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 are asked to follow them closely.

In general, do not award marks which are not integers. 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 and fluency over fanciness. 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. The best entrance-level work should gain full marks, as long as it meets the grade descriptors as set out here.

Marking Guidelines for Each Question

1(a) This question relates to the following criteria:

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

For 4–5 marks, the candidate should capture, in clear English, and in his/her own words, the author’s view that, while political authorities and political ideas are influenced by material factors, they are not simply the products of them.

For 2–3 marks, the candidate should have the right general idea, but with less clarity of understanding or expression, or with less independence of expression, or with a purely temporal sense of ‘prior’.

For 0–1 marks, the candidate should have only a hazy idea, or no idea, of what the phrase means.

1(b) This question relates to the following criteria:

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

For 7-10 marks, the candidate should capture most or all of the points below, in a clearly-expressed manner that reproduces the sense of a logically contiguous argument. Words are not wasted.

For 4-6 marks, the candidate should show a broad grasp of the argument, in which several points below are either missed or misunderstood. Some links in the argument may be unclear and the expression may be uneconomical. Details may be used appositely, but not fully reduced to the principles behind them.

For 0-3 marks, the candidate typically has an idea of what the piece is about, but only a limited grasp, or no grasp, of its argument.

In general, penalise candidates for going over length: 16-18 lines, by one mark; 19-21 lines, by two marks, and so on.

The important elements of this piece are:

1. Historians have come to place materialist explanations of change at the centre of their accounts, and - from one perspective - they are right to do so.
2. The development of industrial capitalism in the most powerful states was the most important development in the nineteenth century, affecting both the West and the wider world.
3. This does not mean that developments in state power and political concepts arose in a direct way from economic changes.
4. For example, the most influential political event of the period preceded major economic developments and was effected through media distinct from those of capitalism;
5. Nor, for a time, did capitalism affect the traditional distribution of political power.
6. In fact, economic, political and ideological factors affected one another: sometimes one set of factors was dominant; more generally, these factors interacted to produce historical change.

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;
• precision, clarity and facility of writing

It may be helpful to have in mind typical 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.

For 25–35 marks, the candidate should write a ‘first-class’ answer, which is wholly relevant to the question. In the best answers, at least three distinct types of causes will be explored, any examples used will fit easily within the typology, the interactions between these types will be clearly portrayed and the ways in which these interactions produced the outcome clearly indicated. Less good answers within this range will succeed in demonstrating that the interplay of three or more distinct kinds of causes produced a particular outcome, but examples may be limited or strained and the expression may be less strong. Answers in this range will be more than a list of points: they will follow a recognisable expository or argumentative path.

For 15–24 marks, the candidate will broadly meet the challenge of the question, but will fall short in one or two of the following ways: the answer recognises ‘interaction’, but concentrates on the mere simultaneity, or variety of kinds of causes; it treats two kinds of causes thoroughly, but neglects a third; one of three kinds of causes advanced lacks credibility – either as a cause of the ‘change’ or as a coherent group of causes understood by the candidate. Less good answers in this category may additionally lack structure; they may be a bit overlong or a bit too short; there may be problems of expression.

For 0–14 marks, the candidate will neglect the issue of ‘interaction’ completely, or feature fewer than three causes, or (better) resemble an answer in the 15–24 range, but with more, or deeper, flaws than those listed above.

1(d) 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; precision, clarity and facility of writing

For 15–20 marks, the candidate should confront the question of interpretative paradigms at a general and abstract level (rather than treating this as an invitation to discuss a specific set of historiographical developments, whether those in the first paragraph of the text or another historiography known to the student). S/he should write coherently and clearly, offering a perceptible opinion, which is supported by argument. Examples may or may not be given, but these should be treated as secondary to reasoning.

For 8–14 marks, the candidate will offer a reasonably coherent and general answer to the question, but may show one or more of the following faults: high dependency on a particular case; repetitiveness or incoherence in the argument; problems of expression; a narrower range of reasons, or less convincing reasons, for the view taken; short weight.

For 0–7 marks, the candidate will fail to put forward a view, or alternatively to justify the view taken. The candidate may have failed to grasp what the question is asking, and/or s/he may display faults similar to those listed for 8–14, but to a worse degree.

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.

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 either about the nature and practice of rule as revealed in the text or about the capacity of a text like this to provide insights on the nature and practice of rule, or both. These candidates will thus show a power to generalise and speculate (it does not matter if their speculations are factually wrong, provided that they are reasonable ones to make from this extract). Examples of the sorts of perceptions one might expect to find are: the importance of ruling by example; the interest in modes of behaviour which are intended to facilitate personal interaction (contrasting with an emphasis on displays of authority/prestige in more public situations); the importance of appropriate performance in cultural, artistic and sporting activities as well as on more obviously political terrain. Answers that explore the implications of these features deserve particularly high marks. Candidates who offer sensitive analysis of the functions, or purposes, of such an apparently idealistic portrait also deserve credit.

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 elements of humility, in favour of an emphasis on boldness and assertiveness; or they might identify groups of approved activities without exploring any parallels or tensions between those groups. Weaker answers in this category may invoke external knowledge as a partial justification for the interpretations offered.

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

	back to the top
	back to the History Aptitude Test: Introduction
	back to Applying to Oxford
	back to Prospective Undergraduates home page