %
71.1
Cohort Part I I NSTPHY mark %
69.6
Rc= (III mark)/(II mark)
0.98
Moore Scaling factor
1.02
10. Research Projects
Research projects are one of the most important parts of the degree. They al ow the students
to gain experience in new physics and new techniques, and to develop significant
independence. This year, as in others, there were some excel ent projects, which the
examiners found truly impressive. The Research Projects were again very ably coordinated by
, who also did excel ent work in managing the project allocation and assessment
process. The fol owing comments draw heavily on the report prepared for the examiners by
and the team of assessors.
The cohort was significantly smaller than last year with 98 project allocations of which 2
intermitted or withdrew (114 allocations in 2023 with 2 intermission/withdrawals). Of the 98
al ocations, 8 were MASt students (13 MASt in 2023). 18 students needed to hand in late, a
significant increase from 6 in 2023. This year they no longer had to get their Tutor or Director
of Studies to apply on their behalf for an extension but could ‘self-certify’ a 7-day extension.
This increase in late submission caused significant disruption to assessors, in particular
rescheduling Vivas to complete assessment within the limited time frame available to provide
grades to examiners. As a result, not al joint reports could be submitted prior to the
moderation meeting (88 out of 96, 92%). The view of assessors in the moderation meeting
was that sufficient grades where available for moderation across the cohort, and any
additional moderation requirements after submission of the remaining 8 reports could be
conducted via correspondence if indicated
Project Assessment
As in previous years, each project was marked by an independent assessor and by the
project supervisor. Each assessor marked between 12 and 13 projects for comparison. The
assessor and supervisor submitted independent preliminary marks prior to the project viva,
though these do not count towards the final mark. The final marks were entered after the
8
viva with the assessor and supervisor entering separate marks on the same form after
consultation. Both the assessor and supervisor can modify their preliminary marks at this
stage. Projects were marked on four criteria: Research Skills (RS), Scientific Content (SC),
Project Report (PR), Project Viva (PV.)
Each aspect was given a mark out of ten. The total marks for the assessor and supervisor
were obtained from a weighted sum of their individual marks, with the relative weights
being: RS x 3, SC x 2, PR x 1.5 and PV x 1.5. This adds to a maximum of 80 which was
multiplied by 10/8 to give a mark in %. Finally, the total mark, as reported in the overall Part
III mark-book, was the average of the mark from the supervisor and from the assessor.
Project Moderation
The projects were al ocated to the eight assessors based on two factors (i) obtaining similar
average Part II marks across all assessors to provide a cross section of the cohort and (ii)
relevant experience in the subject area if possible. The later could not be achieved in all cases
as the distribution of expertise amongst the assessor pool was not a precise match to the
distribution of project subject areas. Furthermore, where supervisors had multiple projects,
these were assigned to the same assessor, to assist with moderation and for ease of
scheduling vivas. The average PI marks for each assessor was in the range 69.78% to 72.83%
a spread of just over 3%. The mean and standard deviation in part II marks broken down by
assessor are shown in Table 7.
Table 7 Project moderation
3
rk
II 202
t only)
t only) -
or
or
ect ma
PI (Phy P
I proj
I 2023 coh
ean
I 2023 coh
PI
t only)
ark
k
y PI
y PI or
ar
rk
t m
rk (Ph
rk (al) - m
rk (Ph
ma
an assessor
ma
ma
ma
ect
rk
ect
ect
ect y PI 2023 coh
I ma
or PII projec
or - me
k
rk
nt PI
vis
vis
II proj
ar
II proj
II proj rk (Ph
sessor PII project m
nt P
I ma
nt P
nt P
or
joi
I m
PI
ss
n joint PII proj
n super
as
n super
P
n joi t only)
ean
ean joi
ean
or
ean joi an PI ma
Asse
Mea
St. Dev.
Mea
M
Mea
M
M
St. Dev.
Mea coh
M me
1
74.89
6.06
74.45
75.34
-0.89
74.89
70.28
4.61
4.61
4.61
2
74.57
6.79
75.68
73.46
2.21
72.88
71.01
11.34
3.56
1.87
3
74.32
8.94
75.39
73.26
2.14
74.32
70.63
9.17
3.69
3.69
4
70.68
12.52
71.02
70.34
0.68
73.63
72.83
9.52
-2.15
0.80
5
76.79
7.89
78.07
75.51
2.56
76.79
69.78
4.08
7.01
7.01
6
74.14
11.44
76.77
71.51
5.26
74.40
71.66
7.26
2.48
2.75
7
75.82
11.75
75.42
76.22
-0.81
76.10
71.33
8.12
4.50
4.77
8
77.49
9.27
78.21
76.76
1.45
77.49
70.84
8.00
6.65
6.65
9
These final marks were discussed by the assessors at the project moderation meeting. This
allowed a check that similar standards were being applied by all assessors. The scores of the
assessors and of the supervisors were compared. In general, supervisors tend to mark more
leniently than the assessors, but there is a strong correlation between supervisor and
assessor marks. Three projects showed a difference in marks between supervisor and
assessor of more than 10%, one of which showed a difference of more than 12%. These
projects were individually discussed in the moderation meeting, and reasons for the
differences were identified and communicated to the examiners. The conclusion reached was
that was that there was no systematic difference in performance between assessors and that
no moderation of marks was necessary. The figure above shows the distribution of project
marks for both NSTPHY and MAPY students. The mean project mark this year is 74.81% for al
students with the MAPY student having a slightly lower average of 71.37%. These marks
compare wel with 74.41% and 71.21% respectively for 2022-2023
Mark distribution
Figure 1
Figure 1 above shows the distribution of project marks for both NSTPHY and MAPY students.
The mean project mark this year is 74.8 ± 9.4% for al students with the MAPY student having
a slightly lower average of 71.37 ± 10.8%. These marks compare well with 74.41% and 71.21%
respectively for 2022-2023
Comparison between project types
Project were categorised as: experimental, computation and theory. Many projects involved
more than one aspect, and some involved al three. Projects with multiple aspects were included
in the statistics for each aspect listed. The project type was assigned at the point of the assessor
submitting the project abstract and not revisited, which is a short coming of this analysis as it
does not account for the evolving nature of many projects.
10
link to page 11 link to page 12
There was a total of 43 experimental projects, 58 computational projects and 31 theory projects,
with computation and theory having a notably large overlap. Comparison of unal ocated
projects by type indicates a similar uptake in different project types. In 2022-23 a preference for
theory projects was noted, with a greater proportion of experimental projects left unal ocated,
which was not present this year. Potential y significant differences in these cohorts are (i) part II
students in 2022-23 may have had less experimental experience due to COVID, (ii) a new
allocations process using a stable matching algorithm was employed, which could affect
experimental and computation/theory project al ocations differently.
The average joint PI I project mark was similar across all project types: theory projects 75.34%,
computational projects 74.78%, and experimental projects 74.34%. The difference between
Theory and experiment of 1.0% is significantly less than 2022-23 when it was s 3.0%. Theory
projects students on average had a slightly higher (0.5%) PII marks then Experiment students.
Prizes
To assist the examiners in the awarding of project prizes, the project coordinator and
moderators prepared a document of projects recommended for prizes. This is formed of the
three highest scoring projects in each category, along with scores and comments. A folder
containing the reports titled by blind grade number is also prepared and shared on one drive
with the senior examiner. The list was determined as follows:
• Projects were ranked according to category, as defined at the point of supervisor
abstract submission.
• Overlap among the top-ranking projects in each category was removed by asking
assessors during the moderation to define the category which best characterised the
shortlisted projects.
11. Total Marks
The average total mark (and breakdown of the main components), achieved by the candidates
is shown in Table
8. On average, the MAPY candidates scored lower than NSTPHY candidates
for the Major and Minor Topics and Project, and much lower in the GPP. The distribution of
total marks and comparison to Part II marks is shown in Figure
2. These total marks are
computed after modified Moore scaling has been applied to individual module marks. The
NSTPHY marks are seen to correlate very well with the Part II marks for most candidates.
Table 8: Summary of average total marks and average for each component. The Major and
Minor Topics marks used for the calculation of the total marks have been adjusted using
Moore Scaling where indicated, the GPP and project marks are not scaled. These results
include students who only completed part of the course.
%
Total
Project
GPP
Major
Minor
All Unscaled
72.47
74.81
67.15
70.73
76.56
NST Unscaled
73.24
75.12
69.18
71.33
77.34
MAYP Unscaled
63.96
71.37
44.86
64.07
61.21
All Scaled
72.47
74.81
67.15
70.73
76.59
NST Scaled
73.24
75.12
69.18
71.33
77.37
MAPY Scaled
64.00
71.37
44.86
64.19
67.99
11
Overal 2023-24%
25
20
15
Overall %
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
100.00
90.00
80.00
al % 70.00
Over
Unscaled
Scaled
60.00
50.00
40.0040.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Part I %
Figure 2: Distributions of total marks, the lower graph showing the effect of applying Moore
scaling to Major and Minor Topics. The GPP and project marks were not scaled.
12
Classing
The classing is shown in Table 9 for previous years and for this year with various scaling
scenarios. The pandemic has had some influences on the records: 2020 implemented a Part II
safety net (which saw three candidates increase from a II.i to a I, one candidate increase from
a II.ii to a I and one candidate increase from a II.ii to II.i); for 2021 there was no Class II.i
threshold at Part II (implemented in 2013) for entry into Part III, leading to larger cohort and a
longer tail.
Candidates were provisional y classed based on their total mark, by applying nominal class
boundaries of 70% / 60% / 50% / 40% for two different scenarios: A - unscaled and B - Moore
scaled Major and Minor Topics. The boundaries were then modified, comparing the current
results with the performances of cohorts in previous years and taking note of cohort tracking.
The results for candidates whose total mark was close to one of the nominal boundaries were
discussed at the final examiners’ meeting. As a result of these considerations, the I / II.i
boundary was set to 71.0% [68.8% in 2023, 65.3% in 2022], the II.i/II.i boundary set to 59.0%
[57.1% in 2023 57.2% in 2022], the II.i / 3 boundary was left at 50.0% [50.0% in 2023. 49.5%
in 2022], and a final total scaled mark was obtained for each candidate using a piecewise
linear scaling algorithm - scenario C.
The MAPY candidates were classed in the same way as NSTPHY candidates; a Distinction (d)
was awarded to candidates with a Class I mark, a Commendation (c) to those with a Class II.i
mark, and a Pass to those with a Class II.ii or III mark. The performance of the MAPY
candidates was significantly worse than it has been in recent years, with no students gaining
a Distinction.
13
Table 9: A summary of classing for NSTPHY and MAPY students. Column A: no scaling, Column B: Moore scaling,
Column C Moore and Boundary scaling
NSTPHY
A
B
C
2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
I
59
60
57
65
48
64
52
60
61
54
57
71
60
44
47
47
43
36
39
I .i
25
23
27
29
28
25
19
28
27
22
30
26
47
36
33
33
30
29
30
I .i
3
4
3
5
3
14
1
3
7
6
6
9
11
13
12
12
17
13
15
I I
1
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
1
1
4
2
3
F
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
88
88
88
100
79
107
72
91
95
84
93
107
118
95
93
93
94
80
87
I (%)
67.1 68.2 64.8
65
60.8
59.8
72.2
65.9
64.2
64.3
61.3
66.4
50.8
46.3
50.5
50.5
45.7
45
44.8
I .i (%)
28.4 26.1 30.7
29
35.4
23.4
26.4
30.8
28.4
26.2
32.3
24.3
39.8
37.9
35.5
35.5
31.9
36.2
34.5
I .i (%)
3.4
4.6
3.4
5
3.8
13.1
1.4
3.3
7.4
7.1
6.5
8.4
9.3
13.7
12.9
12.9
18.1
16.2
17.2
I I (%)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1
0
2.8
0
0
0
2.4
0
0.9
0
2.1
1.1
1.1
4.3
2.5
3.4
F (%)
0
0
0
0
0
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MAPY
A
B
C
2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
I (d)
0
0
0
6
4
5
7
5
2
3
6
5
7
5
3
2
I .i (c)
7
7
7
4
2
4
6
5
3
6
5
3
10
3
5
7
I .i (p)
0
0
0
3
2
1
1
2
4
0
2
2
1
2
3
2
I I (p)
1
1
1
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
3
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Total
8
8
8
13
8
12
15
14
10
10
13
11
19
11
12
14
Cohort Tracking
Student performance is tracked through successive years of the Natural Sciences Tripos by
awarding a Baxter score of 5 for a Class I, 3 for a Class II.i, 2 for a Class II.i and 1 for a Class III.
In Part IA, the Second Class is undivided and students are awarded 5 for a Class I, 2.5 for a
Class II and 1 for a Class III.
The average Baxter scores for the NSTPHY students who took Part III Physics this year are
shown in the first row of Table 10. This only includes those who took Part II Physics in 2023 and
Part IB NST in 2022 and Part 1A NST in 2021. Note that several Baxter scores are missing, in
part due to patchy availability of data, but also because exams in 2020 were not classed.
Using scenario C, the Baxter score is 4.24. This is very similar to the Baxter score in 2023
(4.23) reflecting the fact that the cohort this year is again quite strong, with relatively high
unscaled marks.
NSTPart
I I
I
IB
IA
2024
4.24 3.94 3.77 3.61
2023
4.23 3.82 3.94
2021
4.18 3.72
2020
4.01
3.34 3.04
14
Special cases
The Examiners were asked to ensure that all candidates with Specific Learning Difficulties were
correctly treated. Relevant assessors were instructed not to penalise poor presentation.
12. Conclusions and Recommendations
Once again, the availability of
in the teaching office was of great assistance,
notably in providing additional checking of mark addition and transcription which has made
the overall process more robust. Scanning of scripts is very helpful for overall workflow of
marking, and robustness of records. We recommend that this becomes a routine part of the
examination process and that the Teaching Office is properly equipped and resourced for that.
This year the Senior examiner decided to revert to Excel spreadsheets for the recording and
analysis of marks. This meant that he did not use the system which was developed by
and used in previous years, he would have liked to use this system but (due to his lack
of programming skills) did not feel confident that he would be able to do so successfully. As
for last year, it is recommended that the Department provides more support to assist the
Senior Examiner in the use of
system as “Exam Secretary”. This would also help
communications and adoption of similar processes in different years.
Once again there were issues about submission deadlines for papers. The extensions
negotiated by
meant that exam preparation was doable in a sensible way, but
if this is not al owed in future there would be problems.
13. Thanks
The Examiners are indebted to
for the excel ent and effective support they provided on many occasions
throughout the year and for ensuring that the examination process ran smoothly and
successfully. Departmental staff provided valuable support during the examination periods,
and the Teaching Office did an excellent job throughout the year. The Senior Examiner would
also particularly like to thank the two External Examiners,
, for their
contributions throughout the examination process – including their quick and clear feedback
to exam paper drafts, their thoughtful contributions to the final meeting, and their helpful
suggestions for how practices could be improved.
2nd July 2024
15
Appendix: Major Topics 2023-24
AOP
Q1/30 Q2/30 Q3/30 Total/60 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
37
17
26
40
40
37
3
Average
20.6
21.9
20.1
41.4
69
70.1
55.5
Standard deviation
5.3
4.8
5.6
8.8
14.7
14.7
7.5
AOP versus Pt I
AOP
60
10
50
8
40
30
6
20
4
10
0
2
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00 100.00
0
Pt I mark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AQC
Q1/30 Q2/30 Q3/30 Total/60 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
8
34
32
37
37
34
3
Average
22.3
20.7
20.3
41.4
68.9
69.3
64.4
Standard deviation
5.4
4.3
5.4
8.4
14
14.3
12.6
AQC versus Pt II
AQC
60
20
50
40
15
30
20
10
10
5
00.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 0
Pt I mark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BIO
Q1/30 Q2/30 Q3/30 Total/60 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
16
28
16
30
30
27
3
Average
14.9
24
18.7
40.4
67.3
66.5
74.2
Standard deviation
5.5
3.2
4.5
7.6
12.7
13.2
1.7
BIO versus Pt I
BIO
60
12
50
10
40
8
30
20
6
10
4
0
2
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00 100.00
0
Pt I mark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Notes: The scatter plots are only for NST students with a Part II mark - so don’t include MAPY students.
The histograms are results for all students (NST and MAPY). The bins (1 to 10) correspond to 0-10%, 10-
20%, 20-30%....90-100%
PEP
Q1/30 Q2/30 Q3/30 Total/60 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
16
13
3
16
16
15
1
Average
19.8
16.1
25.3
37.6
62.7
62.1
71.7
Standard deviation
4.4
4.2
1.5
8
13.3
13.5
PEP versus Pt I
PEP
60
6
50
5
40
4
30
20
3
10
2
0
1
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00 100.00
0
Pt I mark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PP
Q1/30 Q2/30 Q3/30 Total/60 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
20
44
30
47
47
43
4
Average
22.4
23.1
23.1
45.9
76.5
78
60.8
Standard deviation
4.8
5.6
5.6
9.6
16.1
15.3
18.2
PP versus Pt I
PP
60
14
50
12
40
10
30
8
20
6
10
4
0
2
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00 100.00
0
Pt I mark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
QCM
Q1/30 Q2/30 Q3/30 Total/60 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
34
25
23
41
41
38
3
Average
26.7
24.4
28.8
53.2
88.6
88.7
87.8
Standard deviation
2.8
3.2
1.3
5.3
8.8
9.1
4.8
QCM versus Pt I
QCM
60
25
50
20
40
30
15
20
10
10
0
5
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00 100.00
0
Pt I mark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Notes: The scatter plots are only for NST students with a Part II mark - so don’t include MAPY students.
The histograms are results for all students (NST and MAPY). The bins (1 to 10) correspond to 0-10%, 10-
20%, 20-30%....90-100%
RAC
Q1/30 Q2/30 Q3/30 Total/60 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
22
41
19
41
41
37
4
Average
14.6
24.7
18.2
40.9
68.2
69.4
57.5
Standard deviation
5.8
3.2
5.6
7.7
12.8
12.6
9.4
RAC versus Pt I
RAC
60
14
50
12
40
10
30
8
20
6
10
4
0
2
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00 100.00
0
Pt I mark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
QFT
Total/60 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
41
41
38
3
Average
40
66.7
67.2
60.3
Standard deviation
8.6
14.3
14.6
9.3
QFT versus Pt II
QFT
60.00
14
50.00
12
40.00
10
30.00
8
20.00
6
10.00
4
0.00
2
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00 100.00
0
Pt I mark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Notes: The scatter plots are only for NST students with a Part II mark - so don’t include MAPY students.
The histograms are results for all students (NST and MAPY). The bins (1 to 10) correspond to 0-10%, 10-
20%, 20-30%....90-100%
Minor Topics (or equivalent) 2023-24
GFT
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
28
22
34
42
42
38
4
Average
15.4
15
16.4
31.4
78.5
79
73.8
Standard deviation
2.5
1.7
3.2
4.5
11.3
11.7
6.6
Gauge Field Theory (GFT) /40
GFT
40.00
15
30.00
10
20.00
10.00
5
0.000.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 0
Part I %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
MP
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
0
10
10
10
10
10
0
Average
14.9
16.9
31.8
79.5
79.5
Standard deviation
2.3
1.9
3.9
9.6
9.6
Medical Physics (MP) mark/40
MP
40.00
5
30.00
4
20.00
3
10.00
2
0.00
1
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part I %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PNS
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
5
4
5
7
7
7
0
Average
14.7
17.1
16.2
31.9
79.7
79.7
Standard deviation
3.5
1.7
1.9
4.9
12.2
12.2
Physics of Nanoelectronic
PNS
Systems (PNS) mark/40
40.00
5
30.00
4
20.00
3
10.00
2
0.00
1
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part I %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PT
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
16
22
10
24
24
23
1
Average
13.1
15.1
12.6
27.8
69.6
70.1
57.5
Standard deviation
3.1
3.1
3.6
5.7
14.3
14.4
Phase transitions (PT) mark/40
PT
40.00
7
30.00
6
5
20.00
4
10.00
3
2
0.00
1
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part I %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
QI
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
28
45
27
50
50
45
5
Average
14.7
15.2
13.7
29.3
73.3
74.2
65
Standard deviation
2.4
3.3
4.7
5.8
14.4
14.6
9
Quantum Information (QI)
mark/40
QI
50.00
20
40.00
30.00
15
20.00
10
10.00
0.00
5
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Part I %
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SQC
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
17
16
7
20
20
20
0
Average
15.5
14.8
14
29.9
74.6
74.6
#DIV/0!
Standard deviation
2.9
3.1
1.3
4.6
11.6
11.6
#DIV/0!
Superconductivity and Quantum
Coherence (SQC) mark/40
SQC
40.00
12
30.00
10
8
20.00
6
10.00
4
0.00
2
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part I %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
QS
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
12
12
14
19
19
19
0
Average
13.9
13.9
14.8
28.5
71.2
71.2
Standard deviation
4.2
3.1
3.1
4.8
12.1
12.1
Quantum Simulation (QS)
QS
mark/40
40.00
10
30.00
8
20.00
6
10.00
4
0.00
2
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part I %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IDP3
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
16
9
7
16
16
13
3
Average
12.5
13.2
12.3
25.3
63.3
62.5
66.7
Standard deviation
3.5
2.8
2.6
5.4
13.6
12.9
18.9
Materials, Electronics &
Renewable Energy (IDP3)
IDP3
40.00
mark/40
8
30.00
6
20.0
/400
P3
4
10.0
ID0
2
0.000.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 0
Part II %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ASM
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
46
36
12
47
47
43
4
Average
18.5
16.8
14.6
34.7
86.8
88.5
67.5
Standard deviation
2.3
3.5
3.4
5.1
12.7
8.8
29.4
Advanced Statistical Mechanics
ASM
(ASM) mark/40
40.00
20
30.00
15
20.00
10
10.00
5
0.000.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 0
Part I %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
EXO
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
14
13
5
16
16
14
2
Average
16.6
17.6
15.6
33.8
84.4
86.7
68.2
Standard deviation
5.1
2.4
3.6
6.4
16.1
10.9
41.5
Exoplanets (EXO) mark/40
EXO
40.00
8
30.00
6
20.00
4
10.00
2
0.000.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 0
Part I %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IDP1
Q1/25 Q2/25 Q3/25 Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
Average
19
19
30.4
76
76
Standard deviation
5.7
0
4.5
11.3
11.3
Atmospheric Chemistry and
IDP1
Global Change (IDP1) mark/40
40.00
1.2
30.00
1
0.8
20.00
0.6
10.00
0.4
0.00
0.2
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part II %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IDP2
Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
1
1
1
0
Average
27.6
69
69
Standard deviation
Climate Change and the Carbon
IDP2
40.00
Cycle (IDP2) mark/40
1.2
30.00
1
0.8
20.00
0.6
10.00
0.4
0.00
0.2
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part II %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NPE
Q1/20 Q2/20 Q3/20 Q4/20
Total/ 60 Total/40 Total %
Number of answers
21
20
11
11
21
21
21
Average
16.52 16.55 12.18
15.27
46.67
31.11
77.78
Standard deviation
2.44
2.86
4.07
2.49
7.81
5.21
13.02
Nuclear Power Engineering
NPE
(NPE) mark/40
40.00
10
30.00
8
20.00
6
10.00
4
0.00
2
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part II %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IEP
Total/40 Total %
Number of answers
10
10
Average
31.25
78.12
Standard deviation
1.23
3.07
Entrepreneurship (IEP) mark/40
IEP
40.00
10
30.00
8
20.00
6
10.00
4
0.00
2
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part II %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TQM
Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
3
3
3
0
Average
31.5
78.7
78.7
Standard deviation
2.5
6.4
6.4
Topological Quantum Matter
TQM
40.00
(TQM) mark/40
2.5
30.00
2
20.00
1.5
10.00
1
0.00
0.5
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part I %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
AQFT
Total/40 Total % NSTPHY % MAPY %
Number of answers
10
10
9
1
Average
23.4
58.5
59.3
51
Standard deviation
7.4
18.5
19.5
Advanced Quantum Field theory
AQFT
(AQFT) mark/40
80.00
2.5
60.00
2
40.00
1.5
20.00
1
0.00
0.5
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
0
Part II %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Notes: The scatter plots are only for NST students with a Part II mark - so don’t include MAPY students.
The histograms are results for all students (NST and MAPY). The bins (1 to 10) correspond to 0-10%, 10-20%, 20-
30%....90-100%. Al results here are raw i.e. not scaled.
General Paper 2023-24: “A” questions
Question
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
Mean
2.20
3.63
3.84
2.00
2.70
3.63
3.41
3.59
2.97
2.91
St.dev.
1.50
1.50
1.80
1.50
2.00
1.30
1.10
1.90
1.70
1.10
Number
84
41
63
51
10
91
66
27
87
53
A1
A2
A3
A4
40
20
40
25
30
15
30
20
15
20
10
20
A1
A2
A3
10
A4
10
5
10
5
0
0
0
0
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
A5
A6
A7
A8
6
40
30
20
5
25
30
15
4
20
3
20
15
10
A5
A6
A7
A8
2
10
10
5
1
5
0
0
0
0
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
A9
A10
25
40
20
30
15
20
10
A9
A10
5
10
0
0
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
General Paper 2023-24 “B” questions
Question
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
Mean/15
11.92
9.79
11.31
10.56
10.32
9.61
9.69
9.48
St.Dev.
2.20
4.60
3.40
3.20
3.60
2.60
3.40
2.60
Number
92
28
42
9
72
18
93
29
B1
B2
40
8
30
6
20
4
B1
B2
10
2
0
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
B3
B4
10
2.5
8
2
6
1.5
4
B3
1
B4
2
0.5
0
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
B5
B6
15
6
10
4
5
B5
2
B6
0
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
B7
B8
15
10
8
10
6
5
B7
4
B8
2
0
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
General Paper 2023-24 overal results
Candidate
Number Total / 90 Total %
All
96
60.4±13.8 67.2±15.3
NST mean
88
62.3
69.2
MAPY mean
8
40.4
44.9
General Paper 2023-24
90
80
70
60
/ 90
k
ar 50
m
40
PP total
G 30
20
10
040.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
Part I Mark
Overall mark/100
16
14
Bins of 5 marks width
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Document Outline