General Remarks

It is essential to the credibility of the History Aptitude Test (HAT) that, as far as possible, it is marked in a uniform way and to a common set of standards and expectations.  The following guidelines have been devised in relation to the published specifications of the HAT.  They have been approved by the History Admissions Subcommittee, and you need to follow them closely.

Do not award marks which are not whole numbers as the web system can only accept whole numbers.  Please do not deduct marks for spelling and grammatical errors unless they obstruct the expression of meaning. In reflecting on the quality of candidates’ expression, give preference to clarity over style.  The use of high-quality vocabulary should not be rewarded for itself, but only when it assists the expression of relevant material.

Note that the essay exercise [1(c)] is not intended as a test of candidates’ depth of knowledge, and must not be marked as such.  Candidates have been advised that no special preparation or revision is required for the HAT, so it is unreasonable to expect them to write with the same depth and/or accuracy on points of detail that we would expect from prepared written work.

Please use the whole of the marking scale. 

Marking Guidelines for Each Question

1(a)

This is a specific question intended to test a relatively precise range of skills:

• careful and critical reading
• precision in the handling of concepts
• clarity and facility of writing

In particular, this exercise demands that the candidates pay attention to the text, show precision in the handling of concepts and the ability to summarise the author’s words without transcribing them

For 8-10 marks, the candidate will grasp the author’s central point that the revolutionary process was a “bottom up” one of popular mobilisation, rather than one directed by Communist leaders from above. In particular, they may stress the distinction between “revolutionary consciousness” (forged by the party) and “revolutionary spontaneity” (a mood of revolution that emerged among the people) emphasised in the first sentence. The best answers may also recognise that this is a distinction between the ICP (party) and the Viet Minh (movement). The argument will be summarised succinctly, and will avoid reference to material outside of the specified paragraph.

For 5 to 7 marks, the candidate will grasp the point of the question and provide a reasonably competent summary of the author’s argument. The answer may, however, stray into material from other paragraphs, such as the subsequent paragraph on symbolism or the final paragraph on political decision-making. The quality of expression may be less strong, and there may be a tendency towards waffle or repetition.

For 0 to 4 marks, the candidate may show only a dim awareness of the point that the author is making about the nature of the revolutionary process. It may wander into other sections of the passage, or may simply repeat (with some superficial variation) the words of the author.

In general, candidates who go over-length should be penalised. One mark should be deducted for every additional three lines.

1(b)

The criteria for this question are:

• careful and critical reading
• analytical approach
• precision in the handling of concepts
• clarity and facility of writing

In particular, this question is intended to test the ability of candidates to read the passage as a whole and to construct (in their own words) an accurate account of the author’s explanation of Communist success. It is therefore focused on the ability to grasp a relatively complex historical argument; to summarise that argument within a finite space; and to handle a multi-causal explanation.

Some candidates may be tempted to make comparisons with other revolutionary processes (such as 1917) with which they are familiar. Such comparisons should not be specifically penalised, but they should not add to the overall quality of the answer.

For 14 to 20 marks, the candidate will provide a comprehensive and well-balanced account of the different sources of Communist success (see below). The best candidates will bring a real understanding to that process, and in particular in their understanding of some of the more difficult points within the text (such as the power of symbolic images in the third paragraph, or the connection between war and revolution in the fourth paragraph).

For 8 to 13 points, the candidate will provide a competent summary of the argument. Their answer may however have the character of a list, or may tend to dwell on some of the more obvious arguments (such as the quality of Communist leadership in the final paragraph) at the expense of others.

For 0 to 7 points, the candidate may simply present a series of quotations, or may fail to grasp the nature of the argument or even the point of the question. They may describe the revolution of 1945, without presenting the author’s explanation of Communist success, or may do so in a way which focuses exclusively on one factor.

The principal explanations of Communist success contained in this passage are:

Paragraph Two: Communist success was the consequence of a wider process of revolutionary mobilisation, and was not principally directed by the ICP from Hanoi. The author implies that the nationalist movement, the Viet Minh, was more than a simple tool of ICP ambitions.

Paragraph Three: Symbols, and more especially their power in a time of profound uncertainty, had a considerable impact on the politics of the period. The author is, however, rather vague as to how this impacted specifically on Communist success.

Paragraph Four: The Second World War profoundly disrupted the pre-war order, and also created a new mood of urgent expectation.

Paragraph Five: The activists of the ICP proved better able to seize the political opportunity of 1945 than did their opponents.

1(c)

This question relates to the following criteria:

• analytical approach
• coherent argument;
• precision in the handling of concepts and selection of evidence;
• relevance to the question;
• historical imagination;
• originality;
• clarity and facility of writing

It may be helpful to have in mind typical degree class boundaries in assessing this exercise, with the proviso that depth and accuracy of knowledge (as distinct from precision in its deployment) are not being tested.  Essays placed in the top band will display clarity, cogency, relevance, expressiveness, conceptual power and – perhaps – originality.  Essays falling in the larger middle band will answer the question soundly, but lack the analytical flexibility, or perhaps the perceptiveness, or argumentative coherence of a top-band answer.  Essays in the bottom band will have 2.2ish qualities or worse: a hazy or partial idea of the question, at best; material of varying relevance; variable or poor coherence; variable or poor expression.

The question requires candidates to identify a suitable ‘process of radical political or religious change’.  More predictable examples might include: any of the modern revolutions, including the rise of fascist and other dictatorial regimes; Roosevelt’s New Deal or the Civil Rights movement in the USA; the unification of Germany or Italy in the 19th century; the English Commonwealth of the 1650s; the English Reformation (or its 1530s phase); any of the continental reformations; the beginning of crusading; the papal reform.  More problematic are those examples which the candidate presents as ‘radical’ – and may be so, in the sense of producing fundamental change – but which might equally be regarded as ‘evolutionary’, or even ‘conservative’, such as the widening of the franchise in 19th-20thC England; the growth of state power in the early modern era; or religious conversion in the early middle ages.  In general, markers are urged to err on the side of generosity where a candidate appears to have chosen a less than ideal example, especially where s/he makes a reasonable case for its ‘radical’ nature or shows some awareness of its limitations.  But it is appropriate to penalise a candidate who presents an example which is not a ‘process’ or a ‘change’, or one who simply seizes upon an event from his/her course and assumes it to constitute an example of radical change without explaining why.  Above all, however, it is consistently important to bear in mind the extent to which candidates are constrained by the syllabus they have covered at school.

Candidates are also specifically required to address the question of ‘how far’ an individual or organisation ‘directed’ the process of change.  Answers which ignore alternatives to the all-powerful leader/party, or fail to think about what it means to direct a process (as distinct from stimulating or harnessing it) are thus flawed.  The set passage itself should give alert candidates food for thought about what some of the alternatives to direction from above might be.

For 30-40 marks, the candidate will address the issue of how far a well-chosen process of radical political or religious change was directed from above in an argumentative and analytical manner, considering and accommodating alternatives within a coherent and clearly-expressed answer.  The very best answers will consider a rich range of factors while maintaining clarity and control; or they might be particularly advanced conceptually – considering the ways in which the process of change itself helped to shape its direction, for example, or drawing out the wider implications of the specific study. 

For 15-29 marks, candidates will have chosen a reasonable or good example of a process of radical political or religious change, and will have made some attempt to argue how far it was directed by an individual or organisation.  There must be at least some explicit consideration of alternatives to total direction by the leader/organisation for an answer to qualify for this band.  Answers in this category may be more descriptive and less analytical than those in the top band; they may be less coherent, less well-structured, and/or less well-expressed; they may show less consideration of ‘how far’ or less sensitivity to the meaning of ‘directed’; they may be intelligent, but too brief to allow for sufficiently complex analysis.  Recycled school essays which are well-handled but show no evidence of broader thought may fit in this category, provided that the example is adequate and the essay meets the terms of the question.

For 0-14 marks, candidates will fail to discuss how far a suitable process was directed by an individual or organisation.  This may be because their example is culpably inadequate – it doesn’t qualify as a process of radical change, for example; or it may be because they have simply written a description of how a given individual or organisation directed, or failed to direct, a change of some kind; or it may be that they have failed to consider what ‘direct’ or ‘organization’ mean.  Of the various flaws in these essays, choosing a bad example should be regarded as the most venial, and problems arising from a poor choice should not be doubly penalised. 

2

This question relates to the following criteria:

• careful and critical reading;
• historical imagination;
• originality;
• precision, clarity and facility of writing

Note that candidates are NOT expected to write a cogent or structured piece of writing about the source, though they are expected to express themselves clearly and accurately.

This is a rich document from which a number of points concerning social arrangements and cultural conventions could be made.

• The choices of responses to a crime: legal procedures; a negotiated settlement; blood-vengeance. The problem of determining what an appropriate response might be in any situation.
• The importance of maintaining honour – apparent in Flosi’s statement, and in Hildigunn very public and very memorable challenge to his ‘courage and manliness’.
• The importance of gifts as symbols of social bonding – Flosi’s gift of the cloak, and its return to him.
• the importance of the formal meal as a symbol of social bonding, and as a public forum.
• the dynamics of gender relations.
• the influence of religion: Hildigunn’s ‘your Christ’ is important.

Students might tackle a number of issues, or pursue particular points in more detail.

For 21–30 marks, candidates will show that they have read the text closely, accurately and thoughtfully, and that they are correspondingly able to say something about a number of the issues suggested above. These candidates will thus show a power to generalise and speculate – why does Hildigunn act as she does? why is Flosi so angered by her action? (it does not matter if their speculations are factually wrong, provided that they are reasonable ones to make from this extract).

For 12–20 marks, candidates will have made sense of the text and thought of some things to say, but their judgements – though relevant – may be less penetrating, less clearly–expressed, or less easily sustainable from the text. They might, for example, miss the full range of appropriate responses to crimes, or misunderstand the nature of women’s power in the society by dwelling too much on Flosi’s outburst. Weaker answers in this category may invoke external knowledge at the expense of a close engagement with the passage.

For 0–12 marks, candidates will more or less have failed to interpret the text, writing comments that simply reproduce what is in it, or draw substantially upon extraneous material at the expense of a close engagement with the passage.

 Answers in this category may be very short, or poorly-expressed.

 

Oxford Colleges History Aptitude Test: 2006 Marking Schedule