FHS 2012

HistoryExaminers’ Report

1

REPORT OF THE EXAMINERS IN THE FINAL HONOUR SCHOOLOF HISTORY 2012

A. EXAMINERS’ REPORT

IntroductionThis is a new style Examiners’ Report. It concentrates on candidates’ performance in the exam. Administrative matters will henceforth be reported separately to the Faculty’s Exam Committee and are not included. Statistical tables have been moved to the end (see Appendix 2). For the sake of transparency and continuity these include the traditional columns giving raw percentages for men’s and women’s performance. In order to interpret these raw data, readers should turn to the new Appendix 1, a long-term quantitative analysis of gender performance in the History FHS, undertaken by an external expert, which: a) highlights any statistically significant outcomes; and b) analyses all of our FHS data since 2005, in order to determine whether there are statistically significant trends over time in examination results by sex, by type of paper, and/or by type of examination.

It is hoped that these improvements in data collection and analysis will be continued in coming years, and that they will enable the Faculty to take a more accurate and longitudinal view of any biases in our existing system of examination.

Overall PerformanceJust over 22% of candidates gained Firsts this year. That is a drop compared to the 29% awarded in each of the past three years (2009, 2010, 2011), though that level was itself a historically unprecedented peak – between 1996 and 2003, the proportion of Firsts awarded in the FHS had fluctuated between 15% and 23%; between 2004 (when classification-by-average was imposed) and 2008, it had varied between 21% and 24%.

The lower proportion of Firsts this year compared to last was not the result of any change in classification procedures. As before, most candidates were classified on the basis of their average mark: only a few achieved Firsts through the ‘alternative route’ (i.e. by gaining a majority of First class marks despite an average below 68.5).

The overall outcome is thus largely the result of the marks given and agreed by Assessors across the Faculty. Without taking a view on whether any particular overall proportion of Firsts is desirable, the Board strongly believes that many markers are still too wary of using the full first-class mark scale, with the result that even outstanding candidates are achieving marks and averages that are only in the low 70s. Previous Boards and External Examiners have made this point repeatedly in recent years, and our experience this year confirms it. We therefore reiterate that the Faculty as a whole must embrace the principle that clearly first-class work should be awarded marks of 75 and above, with marks of 69 to 74 reserved for work that is only borderline or marginally first-class.

At the other end of the scale, only two candidates this year (<1%) gained Lower Seconds, and there were no Thirds, Passes, or Failed candidates. That is, pleasingly, a historic low.

Not surprisingly, the compulsory thesis produced the greatest spread of marks. This was the type of examination that allowed the highest proportion of our candidates to produce first-class work, whilst also producing a fair crop of marks below 60. The results of the Disciplines exam this year were encouraging (see the specific report in section B below). As in 2010, the

2

poorest results came in the History of the British Isles. The seven HBI papers together produced the lowest proportion of first-class marks and the highest proportion of marks below 60. This may be the area of our syllabus and pedagogy that is most in need of refreshing. (Full statistics are given in Appendix 2).

Performance of men and womenSee Appendix A.

C. REPORTS ON INDIVIDUAL PAPERS

History of the British Isles I: c.370-1087Sixteen candidates sat this paper (14 from the Main School, one from AMH, one from HPOL). The scripts were of good, if not outstanding, quality: there were three first class marks, twelve II.I marks, and one II.II mark. The most popular questions were those requiring candidates to consider the limitations of the primary evidence for classic topics (the fall of Rome, the conversion, the Vikings). A question on 1066 was also popular, as was one, pleasingly, on ethnicity. Nearly half the questions (10/24) had no takers, the majority of these being the starred questions requiring candidates to supply their own examples from across the period. Ethnicity excepted, candidates seem more comfortable approaching this period through particular topics than general concepts. Thus a starred question on gender attracted no takers, but one on Queen Emma attracted three. We should all consider whether this topic-centred approach is the intended learning outcome of the Outline papers.

History of the British History Isles II: 1042-1330Twenty-one candidates took this paper, achieving five firsts, eleven 2.1s and five 2.2s. The range of questions answered was broad: twenty of the twenty-six questions were attempted by at least one candidate (the six that were untouched were on Ireland, Richard I, religious patronage, Edward I, knights, and architecture). The most popular questions were on the Norman Conquest (nine answers) and Jews (seven answers), with four other questions following closely with six takers each (on aristocratic attitudes to royal government, unsuccessful kingship, English attitudes to the rest of the British Isles, and Scottish/Welsh national identities). This is a good spread, and the less popular questions added more breadth: there were answers on education, warfare, urbanisation, the idea of freedom, legal treatises, Edward the Confessor, Anglo-Norman dominance of Wales, Matilda, Magna Carta, inflation, Anselm, women, the Anglo-Scottish border, and pilgrimage. A lot of candidates focused mainly on the political but it was encouraging to find this mixed with a thoughtful and varied engagement with social, cultural and economic topics. As usual, some of the best answers were to the less popular questions.It was notable, however, that the two most favoured questions tended to produce the weakest answers. It was astounding how many candidates chose to answer the question ‘Was the Norman Conquest revolutionary in its effect on lordship?’ with little or no specific knowledge about lordship. The scripts gave a strong impression of unfamiliarity with important modern historiography: George Garnett’s arguments were not well understood, and only one candidate mentioned Stephen Baxter. Depressingly, the most competent answers were framed in relation to a rather tired debate about knight service quotas. The answers to the question ‘How did Jews differ from other resident aliens in this period?’ were only slightly better. Most candidates lacked the knowledge to make a comparison of any depth (and two failed to comprehend that resident aliens meant foreigners).The issues visible in these two questions characterised the weaker answers throughout the paper.

3

Too many candidates were inattentive to the questions they answered: they wrote, for example, about Scottish/Welsh political unity rather than national identity, about women’s influence rather than their authority. Many candidates appeared to have chosen their questions badly, opting for topics which were familiar in broad terms but for which they lacked specific knowledge. This applied particularly to the specific political questions: nearly all the answers on Edward the Confessor, Matilda and Anglo-Norman dominance of Wales were insufficiently detailed and prone to irrelevance. The examiners agreed that many of these candidates might have done better to attempt the first two starred questions (on unsuccessful kingship and aristocratic attitudes to royal government). These questions posed conceptual challenges and required careful thought, but they also allowed candidates to choose to construct their arguments with familiar evidence. They suited candidates who had revised political material but were flexible enough to approach it from a new angle in the exam. Most of the answers these questions elicited were good; some were outstanding. The smattering of truly excellent answers, the healthy number of firsts achieved overall, and the range of questions tackled are all encouraging signs for this paper. However, the number of answers which simply failed to address the question – whether through ignorance or inattention – is a cause for concern.

History of the British Isles III: 1330-155027 candidates took this paper, a slightly smaller number than usual. In general, the paper was competently but not brilliantly answered, with three firsts and three 2iis awarded, the rest 2is – mostly of the middling sort. The questions most popular with candidates showed indications of students recycling tutorial essays on well-worn topics, resulting in rather pedestrian attempts at questions on revolt and peasant life. Many candidates neglected the opportunities proved by more broadly thematic questions and instead produced answers with a narrower focus, often based on personalities of the period. For example, the very popular question on whether a king’s reputation was dependent on his military success largely resulted in answers about Edward III’s successes and Henry VI’s failures; very few candidates engaged with the broader remit of the question. On a positive note, the question on Ireland proved to be very popular (and was largely well answered), and the questions on Scotland and Wales were also attempted, indicating that efforts are succeeding to broaden the scope of this paper beyond England. A number of candidates attempted the early Tudor questions, although comprehension of the Henrician Reformation was, with a couple of exceptions, a little shallow. It is also encouraging that most candidates showed a solid understanding of the period, and there were few factual inaccuracies. The question on women is perhaps the best example of the range of this paper in microcosm. The best answers were astute, sharply engaging with theory and historiography and making pertinent use of examples. The worst were poorly organised, showing a lack of awareness of up-to-date scholarship and utilising a handful of clichéd examples. Sadly, the best answers were in short supply, but most candidates made a respectable, if not particularly imaginative, attempt at addressing the question.

History of the British Isles IV: 1500-1700This paper was taken by 72 candidates. Most gained 2.1 marks; (11.1%) were awarded first-class marks; and (20.8%) scored below 60. The two questions most attempted were those on the Henrician Reformation (30) and on popular participation in politics (27). Also popular (13-16 takers each) were gender relations, conceptions of monarchy, Stuart power, Mary I and Elizabeth, and the 1559 religious settlement. Answers were generally solid, showing a sound knowledge of developments within England, from a variety of perspectives. There was a clear concentration on England (especially England before 1640, though a significant minority also tackled the later seventeenth century and/or answered starred questions with reference to the whole period). Regrettably few candidates wrote on Scotland or Ireland. Knowledge of continental affairs was often quite shaky, even among those candidates who tackled the question on Elizabethan foreign policy. There were, though, some subtle and effective answers on the Henrician Reformation that considered the world beyond the British Isles. Overall, the scripts were competent rather than

4

adventurous, with candidates often describing historiographical controversy rather than developing their own argument.  Weaker candidates tended not to think very hard about the precise question posed, e.g. simply describing a series of major rebellions when answering the question on popular participation in politics. The best answers, by contrast, really engaged with the questions, providing sharp and sophisticated analyses of the issues at stake; it was the candidates who were willing to take intelligent risks who stood out, and gained the higher marks. 

History of the British Isles V: 1685-1830Thirty two candidates sat this examination. Only two achieved a first class mark overall; 25 achieved a 2:1 mark; and five were in the 2:2 bracket. This spread is indicative of the rather undistinguished quality of too many of the scripts. A recurrent feature of weaker scripts was the inability of candidates to engage directly with the questions set, to substantiate claims with relevant evidence, and to integrate a sufficient understanding and knowledge of current historiography. It is obviously hard to know why this happened, but the impression conveyed by many of the answers was that candidates simply lacked detailed and wide knowledge of topics, and had done very little to build upon and look beyond tutorial essays. In too many cases, candidates seemed to be content simply to write what they knew about a topic – this was particularly so on the general questions, such as questions 2-4 - or clearly struggled to find a third question which they felt comfortable answering. One can only urge students to use more fully the Faculty Bibliography for this paper and the lectures, and to show more intellectual ambition. As in previous years, knowledge of the early nineteenth century was weak, and there were often as a consequence surprising omissions from answers to more general questions. Quite a few candidates turned up good opportunities to demonstrate knowledge of events beyond England, such as on q.6 on the constitutional and political significance of the Declaration of Rights, where comparison with the Scottish Claim of Right would have considerably aided analysis. While most questions gained at least one taker, no one, perhaps surprisingly, answered question 13 (on the impact on Irish politics and political culture of either the American or French Revolutions), or 20 (the Whig revival of the early nineteenth century), 24 (debates on poverty), 25 (moral panic), 27 (notions of masculinity) or 28 (the stability or instability of eighteenth century Scotland). As in previous years, the most popular question was on the Glorious Revolution, although too many sought to answer this in overly general terms rather than, as prompted by the question, subjecting the Declaration of Rights to careful analysis. Also popular were questions on the law, enlightenment, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, ideas of empire, the strength of the state, the nature of the middling ranks, and Jacobitism. There remains plenty of scope for students to plot more adventurous and intellectually challenging routes through this paper, but the absolutely key thing is to make sure that the question as set is being answered in a direct, properly analytical and well supported fashion.

History of the British Isles VI: 1815-192437 candidates took this paper.  The range of topics covered by candidates was fairly broad, but clustered around Chartism, women, imperialism, and liberalism.  On the whole these responses secured safe, respectable answers. Students who tackled imperialism tended to write particularly lively and engaged answers, even if only a handful delved with confidence into the more subtle reaches of the relevant scholarship.  A problem inherent in many scripts was the handling of working-class experience, especially (but not exclusively) in the question concerning women and class.  Apart from a tiny handful of exceptions most working-class women were deemed to be too oppressed and impoverished to do much beyond simply subsist, suggesting that candidates were often oblivious to the extensive literatures on working-class political activity and social and cultural engagement in this period.   A number of questions failed to attract any takers including those on melodrama, republicanism, railways, and immigration; and there was little enthusiasm to evaluate the relative significance of local factors in assisting Conservative Party success.  

5

Questions which required students to range more imaginatively, and less predictably across the period (for example, questions on   religious congregations, political leadership, and the city) resulted in very mixed responses. Some candidates demonstrated an inventive and flexible approach to their material and often produced their best responses in these essays; but weaker candidates stumbled significantly here. This was especially the case with a question on the three reform acts which was often poorly handled. More generally, a lack of attention to the specific wording of some questions was a persistent factor in a number of scripts; and more worryingly, the absence of detailed evidence marred many.   The range of marks was somewhat lower than might be expected, with 6 candidates being awarded a mark below 60 and only four candidates securing a grade of 70 or above.

History of the British Isles VII: since 1900Facts and figures

Number taking paper: 64 (up from 39 in 2011)Joint school candidates: 7

Number main school candidates: 57

I                                        22 / 38.6% (13 women and 9 men) II.1                                   39 / 60.9%II.2                                    3 / 4.9%

Spread of answers

Sexual revolution 25Imperialism 20Class and politics 15Thatcher 13Atlee 12Second World War 11Mulitculturalism 10Feminist politics 9Postwar politics 8Religion 8Education 5Europe 5Culture for democracy 51970s crisis 5Consumerism 5Welfare state 4Progressive alliance 4Public opinion 4Leisure 3Unemployment 3Economists 3First World War 3Ireland 3National Government 2Nationalist politics 1Paternalism 1

6

Gender and class 1Modernity 3Brutalization 0

Comments

The number of candidates taking BH7 jumped markedly this year: up to 64 from 39 in 2011 and 44 in 2010. With that in mind it’s good to see that performance levels remained consistent with previous years—and to note an interesting (though probably not statistically significant) preponderance of women securing first class marks on the paper.

As the summary above suggests, there was a decent spread of answers in the sense that all except one question attracted at least one answer. At the same time, candidates showed a marked preference for a handful of questions on standard tutorial topics including Imperialism, society and politics during the Second World War, class and politics, Thatcher and race relations. Given that there is no real coverage of the topic in the lecture circus, it is striking that the most popular question was on the history of sexuality—perhaps the first time that this has been the case here. Looking again at these questions and comparing them to the examiners’ comments, it might be the case that they were insufficiently challenging—so close to the standard tutorial topics that they provided an easy way out for less able candidates and never stretched the stronger ones. If we are going to continue to examine students on these kinds of issues, then it will be important to be more imaginative in the way in which questions are framed.

As in the past two years, the strongest candidates showed imagination and creativity—weaving together critical engagement with the secondary literature and detailed substantive analysis, and teasing out productive links between very different issues in political, social and cultural life. While such answers showed a broader grasp of modern British history, however, far too many candidates simply focused on discrete topics in isolation or reproduced tutorial work without giving careful thought to the links particular questions were pushing them to consider (the question on religion and associational life was a case in point here). Along with the overwhelming yet diverging focus on what we might think of as a fuzzy kind of cultural history (multiculturalism and sexuality) and older forms of political history (Atlee, class and party realignment) this suggests that approaches to the paper are becoming increasingly fragmented. There’s nothing wrong with this kind of plurality of approach, of course. At the same time, the work produced suggests that the paper lacks any kind of coherence and core—that candidates lack a sense of how politics and society fit together or the ability to step back from the detail of historiographical debate to consider how the whole fits together. In part, this problem might be underpinned by the proliferation of topics that has characterized our recent revisions of the bibliography and lecture circus. If that is the case, then it might be time to return to this aspect of our provision (along with the general outline of the paper) and think again about what we are trying to achieve with the British History papers. In part, this problem might also be a function of the way in which exam papers are organized. The distinction between starred and un-starred questions is a useful one, but if we’re serious about encouraging students to think about broader historical historiographical frameworks (which the rubric to the paper claims) then we might give serious consideration to introducing a Section A and Section B format for the paper and making it compulsory for students to tackle at least one comparative / general question.

General History I (285-476)Ten candidates sat the paper, seven from the main school, two from AMH and one HPol. Two achieved marks of 70+, one of below 60. The best papers were excellent, and there were several in the high sixties; but it was not a vintage year overall. Thirteen of the seventeen questions were

7

attempted by at least one candidate, a greater spread than usual; the most popular questions, predictably, were 3 (‘Have historians overstated the importance of religion as a motive for Julian’s political behaviour’), with seven takers, and 1 (‘Do we have sufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of Diocletian’s regime?’), with five. Few candidates who attempted the former discussed any particular historians, ancient or modern; some of those who attempted the latter suffered from reading the question as simply ‘do we have sufficient evidence about the regime?’ The best answers to these and the other questions were distinguished by precise knowledge of both the literary and material evidence, and by confidence in deploying this in relation to current debates; weaker answers were characterized by vagueness and strident assertiveness. A striking feature of several papers was a determination to reinterpret questions to suit the candidate’s own interests: in question 11, ‘excessive tax’ was thus understood by one candidate as ‘sufficiently high taxes to fund the government’s requirements’; in question 13, ‘cultural activity’ was taken to include child-bearing; in question 17, ‘style of monarchy’ was treated as if it were identical to government policy.

General History II (476-750)This paper was taken by five candidates (all doing single-honours). Nobody attempted the essay on China, and the choice of questions attempted was more restricted than in many years: western barbarians and the church won the greatest number of answers, with Byzantium and Islam attracting only a very few. Performance too was less impressive than normal, with only one mark at 70 or above. This is a paper that covers momentous changes in Europe and beyond (such as the rise of Islam), and that can be approached through some lively primary sources (such as Procopius and Gregory of Tours), so it is always a surprise that it is taken by few candidates. Possibly this is because potential takers have either covered the ground in the popular General History I option in the first year, or choose to dive straight into more detail (through papers like the ‘Justinian and Mohammed’ Further and ‘Gregory of Tours’ Special).

General History III (700-900)Twelve candidates took this paper (including two in joint schools). Six were adjudged first class and the remainder 2.1. The examiners were favourably impressed by the quality of the scripts. A wide range of questions was tackled (14 out of 18 attracted answers) and there was little evidence of bunching on particular regions or topics. As in previous years there were some fine answers on the Abbasids and al-Andalus but it was also pleasing to see some good work on the economy, both at a grand Mediterranean level and at the more granular level of bipartite manors and local markets. The majority of scripts were marked by serious attempts to engage with primary sources and some took on recent historical debates with relish. Taken as a whole, it was clear that candidates had enjoyed the paper and risen to the challenges it poses.

General History IV (900-1122)There were some very encouraging performances on this paper . There were 3 firsts, 4 2:1s and a single 2:2. Thirteen of the twenty questions set received at least one response. Questions on Iberia, Norman Italy and Gregory VII were particularly popular. The best candidates combined close attention to the question, consideration of primary sources and, where relevant, an understanding of the modern scholarly literature. Weaker scripts relied too heavily on recycling material from tutorial essays without paying close attention to the terms of the question. Although the best scripts demonstrated knowledge across the whole period and across a wide geography, it is striking that candidates prefer to answer questions which focus on named regions of the medieval world; questions with a more thematic outlook are currently less popular.

General History V (1122-1273)Six candidates took this paper (4 main school; 2 joint school). The quality of the scripts varied from a borderline 2:ii to a First. There was a clear church and religion bias in the choice of questions, Cathars and mendicants followed by the papal monarchy, with the odd excursion to Capetian

8

France, Byzantium and knighthood. The general standard was encouraging. Most candidates displayed some decent knowledge of current historiographical debates, but were less alert to the nature an constraints of primary sources. Few knew there was more than one mendicant order. Fawtier still stalks medieval France. The ability to understand the nuances of the actual questions set was frequently missing.

General History VI (1273-1409)Eight candidates sat this paper; four were given first class marks, four 2:1s. As ever, a disappointingly narrow range of questions was attempted (nine out of a total of twenty one); popular revolt was by far the most popular topic, with the Black Death, Papacy and France following behind. There were still some good answers here, however, and some intelligent and perceptive arguments. As ever, the best scripts came from those candidates who showed close familiarity with, and attention to, the complexities of the primary sources, who explained (rather than name-checked) the modern historiography, and who concentrated on engaging with the exact terms of reference established by the examiners rather than simply the general theme at issue.

General History VII (1409-1525)Only eight candidates took General History VII, a low number even for what is typically an unpopular paper. Given the small number of candidates, it was pleasing that twelve out of a possible twenty-three questions were attempted. Questions based outside Western Europe proved to be surprisingly popular, particularly those on the Ottomans and on the Hussites, although as one might expect the question on the Papacy was the most popular. In general the candidates for this paper performed well, showing some sharp engagement with the politics of the period, but the more broadly thematic questions on piety, women, humanism and the arts tended to receive shallow and occasionally glib answers. That attempts were made at these questions is encouraging, based on past examiners’ reports that indicate social and cultural questions for this paper were rarely answered, but it is disappointing that a paper whose period covers the Renaissance did not encourage candidates to engage better with these questions. That this can be a weakness even for the candidate more interested in political history is indicated by the generally shallow responses on the question about humanism, suggesting some lack in candidates’ understanding of the intellectual framework of the period, and also points to a general inability in candidates to conceptualise the period as a whole.

General History VIII (1517-1618)Nineteen candidates took this paper (including three in joint schools). Five were given a first class mark and the remainder 2.1s. Thus, the examiners were pleased with the overall quality of the scripts for this paper, but disappointed by the relatively narrow range of questions that were taken: urban reformation, Catholic reform, Calvinism, witchcraft, and the French Wars of Religion proved most popular (hence predominantly questions with a religious dimension). Furthermore, whilst the majority of answers on these topics were respectable and well-informed, the majority did not go beyond well-known ideas and narratives. Candidates generally went for safe. There were some encouraging exceptions to this rule, among others a strong answer on toleration practices in the Ottoman Empire. The Dutch Revolt drew some good answers too, but few candidates were able to consider Philip II’s priorities in the Mediterranean in their assessment of the revolt’s surprising success. It was also notable that for the question on witchcraft candidates seemed to draw heavily on knowledge acquired in their Optional Subject on witchcraft.

General History IX (1618-1719)Twenty-six candidates took this paper, of whom three were in the Joint Schools, an increase in numbers over the last three years. By far the favourite question, with fourteen answers, concerned the political and cultural character of the Dutch Republic, a tribute in part to the lectures offered on

9

this topic. Other questions about Swedish or Spanish aims in the Thirty Years’ War, the Frondes, warfare, witchcraft, and patriarchy also attracted good numbers of answers. It was pleasing to see the growing interest in Asia with answers on Japan (4), China (1), and the Mughal Empire (2). The blend of answers to political, social and cultural questions was good, with no sense that the candidates were simply studying a narrow range of political topics – many scripts moved across different types of question with equal competence. There were few questions which attracted no answers at all, though these did include the Austrian Habsburgs after 1648, printing, Poland-Lithuania, and the Italian States. Five candidates (19%) got first class marks overall, while eighteen (69%) achieved 2i’s and three (11.5%) got 2ii’s. There were no stratospheric scripts amongst the firsts, but plenty of evidence in the low to middling 70’s of control of detail, focus and conceptual fluency. The majority of 2i’s demonstrated good levels of historiographical engagement, though in some cases to the detriment of specific case-studies and examples, and there were, as ever, too many answers hacked out of a pre-prepared tutorial essay without sufficient attention to what the exam question really required. But the overall impression of the examiners was very positive, with candidates engaging in a lively and often assertive manner with a wide range of historical writing and controversy.

General History X (1715-1799)Generally an encouraging performance. Though among the 24 scripts completed there was a predictable concentration of answers on Frederick II and westernising Tsars, otherwise answers were quite widely distributed, and many non-European questions attracted several answers, some of them very accomplished. The disguised enlightenment question (‘In what if any sense was France intellectually hegemonic?’) attracted surprisingly few answers. That ‘Was cameralism compatible with enlightenment?’ attracted more suggests either that cameralism is engaging unwonted student interest, or else that student choice is triggered more by the wording than the substance of a question. To be fair, some real interest in cameralism was displayed, and there were also decent attempts at questions on Jesuits, French representative institutions and Italian cultural unity. Economic history attracted no interest except when the trade was in slaves. Generally students managed to convey an interest in the period, a willingness to move beyond the most heavily beaten parts of the track and a readiness to engage with interpretative cruxes.

General History XI (1799-1856)10 candidates took this paper in 2012, 2 gaining a first-class mark, 7 a 2:1, and 1 a 2:2. The spread of questions answered was fairly evenly distributed; question 14 (Napoleonic legacy) was particularly popular with 5 candidates choosing it, while questions 12 (Spain), 19 (exhibitions), 22 (bourgeoise vs aristocracy), 23 (industrialization), 25 (railways) 27 (monarchism vs republicanism), 28 (education), 29 (socialism) and 30 (urbanization) were not answered at all.Overall, we were impressed with the level of candidates' essays. The better ones wrote conceptually informed answers and used evidence in an effective and nuanced way to construct sophisticated arguments. Weaker candidates also failed to answer the set question but instead wrote essays on related topics. For example, a number of candidates who chose the question about regional identities (q. 26), ignored these forms of identification entirely, but wrote predictable essays about nationalism instead. A third reason for a less good mark was that some candidates did not show a deep engagement with the topic and composed essays that seemed to be based on textbook knowledge only.We would like to encourage future candidates to bring a deep personal engagement to the paper and show and independent thinking both in relation to the analytical categories employed for analysis, but also by discussing these with the help of well thought through examples that illustrate that they have a real understanding of the period.

General History XII (1856-1914)

10

14 candidates took this paper in 2012, 5 of which achieved a first-class mark, 8 got grades in the 2.1 range and one candidate got a 2.2, making this a very successful paper. Candidates chose a wide variety of questions. 5 candidates answered question 5 (Ottoman empire), followed by questions 10 (Russia) and 30 (WWI) with 4 takers each. The remaining questions were answered by 1-3 candidates, with the exception of questions 3 (Habsburgs), 4 (British India), 5 (Italy), 15 (cities), 17 (literacy), 23 (art), and 25-29 (peasant, industrial development, museums, public health, militarism) which were not answered by anyone.The examiners were very impressed with the quality of candidates' essays. At the top end of the mark scale, candidates had a clear grasp of the analytical categories the questions raised, and wrote clear answered which showed careful and independent thinking. Conversely, the weaker candidates failed to distinguish between concepts, such as citizenship and national identity, economic conditions and legal traditions, or social cohesion and political antagonism. Some weaker candidates advanced an impressive array of facts, but the significance of these for the question under discussing were not always evident. Furthermore, some less successful answers did not tackle the issues raised by the question, but offered (pre-prepared?) essays on somewhat related topics instead. For example, a number of candidates who choses the question about local / regional identities (q. 20), ignored these forms of identification almost entirely, but wrote very predictable essays about nationalism instead.

General History XIII (1914-1945)

Twenty-Five candidates in the main school and six candidates in the joint schools took this paper. The quality of the scripts was generally high and sometimes excellent. The most popular questions in 2012 in descending order of popularity were those on the Bolshevik revolution’s claim to democracy, the French and Spanish Popular Fronts, and what it meant to be a ‘modern girl’, which was also one of the most popular starred questions.  Among the starred questions generally the most frequently answered question was whether populations consented to authoritarian rule, although too many candidates equated consent for authoritarian rule with support for right-wing political parties and attempt to reinterpret the question into one about the failure of liberal democracies, which was not appropriate. It is vital candidates think very carefully about the terms of the question and it the section in which it appears in order to do themselves justice. In this case, the terms ‘consent’ and ‘’rule’ were big clues as to the direction  of the  question, as was the fact it came under Section C: ‘Authoritarian and Totalitarian Rule’.  Otherwise, the remaining answers were spread fairly evenly across the paper and in each of the five sections. Five questions failed to elicit any answers. No one attempted the question relating the production and consumption of food in war, despite the wealth of new literature that has appeared on the topic in the past few years. The very straightforward questions on Japanese imperialism, stability in Latin America or labour conditions for Asian and/or Africa labour also failed to excite any interest, and this reflected the general absence of non-Western (indeed non- European) historical evidence. Most of the answers were based on fairly narrow range of European examples, predominately Germany, Russia, France, Italy, and where pertinent (usually in relation to questions on war and revolution, or radical right-wing politics) Poland, Hungary and Austria. The only exception was the question on the global impact of Wilsonian self-determination which prompted some strong answers that explored nationalism in India, Egypt among others.

General History XIV (1941-1973)This is was again the most popular General History paper, with 45 candidates (compared with 48 last year). More candidates answered questions on non-Western topics than in the past – especially those on the Middle East, South Africa and China, and slightly fewer answered on the Cold War and international relations topics24.4% were given first class marks, 73.3% 2.1s, and 2.2% 2.2s. However, most of the firsts were

11

low, and there were very few exceptional answers. Most essays were competent, but were not based on particularly wide reading or deep thought. As examiners have commented in the past, this is a difficult paper to do well on. Students still have difficulty mastering the cultures and institutions of unfamiliar regions in the short time they have to study them. This poses a particular problem in answers on the communist or post-colonial world. Again, some of the best essays were written on European culture and the 1968 movements; as has been suggested in the past, some may have been helped by the fact that they did Cold War Culture Further Subject.

General History XV (Britain’s North American Colonies from Settlement to Independence, 1600–1812)Eighteen candidates, two them from the Joint Schools, sat this year’s paper. (This take-up roughly matches that of the past four years). Pleasingly only eight of the twenty-five questions elecited no response, and those left untouched by candidates primarily concerned the tail-end of the period covered by the paper. (Though the setters had hoped that in this bicentennial year, their question on the war of 1812 might have attracted an answer). Every candidate bar one attempted q. 4 on the position of chattel slavery in American social and economic life. Many answers evaded the question’s injunction to “explain”. Questions, 1, 3 and 17, addressing various aspects of identity formation attracted some good answers. In contrast, candidates struggled with q. 11, on the influence of religious ideology in the development of the New England colonies. Overall performance was a little flatter than in some previous years.

General History XVI (From Colonies to Nation: the History of the United States, 1776–1877)Twenty-eight students sat GH16, including students from all of the joint schools.  This represents an increase from last year.  However, the marks this year were disappointing, especially in comparison to GH15.  Three students (all in the main school) were awarded II.2 marks, and only three students (again in the main school) were awarded first class marks.  The remainder all achieved marks of 60-69.  Compared to last year, students seemed rather less familiar with recent trends in historiography, and tended to cluster around the questions 23 (on the cause of the Civil War) and 9a (On the Articles of Confederation).  Candidates seemed to misunderstand the Lost Cause Thesis, and handled the questions to do with sectional interest and territorial acquisition rather poorly.  All too often, students were able to make good general cases, but their essays lacked the precision and depth of understanding needed for first class marks.  Perhaps students have come to rely too much on the presence of predictable questions, and need to be warned to consider the specific angle of a question rather more carefully.  Despite this clustering, however, candidates did attempt between them most of the questions on the paper, with only six being left unanswered by anyone.

General History XVII (History of the United States since 1863)Twenty-three candidates took this paper. They answered a wide range of questions (all but two questions attracted at least one answer), even if the weaker scripts were – once again – often characterised by unadventurous question-selection (by a tendency to focus exclusively on the most obvious topics, or to stick to a narrow chronological period) Five candidates secured first class marks, while all but one of the remainder gained an upper second result. As in previous years, the strongest marks often went to candidates who chose at least one of the asterisked questions, and took full advantage of the opportunity that they provide to craft individualised, imaginative answers.

General History XVIII (Imperial and Global History, 1750-1914) The paper was taken by 21 students, including 6 joint school candidates. This compares favourably with the number of students who took the GH XIII paper in 2010, when 13 students sat the paper. 5 students (or 23.8% of the entire cohort) obtained a First and 16 students an Upper Second mark.

12

There were no lower marks. However, 4 of the 5 first class marks were obtained by the joint school candidates, while only 1 student out of 15 achieved that mark in the Final Honour School. This unevenness is to some extent balanced by the fact that 5 students in the Honour School obtained very good Upper Seconds (1 student: 68, 4 students: 69).

The paper offers significant scope for regional specialization. The wide spread of the answers in the paper thus tends to reflect students’ preferences, which vary considerably between the students and the exam years. It was also noticeable that – as in previous years - students who had done Further or Special Subjects in their field of interest (Africa, South Asia or the Dominions) tended to do better than those who had not. Finally, one should note that the answers in Section A focussed on a rather narrow range of questions.

The paper as a whole is still evolving. Both teachers and students are faced with the problem of how to do justice to the depth and breadth of a field that spans two centuries and five continents. On the one hand students are encouraged to apply ‘global’ thinking to their subjects that is free of region-specific knowledge. On the other hand, students are expected to ‘pull together both conceptual and empirical elements, while showing familiarity with the latest monographic and article-based approaches’ [these quotes are taken from last year’s Examiners’ Report]. This is a particular challenge as most of the ‘latest monographic and article-based approaches’ are still firmly rooted within regional traditions of historical writing, while the works applying global perspectives only very rarely provide sufficient empirical or conceptual detail. The very best scripts were those able to bridge that gap.

Further Subject 20: Nationalism in Western Europe, 1799-1890Number: 9

Marks:

1st class: 3

2.1: 6 (including one mark of 59)

The average quality of the answers produced for this paper was fairly high, with three candidates receiving first-class marks. Although the overall level of achievement was better than in previous years, there was no outstanding script (nothing above an overall 71).

Candidates showed no particular preference for either of the two sections, with source-related questions being taken up just as frequently as the more general questions that constitute Section B. The most popular question (taken up by 7 candidates) was no. 11, on secular religion, followed by question no. 2, on whether Bismarck’s belief in the significance of dynastic loyalties had been typical (taken up by 5 candidates) Question no. 7., on Gioberti, was addressed by 4 candidates. The paper as such seems to have worked well, but there is a need, it seems, to encourage students to think of more adventurous lines of argument. What the examiners saw was, with few exceptions, fairly conventional.

Special Subject 13: The Dutch Golden Age, 1618-1672Eight candidates took this new paper: four History (including joint schools) and four History of Art students. The examiners were very pleased with the results, which suggest this new, interdisciplinary Special Subject is working very well. For the extended essay, candidates chose a variety of questions (2 questions were picked twice). In the gobbet exam, candidates showed an advanced understanding of the (visual) culture of the Dutch Golden Age, producing particularly strong answers on the topics of cleanliness, family/society and toleration. Slightly less convincing and informed answers were given on political culture. It was encouraging to note that art historians and historians did equally well, choosing a mixture of textual as well as visual gobbets. Almost all

13

gobbets received answers (with the exception of 2f and 4d), and particularly popular were fragments taken from William Temple, Samuel van Hoogstraten and John Evelyn and images of the Catholic house church in Amsterdam and Emmanuel de Witte’s family portrait. Some candidates struggled to contextualise gobbets, exploring (related) themes that seemed a bit far-fetched. The tutors plan some changes to the gobbet teaching strategy next year, to familiarize students earlier with (seen and unseen) gobbets.

Special Subject 29: Britain from the bomb to the Beatles, 1945-67 (new)There were eight students on this new Special Subject (ten students in total requested to take it). All were in the main History school, five were women and three were men. Overall student performance suggests that this new paper is working well: most students achieved a good grasp of the main themes of the paper, and there were numerous very good -- well informed, creative and thoughtful -- performances at the top of the Upper Second range (though also a few weaker ones at the bottom of the marks range). The students all demonstrated a good, broad knowledge of the social, cultural and economic dimensions of the topic, which is particularly pleasing given the very limited amount of published scholarship available to researchers of postwar Britain. No student achieved a First overall for the paper this year, but two students did receive Firsts for one of the assessments set (the extended essay in one case, and the gobbets paper in another). The essay questions set all took candidates into areas the secondary literature does not reach: this was a challenge that most rose to well. There was some especially good work on gender identity and social problems of the 1950s. One student achieved a First Class mark for the essay and five got Upper Seconds, one a Lower Second. Most of the students did satisfactorily in gobbets: one achieved a First Class mark on this paper, five Upper Seconds, and two students got Lower Seconds for this paper. Although student performance was satisfactory, the students’ marks for gobbets were disappointing when contrasted with their performance in classes and tutorials. Most students contextualized the gobbets, but several failed to home in on the content of the precise passage set. The tutor plans a shift in gobbet teaching methods in the coming year, with more emphasis placed on analyzing the genre of different texts in the Special Subject classes, and more focus on the need for precision in the tutorials dealing with gobbet analysis. That said, this is a positive start to this new Special Subject, with students choosing to respond to a pleasingly wide range of both essay and gobbets questions and overall acquitting themselves well.

Disciplines of History

This was the second year of this paper in its new format, and the results were encouraging. The proportion of firsts on this paper (20%) was closer to the overall proportion (22%) than ever before (based on data going back to 2006); whilst the proportion of marks below 60 (12%) was both a considerable improvement on last year, and no longer out of line with other papers. In Section A (Making Historical Comparisons), every question was attempted at least once. Revolutions (A17) and Collective Identities (A12) were the most popular, each attracting over 15% of the candidates; Empires (A16) and the History of Sexuality (A5) also attracted large numbers. The very best answers showed truly independent, critical thought; whilst even the weakest candidates still seemed to have benefited from the process of trying to make historical comparisons. Overall, though, the examiners would have liked to have seen greater engagement with the questions as set. Too little thought was usually devoted to justifying the comparisons chosen.The examiners would have welcomed. In Section B (Making Historical Arguments) there was again a good spread across the questions, with only Environmental History (B2), Townscapes and Landscapes (B11), and Friendship (B14) attracting no takers. The history of gender and the body (B10) was by far the most popular topic in this section, attracting close to 20% of all candidates; sizeable numbers also tackled structural social history (B5) and Visual Sources (B12). Weaker candidates trotted out formulaic historiographical surveys; but the best papers were superb: thoughtful, wide-ranging, methodologically aware, a tremendous advert for the Disciplines paper.

14

APPENDIX A. REPORT ON FHS RESULTS AND GENDER

A statistical analysis was conducted with the results of 1967 students, 887 female and 1080 male, which completed the History school between the years of 2005 and 2012. The analysis tests statistically three main hypotheses: first is there a general difference between the results for female and male students, second is that difference changing over time and third is there a general time trend over the time period. The results show statistical evidence for a general time trend of 0.12 points per year. There is also evidence for a general difference between male and female scores with a disadvantage for female students of 0.68 points. Although the results indicate a slow closing of this gap, there is no statistical evidence to distinguish this effect from random noise.

The analysis was further conducted for two particular papers, namely British History and the Thesis, which differ in their mode of assessment. Although the results show a strong disadvantage of female students for British History (-1.14 points) and a strong advantage for the thesis (0.85 points) there is again no statistical evidence to distinguish these differences from randomness. The major reasons for the absence of statistical evidence are the high fluctuations of the differences over time. An example is the swing from 2011 to 2012 in the results for the thesis. In 2011 the female average was 1.74 higher than the male; in 2012 this has changed to a 1.05 lower average mark.

15

Report on Final Scores

This report analyses the statistical properties of the grades attained by students in the History school in 2012. The analysis follows the principles of the reports conducted with the scores of 2011 as well as the period since 2005.

Final Scores The first test compares the average female and male score. The average female score is

65.92, while the average male score is 66.22. This difference of 0.30 is statistically not significant (p=0.45)

A comparison between the variance of female and male scores show that the dispersion is essentially identical. The standard deviation of the male subsample is 3.08, while that for the female students is 3.09. This is confirmed by statistical testing.

The next tests look at the third and fourth moment, labelled skewness and kurtosis. The tests show no statistically significant diversion from assumption of normality for the score distribution.

In summary the results for 2012 show that there is essentially no statistical evidence for a difference between male and female scores.

Prelim Scores and Progress The average Prelim score for the whole student sample is 0.85 lower than the final score

(65.21 vs. 66.06) and that difference is highly statistically significant with p=0.00. The average female Prelim score is 64.64, while the average for male students is 65.67. This

difference of 0.99 is statistically significant at p=0.02. The difference in variance (Standard Deviations of 3.03 and 3.35 for male/female students) is however not statistically significant (p=0.29).

A student’s progress is measure as the difference between her final score and her Prelim score. The average progress is therefore 0.85, the difference between the means.

Female students show a stronger progress than male students, though their average of 1.17 is weakly statistically different (p=0.12) from the male students’ average of 0.57. The variance of the progress is higher for male students with 3.36 vs 2.75 (p=0.03)

A standard OLS regression with progress as dependent variable and the prelim score, a dummy for female students and the interaction of gender and prelim scores as independent variables is conducted. The marginal effect of Prelim scores is -0.59, so a male student that starts with a one mark lower Prelim score will have a 0.59 higher progress. The interaction effect is 0.17, so the effect is flatter for female students (i.e. male students with lower prelim scores have a comparatively stronger catch-up to male students with higher scores than low prelim-scores female students vs high prelim-scores female students).

Paper Categories

16

The following table shows the difference between the average score attained by female and male students (a positive number implies a higher score for female students) and the ratio of the standard deviations (a ratio > 1 implies that the scores of female students have a higher variance)

Paper Difference Mean p-value Ratio St.Dev p-value

British History -0.64 0.26 0.91 0.60

General History -0.98 0.08 1.12 0.51

Further Subject 0.34 0.51 1.06 0.33

Special Subject -0.41 0.23 1.24 0.23

Disciplines of History 0.30 0.63 0.78 0.21

Extended Essay 0.05 0.94 1.12 0.33

Thesis -0.92 0.21 0.85 0.35

The results indicate that female students achieve statistically significant lower scores General History and the female advantage in thesis writing is no longer visible (or with weak evidence even reversed). There is no clear pattern visible with regard to the variance of the scores in individual subjects

17

Firsts

22.3% of the male students achieved a first, 22.1% of female did, a very small difference that is also not statistically significant. The difference between the two is smaller than that for Distinction achieved at the Prelims, 8.5%. This difference between female and male students that achieve a distinction in the Prelim examination is weakly statistically significant (p=0.10)

The previous section on prelim scores has shown that these are good predictors for final scores. The following test shows whether this also holds for Prelim distinctions and Firsts. In particular I estimate a logit regression with the achievement of a Frist as the dependent variable and a Prelim Distinction, the student’s gender and an Interaction of these two as independent variables.The following table reports the results using odds ratio notation. This implies that for each independent variable the coefficient indicates the relative impact (so for a dummy variable a coefficient of 1.5 implies a 50% higher likelihood to attain a first, a coefficient of 0.9 implies a 10% lower one). The base line is a male student that did not achieve a distinction in the Prelim examination.

Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>z

Female 1.05 0.41 0.13 0.895

Prelim D 3.25 1.46 2.62 0.01

Prelim D * Female 1.06 0.75 0.93 0.833

The results indicate that a student that achieves a distinction in the prelim examination is more than three times more likely to achieve a first than a student that did not achieve a distinction. There is no significant difference between the genders with either the propensity to achieve a first or the relative likelihood based on a distinction in the prelim.

18

Admissions Criteria

The following section looks at the predictive power of pre-University student characteristics for final scores. So is it possible to statistically predict a student’s final score with admissions details? This analysis is not really designed to judge the validity of these measures for the admissions process.The statistical analysis uses the HAT, the numbers of A*s, and school type. This includes 208 students, 98 female and 110 male. The analysis is conducted separately for female and male students, which allows a clearer presentation of the results.

The empirical analysis is conducted with a simple OLS regression. The dependent variable is the final score achieved by the students. Independent variables are the HAT score, the number of A*s and the student’s school type as a dummy. The three scores are measured in student’s score difference to the respective average, which are approximately 69.05 for the HAT and 7.5 A*s. This implies the included intercept will give the expected final score for a student with these two values and coming from an Independent school, which is used as the base category.

Female Students

Coefficient Std. Err. t P>t

HAT 0.09 0.04 2.48 0.02A* 0.25 0.14 1.68 0.10

School

Sixth Form 0.14 2.23 0.06 0.95

Comprehensive 0.95 2.25 0.42 0.67

Grammar -1.03 2.28 -0.45 0.65

Other 0.31 2.20 0.14 0.89

Constant 65.52 2.15 30.41 0.00

The sample consists of 98 female students. The R2 is 0.1 (adjusted 0.04).

Male Students Coefficient Std. Err. t P>t

HAT 0.03 0.03 0.76 0.447A* 0.08 0.11 0.70 0.49

19

School

Sixth Form -0.89 2.29 -0.39 0.70

Comprehensive 0.01 2.23 0.00 0.99

Grammar -0.27 2.34 -0.11 0.91

Other -0.09 2.19 0.04 0.97

Constant 66.3751 0.426931

155.47 0.00

The sample consists of 110 male students. The R2 is 0.02 (adjusted -0.03).

The results of both cases are pretty consistent between them with one main exemption. The HAT has some predictive power for the score of female students. In particular a difference of 11.5 points in HAT scores implies a final score difference of one. All other coefficients, including all school type ones, are statistically not significant. Additionally the tests show a rather low R2 which indicates the rather low explanatory power of these coefficients.

20

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Female Nr 113 120 97 123 108 107 105 111Female Mean 65.05 65.40 64.97 65.83 65.46 66.27 66.08 65.85Female Variance 10.89 12.69 14.50 10.22 11.54 7.71 9.05 3.07Female Prelim 64.64 63.94 63.68 63.90 64.68Female Thesis 66.66 66.95 65.96 66.97 66.25 67.17 67.47 65.67

Male Nr 140 150 126 136 129 130 130 129Male Mean 65.58 66.29 65.66 66.08 66.66 66.56 66.30 66.21Male Variance 10.83 11.59 13.37 14.46 17.93 13.33 11.77 3.09Male Prelim 64.89 65.45 65.27 64.75 65.67Male Thesis 66.11 65.74 66.10 65.82 66.70 66.59 65.73 66.72

Final Difference -0.53 -0.89 -0.68 -0.25 -1.20 -0.29 -0.22 -0.39Significance 0.20 0.28 0.18 0.57 0.02 0.49 0.60 0.33

Variance Ratio 1.01 1.09 1.08 0.71 0.64 0.58 0.77 0.98Significance 0.96 0.27 0.66 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.17 0.91

Prelim Difference -0.25 -1.50 -1.60 -0.85 -0.99Significance 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.02

Thesis Difference 0.55 1.21 -0.14 1.15 -0.45 0.58 1.74 -1.05Significance 0.47 0.12 0.86 0.18 0.64 0.47 0.03 0.16

Bold numbers indicate an effect that is statistically significant different from zero.

The next step is a statistical analysis.

The main specification uses the final score as dependent variable and includes a dummy for female students, a general time trend and a specific time trend for female students. This implies that the

21

general trend shows that for male students and the result for the female trend is the difference between the female and male trend. Additionally I estimate the same specification for the thesis scores as well as the British History paper.

Final Thesis British HistoryConstant 65.61 65.86 65.53

0.00 0.00 0.00

Female -0.68 0.85 -1.140.05 0.18 0.53

Time Trend 0.12 0.07 0.040.01 0.38 0.62

Female Trend 0.04 -0.09 -0.140.59 0.46 0.89

Observations 1968 1967 1961R2 0.01 0.00 0.01

One characteristic of the results is the high variance; there are substantial fluctuations of the averages for female and male students over time. These high fluctuations are one of the central reasons why the explanatory factors in the regressions above show only limited statistical significant results. One particular strong example for this is the year 2009, female students performed significantly worse in comparison to their male counterparts than a year prior or a year after and the shift in the thesis results between 2011 and 2012

Adding the 2012 results strengthens the statistical evidence for a negative difference between female and male final scores (a p-value of 0.05). The plot on the previous page gives some indication that there is a weak catch-up over the time period in question (the magnitude of the coefficient implies a catch up of about 0.3 from 2005 to 2012). One noticeable result is the significance of a general time trend, average student scores increased by 0.12 points per year over the time from 2005.

That general upwards trend is however not really seen in the two components further investigated. The thesis scores and especially British History scores appear to have remained flat. The results from 2012 differ from the general trend which shows female students performing better than their male counterparts in their theses and worse in British History. The results however are not statistically significant. As mentioned above this is likely due to the high volatility of these differences; an effect that is very visible in the plot of the differences between the average thesis scores for female and male students.

2012 also saw the end of a previously surprising result, namely the shift in the variance ratio of final score differences that occurred in 2008. Before then female scores show the same, or even slightly higher, variance than male scores, while starting in 2008 this shifted strongly. The shift combined a decrease in the variance of female scores and an increase in the variance of male scores. In 2012 the variances are essentially equal again.

There are only five years of data of Prelim scores. The results do show a significant difference between female and male students in their first year with male student significantly outperforming female students. An exception is the year 2008, though it’s not clear whether this year is an outlier upwards or 2009 and following a substantial shift downwards

22

As a final note I want to again point to the low explanatory power shown by these regressions. Essentially gender and the relative dynamic do not seem to have had a strong influence on the distribution of grades.

APPENDIX B

FHS RESULTS AND STATISTICS Note: Tables (i) – (iii) relate to the Final Honour School of History only. Statistics for the joint schools are included in tables (iv) and (v).

(i) Numbers and percentages in each class

Class Number

2012 2011 2010 209

I 54 69 69 70

II.1 187 160 162 162

II.2 2 6 5 3

III - - - 1

Pass - - - 1

Fail - - - -

Total 243 235 236 237

Class Percentage

2012 2011 2010 2009

I 22.22 29.4 29.2 29.5

II.1 76.95 68.1 68.6 68.4

II.2 0.83 2.5 2.1 1.3

III - - - 0.4

Pass - - - 0.4

Fail - - - -

23

(ii) Numbers and percentages of men and women in each class

(a) 2012

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total

in each class

Nos % Nos %

I 54 22.22 29 22.30 25 22.12

II.1 187 76.95 99 76.16 88 77.88

II.2 2 0.83 2 1.54 - - -

III - - - - - - -

Fail - - - - - - -

Total 243 100 130 100 113 100 -

(b) 2011

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total

in each class

Nos % Nos %

I 69 29.37 39 30.0 30 28.57 43.47

II.1 160 68.08 88 67.70 72 68.58 45.0

II.2 6 2.55 3 2.30 3 2.85 50.0

III - - - - - - -

Fail - - - - - - -

Total 235 100 130 100 105 100 -

24

(c) 2010

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total

in each class

Nos % Nos

I 69 29.23 42 32.55 27 25.24 39.13

II.1 162 68.65 82 63.57 80 74.76 49.39

II.2 5 2.12 5 3.88 - - -

III - - - - - - -

Fail - - - - - - -

Total 236 100 129 100 107 100 -

25

(iii) Performance of Prelims. Candidates in Schools (First and Thirds) and Vice Versa (HIST only)

Prelims Nos 2010 FHS Results in 2012 Finals nottaken in

2012I II.1 II.2 III Pass

Distinction: 47 18 27 - - - 2

Pass: - - - - - -

Finals Nos 2012Prelims results in 2009/2010 Prelims not

taken in 2009/10Distinction Pass

Class I: 54 18 29 7

Class III/Pass: - - - -

26

(iv) Performance of candidates by paper

a) Thesis (Sex/Paper showing marks for that paper)

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total in each

classNos % Nos %

I 86 27.92 53 29.94 33 25 38.37

II.1 183 59.42 100 56.49 83 62.88 45.35

II.2 39 12.66 23 13.00 16 12.12 41.02

III - - - - - - -

Pass - - - - - - -

Fail - - - - - - -

Total 308 100 176 100 132 100 -

b) Special Subject Extended Essay (sex paper showing marks for that paper)

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total in each

classNos % Nos %

I 70 25.18 42 28.19 28 21.71 40.0

II.1 191 69.07 95 63.76 96 74.42 50.26

II.2 16 5.39 12 8.05 4 3.1 25

III - - - - - -

Pass 1* 0.36 - - 1 0.77 100.

Fail - - - - - - -

Total 278 100 149 100 129 100 -

*Mark was discounted on the candidate’s final classification

27

c) Disciplines of History (Sex/Paper showing marks for that paper)

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total in each

classNos % Nos %

I 52 20.08 28 21.13 24 20.34 46.15

II.1 177 67.95 98 69.50 79 66.95 44.63

II.2 29 11.20 14 9.92 15 12.71 51.72

III 1 0.40 1 0.71 - - -

Pass - - - - - - -

Fail - - - - - - -

Total 259 100 141 100 118 100 -

d) History of the British Isles (Sex/Paper showing marks for that paper)

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total in each

classNos % Nos %

I 48 17.84 26 17.93 22 17.60 45.83

II.1 184 69.15 104 71.72 80 64 43.48

II.2 37 12.64 14 9.66 23 18.4 62.16

III 1 0.37 1 0.69

Pass - - - - - - -

Fail - - - - - - -

Total 270 100 145 100 125 100 -

28

e) General History (Sex/Paper showing marks for that paper)

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total in each

classNos % Nos %

I 76 24.36 53 30.46 23 16.67 30.26

II.1 215 68.91 109 62.64 106 76.81 49.30

II.2 21 6.73 12 6.89 9 6.52 42.86

III - - - - - - -

Pass - - - - - - -

Fail - - - - - - -

Total 312 100 174 100 138 100 -

f) Further Subjects (Sex/Paper showing marks for that paper)

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total in each

classNos % Nos %

I 77 26 42 25.77 35 26.32 45.45

II.1 209 70.61 116 71.17 93 69.92 44.5

II.2 8 2.7 4 2.45 4 3 50

III 1* 0.34 1 0.61 - - -

Pass - - - - - - -

Fail 1* 0.34 - - 1 0.75 100.0

Total 296 100 163 100 133 100 -

* Marks were discounted in the candidates’ final classification.

29

g) Special Subjects Gobbets (sex paper showing marks for that paper)

Class Nos(bothsexes)

% Men Women Women as % of total in each

classNos % Nos %

I 61 21.94 37 24.84 24 18.6 39.34

II.1 196 70.5 102 68.46 94 72.87 47.96

II.2 18 6.47 10 6.70 8 6.2 44.44

III 2 0.72 - - 2 1.55 100.0

Pass - - - - - - -

Fail 1* 0.36 - - 1 - 100

Total 278 100 149 100 129 100 -

* Mark was discounted on the candidate final classification

(v) History and Joint Schools’ candidates taking each paper(Figures include both Main and Joint Schools’ candidates – bracketed figures indicate the numberof joint schools’ candidates) (withdrawn candidates have not been taken into account here)

2012 2011 2010 2009History of the British Isles

1. c.300-1087 16 (2) 14 - 14 (2) 23 (4)

2. 1042-1330 21 (1) 35 (3) 32 (3) 36 (2)

3. 1330-1550 27 (2) 23 (2) 33 (6) 44 (4)

4. 1500-1700 72 (5) 76 (9) 91 (9) 61 (6)

5. 1685-1830 32 (5) 44 (15) 22 (3) 33 (4)

6. 1815-1924 37 (5) 43 (6) 42 (12) 43 (14)

7. Since 1900 64 (7) 39 (9) 44 (10) 44 (15)

General History

(i) 285-476 10 (3) 12 (3) 10 (4) 19 (8)

(ii) 476–750 5 - 7 (3) 8 - 4 (1)

(iii) 700–900 12 (2) 11 (2) 9 (1) 12 (2)

(iv) 900–1122 8 (3) 7 (2) 9 (3) 5 (2)

(v) 1122–1273 6 (2) 6 (1) 10 (2) 13 (2)

(vi) 1273–1409 8 - 7 - 10 (3) 7 (3)

(vii) 1409–1525 8 (2) 6 (2) 12 (4) 9 (1)

(viii) 1517–1618 19 (3) 21 (2) 20 (3) 18 (5)

(ix) 1618–1715 26 (3) 23 (4) 13 (2) 22 (2)

(x) 1715–1799 24 (10) 19 (10) 25 (5) 25 (8)

30

2012 2011 2010 2009(xi) 1799–1856 10 (3) 22 (5) 17 (2) 17 (1)

(xii) 1856–1914 14 (2) 13 (2) 11 (3) 8 (4)

(xiii) 1914–1945 31 (6) 37 (7) 38 (6) 34 (8)

(xiv) 1941–1973 45 (15) 48 (18) 49 (16) 40 (13)

(xv) (3028) History of the U.S. 1600-1812 17 (2) 18 (5) 15 (2) 17 (4)

(xvi) (3029) History of the U.S. 1776-1877 28 (6) 22 (7) 15 (6) 23 (6)

(xvii) (3030) History of the U.S. since 1863 23 (4) 28 (9) 20 (2) 26 (3)(xviii) (3027) Europe and the Wider World,

1815– 1914 (old regs) - - - - 1 - 14 (2)

(xviii) (3025) Imperial and Global History 1750-1914 21 (6) 17 (7) 13 (6)

Further Subject1. Anglo-Saxon Archaeology of the Early

Christian period 3 - 7 - 2 - 3 -

2. The Near East in the Age of Justinian and Muhammad, c. 527–c.700 10 - 16 (4) 19 (4) 22 (3)

3. The Carolingian Renaissance 5 - 3 (1) - - 4 (1)4. The Viking Age: War and Peace c.750-1100 (no takers 2011-12) - - - - 3 (1) 8 -

5. The Crusades 30 (3) 17 (4) 22 (7) 32 (3)6. Culture and Society in Early Renaissance Italy,

1290-1348 5 (1) 5 (1) 4 - 7 (2)

7. Flanders and Italy in the Quattrocento, 1420–1480 3 - 3 (2) 1 - 3 (1)

8. The Wars of the Roses 5 - 13 (3) 10 (3) 11 -9. Women, Gender & Print Culture in

Reformation England, c.1530-1640 4 (1) 7 - - -

10. Literature and Politics in Early Modern England 12 (1) 9 - 33 (3) 22 (6)

11. English Society in the 17th Century 9 - 3 (1) 8 (4) 5 (1)

12. Society and Government in France, 1600–1715 - (1) 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 (2)13. Court, Culture & Art in Early Modern Europe,

1580-1700 2 (1) 6 (2) 6 (1) 9 -

14. The Military & Society in Britain & France, c. 1650-1815 (not examined this year) - -

15. The Metropolitan Crucible, London 1685-1815 10 (2) 4 - 11 (1)

16. First Industrial Revolution 1700-1870 1 - 4 (3) 7 (4) - (5)17. Medicine, Empire & Improvement, 1720 to 1820 2 (1) 2 - 4 (1) 3 -

18. The Age of Jefferson 15 (2) 14 (5) 15 (4) 15 (3)The American Revolution and Constitution

(old regs) - - - - - - 1 -

31

2012 2011 2010 200919. Culture and Society in France from Voltaire to

Balzac 3 (2) 5 (2) 5 (2) 4 (3)

20. Nationalism in western Europe 1799-1890 9 (3) 6 (1) 11 (4) 9 (2)

21. Intellect and Culture in Victorian Britain 5 - 9 (3) 10 (4) 6 (4)22.The Authority of Nature: Race, Heredity & Crime 1800-1940 12 (2) 11 (3) 8 (4)

23. Imperialism and Nationalism, 1830–1966 23 (7) 20 (5) 11 (3) 26 (7)

24. Modern Japan, 1868–1972 12 (2) 11 (1) 10 (1) 1 -

25. British Economic History since 1870 (PPE) 10 (8) 7 (6) 13 (11) 14 (12)

British Society in the 20th Century - - 16 (9) 12 (5) 27 (12)

26 Revolutionary Mexico, 1910–1940 9 (1) 4 (2) 3 - 5 (3)27. Nationalism, Politics and Culture in Ireland, c.

1870–1921 7 (2) 10 (2) 1 - 13 (5)

28. Comparative History of the First World War 12 (1) 14 (3) - (1) 15 (2)

29. China in War and Revolution 1890–1949 19 (2) 21 (7) 16 (2) 11 (4)

30. The Soviet Union 1924–1941 8 (3) 21 (4) 25 (3) 13 (5)

31. Culture, politics & identity in Cold War Europe, 1945-68 26 (2) 25 (2) 23 (8) 16 (4)

31. Culture, politics & identity in Cold War Europe, 1945-68 (old regs) - - - - 1 - - -

32. Britain at the Movies: Film and National Identity since 1914 (new) - -

33. Scholastic and Humanist Political thought 3 - 5 (1) 9 - 3 -

34. The Science of Society 1650-1800 9 (2) 7 (3) 9 (2) 6 (2)

35. Political Theory and Social Science 12 (3) 11 (3) 8 (4) 10 (3)

Special Subjects1. St Augustine & the last days of Rome, 370-

430 9 (1) 6 (2) 6 (1) 8 -

2. Francia in the Age of Clovis and Gregory of Tours 3 - 5 - 5 - - -

3. Byzantium in the Age of Constantine Porphyrogenitus 10 (2) 14 (4) 7 - 11 -

4. The Norman Conquest of England 7 (1) 10 - 12 (2) 12 (1)5. Royal Art & Architecture in Norman Sicily, 1130-1194 4 - - - - - 3 -

6. St Francis and St Clare 3 - 4 - 2 - - -

7. England in Crisis, 1374-88 8 (1) 8 (2) 8 (1) 17 (2)

8. Joan of Arc & her Age, 1419-1435 11 - 9 - 7 (1) 11 -

9. Painting & Culture in Ming China 5 - 4 (1) 6 -10. Politics, Art & Culture in the Italian

Renaissance, Venice & Florence c.1475-1525 11 (3) 20 (4) 17 (2) 22 (4)

32

2012 2011 2010 200911. Luther & the German Reformation 2 - 7 - 10 (1)12. Government, Politics and Society in England,

1547– 1558 14 (2) 11 (2) 16 (2) 15 -

13. The Dutch Golden Age, 1618-1672 (new) 4 (1)14. Scientific Movement in the Seventeenth

Century 22 (4) 12 (1) 8 - 9 (1)

15. Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1647–1658 20 (2) 23 (2) 13 (3) 17 (1)

16. English Architecture, 1660–1720 8 - 11 (2) 8 - 13 -Politics, Reform and Imperial Crisis, 1774–1784 - - - - 14 (2) 14 (2)

17. Debating social change in Britain & Ireland 1770-1825 10 (2) 19 (3)

18. Church, State, and English Society, 1829–54 (suspended 2011-12) - - - - - - 2 (1)

19. Growing-up in the middle-class family: Britain, 1830-70 8 - 12 - 14 -

20. Slavery and the Crisis of the Union, 1854–1865 12 (2) 15 (1) 14 (4) 21 (2)

Political Pressures and Social Policy, 1899–1914 - - (1) 14 - 18 (4)

21. Art and its Public in France, 1815-67 1 - - - 2 (1) 3 -

22. Russian Revolution of 1917 3 - 4 (2) 9 (2) 4 (1)

23. India, 1919-1939: Contesting the Nation 14 (2) 20 (3) 24 - 8 (1)24. The sex age: gender, sexuality & culture in 1920s Britain 10 - 8 (1) 9 (1)

25. The Great Society Era, 1960-70 16 (2) 15 (5) 16 (1) 16 (5)

26. Nazi Germany, a racial order , 1933-45 3 - - (1) - (3) 5 (1)27. France from the Popular Front to the

Liberation, 1936–44 4 (2) 6 (4) - (3) 9 (3)

28. War and Reconstruction, 1939-45 24 (3) 15 (4) 17 (3) 7 (2)29. Britain from the Bomb to the Beatles, 1945-67 (new) - -

30. The Northern Ireland Troubles 1965–1985 16 (4) 15 (2) 7 (2) 16 (1)

31. Evolution of a Modern Metropolis: London 8 (1) 8 (1) - - 7 -

Optional BH/GH/FS/SS/Additional Theses 10 (9) 8 (6) 4 (2) - (5)

Princeton assessment (8999) 1 - 6 (1) 5 (1) 2 (1)

Disciplines of History 259 (16) 257 (22) 254 (18) 252 (15)

Compulsory Thesis (9952) 286 (43) 305 (70) 291 (55) 288 (51)

Thesis in PPE (9962) (HPol only) - (13) - (13) - (8) - (14)

33

(vi) Joint Schools - number of candidates taking each paper

AMH HECO HENG HML HPOL Total

British History

1. 300–1087 1 - - - 1 2

2. 1042–1330 1 - - - - 1

3. 1330–1550 - - 1 1 - 2

4. 1500–1700 1 - 1 2 1 5

5. 1685–1830 - - - - 5 5

6. 1815-1924 - - 1 - 4 5

7. Since 1900 - - 1 - 6 7

General History

(i) 285-476 2 - - - 1 3

(ii) 476–750 - - - - - -

(iii) 700–900 2 - - - - 2

(iv) 900–1122 1 1 - 1 - 3

(v) 1122–1273 - - - 2 - 2

(vi) 1273–1409 - - - - - -

(vii) 1409–1525 - - - 1 1 2

(viii) 1517–1618 - 1 - 2 - 3

(ix) 1618–1715 - - - 2 1 3

(x) 1715–1799 2 - - - 8 10

(xi) 1799–1856 1 - - 1 1 3

(xii) 1856–1914 1 - - 1 - 2

(xiii) 1914–1945 1 - - 2 3 6

(xiv) 1941–1973 1 3 1 1 9 15(xv) History of the U.S.

1600–1812 - - - - 2 2

(xvi) History of the U.S. 1776-1877 2 1 - 1 2 6

(xvii) History of the U.S. since 1863 - - - 1 3 4

(xviii) Imperial & Global History 1750-1914 (3025)

- 2 - - 4 6

34

AMH HECO HENG HML HPOL Total

Further Subjects1. Anglo-Saxon Archaeology of the

Early Christian period - - - - - -

2. The Near East in the Age of Justinian and Muhammad - - - - - -

3. The Carolingian Renaissance - - - - - -4. The Viking Age: War and Peace c.750-1100 - - - - - -

5. The Crusades 2 - - - 1 36. Culture and Society in Early

Renaissance Italy, 1290-1348 - - - 1 - 1

7. Flanders and Italy in the Quattrocento, 1420–1480 - - - - - -

8. The Wars of the Roses - - - - - -9. Women, Gender & Print Culture in

Reformation England, c.1530-1640

- - - 1 - 1

10. Literature and Politics in Early Modern England 1 - - - - 1

11. English Society in the 17th Century - - - - - -

12. Society and Government in France, 1600–1715 - - - 1 - 1

13. Court, Culture & Art in Early Modern Europe, 1580-1700 - - - 1 - 1

14. The Military & Society in Britain & France, c.1650-1815 (not examined this year)

- - - - - -

15. The Metropolitan Crucible, London 1685-1815 - - - - 2 2

16. The First industrial Revolution 1700-1870 - - - - - -

17. Medicine, Empire & Improvement, 1720 to 1820 - 1 - - - 1

18. The Age of Jefferson 1 - - 1 - 219. Culture and Society in France

from Voltaire to Balzac - - 1 1 - 2

20. Nationalism in western Europe 1 1 - - 1 321. Intellect and Culture in Victorian

Britain - - - - - -

22. The Authority of Nature: Race, Heredity & Crime 1800-1940 - - - - 2 2

23. Imperialism and Nationalism, 1830–1966 - 1 - 1 5 7

24. Modern Japan, 1868–1972 1 1 - - - 225. British Economic History since

1870 (PPE) - 8 - - - 8

35

AMH HECO HENG HML HPOL Total

26. Revolutionary Mexico, - - - 1 - 127. Nationalism, Politics and Culture

in Ireland, c. 1870–1921 - - - 1 1 2

28. Comparative History of the First World War - - - - 1 1

29. China in War and Revolution 1890–1949 1 - - - 1 2

30. The Soviet Union 1924–1941 - 1 - - 2 331. Culture, Politics & identity in Cold War Europe, 1945-68 - - 1 - 1 2

32. Britain at the Movies: Film and National identity since 1914 - - - - - -

33. Scholasticism and Humanism - - - - - -34. The Science of Society 1650-1800 - - - - 2 2

35. Political Theory and Social Science - - - - 3 3

AMH HECO HENG HML HPOL Total

Special Subjects1. St Augustine & the last days of

Rome, 370-430 1 - - - - 1

2. Francia in the Age of Clovis and Gregory of Tours - - - - - -

3. Byzantium in the Age of Constantine Prophyrogenitus 1 - - 1 - 2

4. Norman Conquest of England 1 - - - - 15. Royal Art & Architecture in

Norman Sicily, 1130-1194 - - - - - -

6. St Francis and St Clare - - - - - -

7. England in Crisis, 1374-88 - - - - 1 18. Joan of Arc & her Age, 1419- 1435 - - - - - -

9. Painting & Culture in Ming China - - - - - -10. Politics, Art & Culture in the

Italian Renaissance, Venice and Florence c.1475-1525

- - - 2 1 3

11. Luther & the German Reformation - - - - - -

12. Government, Politics and Society in England, 1547–1558 - - - 2 - 2

13. The Dutch Golden Age, 1618-1672 - - - 1 - 1

36

AMH HECO HENG HML HPOL Total

14. Scientific Movement in the Seventeenth Century - - 1 - 3 4

15. Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1647–1658 - - - - 2 2

16. English Architecture, 1660–1720 - - - - - -17. Debating social change in Britain

& Ireland 1770-1825 - - - 1 1 2

18. Church, State, and English Society, 1829–54 (suspended 2011-12)

- - - - - -

19. Growing-up in the middle-class family: Britain, 1830-70 - - - - - -

20. Slavery and the Crisis of the Union, 1854–1865 - - - 1 1 2

21. Art and its Public in France, 1815-67 - - - - - -

22. Russian Revolution of 1917 - - - - - -23. India, 1919-1939: Contesting the

Nation - - - 2 - 2

24. The sex age: gender, sexuality & culture in 1920s Britain - - - - - -

25. The Great Society Era, 1960-70 - - - 1 1 226. Nazi Germany, a racial order,

1933-45 - - - - - -

27. France from the Popular Front to the Liberation, 1936–44 - - - 1 1 2

28. War and Reconstruction, 1939-45 1 - - - 2 329. Britain from the Bomb to the

Beatles, 1945-67 (new) - - - - - -

30. The Northern Ireland Troubles 1965–1985 - - 1 - 3 4

31. Evolution of a Modern Metropolis: London - - - - 1 1

Bridge essays/Interdisciplinary papers/Exams - - 8 15 - 23

Princeton assessment (8999) - - - - - -

Theses (9952) 16 - - 1 26 43

Opt /BH/GH/FS/SS/Ad. Thesis - 8 1 - - 9

Disciplines of History (3140) 16 - - - - 16

Pol theses (9962) - - - 13 13

37

APPENDIX C FHS Results by paper and gender

GENDER STATS BY PAPER FHS 2012

130 M

113 W

*Main School only

Paper

F Avrg

M Avrg

DIFF

F High

M High

F Low

M Low F 70 + M 70 + F < 60 M < 60

ALL 65.92 66.22 0.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a12

(10.6)17

(13.1) 2 (1.8) 4 (3.1)

BH 65 65.64 0.64 8 12 30 1320

(17.7)25

(19.2)19

(16.8) 11 (8.5)

GH 65.46 66.44 0.98 12 12 13 1019

(16.8)35

(26.9) 8 (7.1) 11 (8.5)

FS 67.05 66.71 0.34 20 21 5 1630

(26.5)34

(26.2) 4 (3.5) 4 (3.1)

SSg 64.91 65.9 0.99 11 10 13 1718

(15.9)29

(22.3)11

(9.7) 8 (6.2)SSEE 66.82 66.77 0.05 34 24 10 15

21 (18.6)

36 (27.7) 5 (4.4) 10 (7.7)

DH 65.65 65.35 0.3 15 17 23 3623

(20.4) 26 (20)12

(10.6)15

(11.5)

TH 65.73 66.65 0.92 20 34 22 2327

(23.9) 39 (30)15

(13.3)16

(12.3)

GENDER STATS BY PAPER FHS 2011

130 M

105W

Paper

F Avrg

M Avrg

DIFF

F High

M High

F Low

M Low F 70 + M 70 + F < 60 M < 60

ALL 66.08 66.3 0.22 n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 18 4 5BH 64.57 66.72 2.15 14 20 20 15 18 36 12 5GH 65.91 66.58 0.67 10 19 12 23 15 29 6 6FS 66.42 66.81 0.39 13 23 14 12 28 34 6 8SSg 66.27 66.44 0.17 17 26 11 15 19 38 5 13SSEE 66.9 66.78 0.12 30 32 13 20 33 41 7 17DH 63.78 65.02 1.24 12 19 42 34 20 30 22 23TH 67.47 65.73 1.74 22 22 11 28 34 34 4 4

GENDER STATS BY PAPER FHS 2010

129 M

107W

Paper

F Avrg

M Avrg

DIFF

F High

M High

F Low

M Low F 70 + M 70 + F < 60 M < 60

ALL 66.27 66.56 0.29 n/a n/a n/a n/a 11 24 0 8BH 64.53 65.42 0.89 12 17 32 27 16 30 15 17GH 65.5 66.7 1.2 11 24 22 23 19 43 10 11FS 66.6 66.8 0.2 18 26 12 12 21 37 5 4SSg 66.22 66.53 0.31 13 14 14 18 24 36 4 11SSEE 68 66.85 1.15 36 33 9 28 39 42 2 12DH 65.4 66.32 0.92 11 20 23 20 20 33 11 9TH 67.17 66.66 0.51 30 27 17 31 36 47 10 15

GENDER STATS BY PAPER FHS 2009

129 M

108 W

Paper

F Avrg

M Avrg

DIFF

F High

M High

F Low

M Low F 70 + M 70 + F < 60 M < 60

ALL 65.46 66.66 1.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9 23 7 5BH 63.72 65.39 1.67 8 13 30 34 12 34 23 24GH 65.89 66.91 1.02 18 21 15 17 18 39 7 7

38

FS 65.8 67.55 1.75 16 19 16 10 27 41 11 5SSg 65.19 66.39 1.2 11 24 22 28 21 38 14 17SSEE 66.06 67.07 1.01 27 34 22 36 30 46 16 12DH 65.31 66.54 1.23 20 15 20 27 21 33 7 8TH 66.25 66.7 0.45 24 35 14 31 30 46 18 12

GENDER STATS BY PAPER FHS 2008

139 M

122 W

Paper

F Avrg

M Avrg

DIFF

F High

M High

F Low

M Low F 70 + M 70 + F < 60 M < 60

ALL 65.84 66.1 0.26 n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 20 3 9BH 64.58 65.27 0.69 17 14 25 29 20 28 20 18GH 66.6 66.87 0.27 22 21 12 21 29 44 4 10FS 66.54 66.6 0.06 24 19 18 19 28 34 6 7SSg 65.34 66.21 0.87 15 22 20 20 20 38 11 15SSEE 66.56 66.48 0.08 27 31 13 21 34 42 9 16DH 64.16 64.87 0.71 12 13 40 30 19 31 25 24TH 66.99 65.91 1.08 33 34 10 27 38 41 9 23

GENDER STATS BY PAPER FHS 2007

127 M

101 W

Paper

F Avrg

M Avrg

DIFF

F High

M High

F Low

M Low F 70 + M 70 + F < 60 M < 60

ALL 64.95 65.71 0.76 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9 16 9 7BH 64.11 65.09 0.98 12 12 22 28 25 27 18 16GH 64.28 65.74 1.46 13 22 12 24 16 32 18 14FS 65.41 66.33 0.92 16 22 11 13 22 32 11 7SSg 64.94 65.41 0.47 12 16 11 26 17 29 18 15SSEE 65.92 66.26 0.34 26 31 17 14 31 33 15 12DH 63.74 64.98 1.24 10 18 25 27 10 27 18 21TH 66.11 66.16 0.05 30 28 15 18 27 37 15 17

GENDER STATS BY PAPER FHS 2006

156 M

121 W

Paper

F Avrg

M Avrg

DIFF

F High

M High

F Low

M Low F 70 + M 70 + F < 60 M < 60

ALL 65.41 65.89 0.48 n/a n/a n/a n/a 13 21 9 11BH 64.48 66.17 1.69 13 31 21 20 20 36 21 16GH 65.15 65.75 0.6 21 21 21 28 17 38 15 15FS 65.49 66.03 0.54 16 24 20 17 26 39 15 11SSg 65.06 65.67 0.61 17 19 21 31 28 37 18 23SSEE 66.48 66.65 0.17 29 33 15 20 41 51 11 22DH 64.18 65.24 1.06 10 25 27 40 15 33 22 18TH 66.96 65.72 1.24 36 28 19 32 36 40 13 21

GENDER STATS BY PAPER FHS 2005

142 M

112 W

Paper

F Avrg

M Avrg

DIFF

F High

M High

F Low

M Low F 70 + M 70 + F < 60 M < 60

ALL 65.04 65.58 0.54 n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 13 4 7BH 64.83 65.64 0.81 19 25 18 16 25 34 16 14GH 64.45 65.25 0.8 16 20 13 26 17 32 21 18FS 65.27 65.58 0.31 12 19 15 20 21 36 14 18SSg 65.05 65 0.05 16 15 15 23 22 31 11 16

39

SSEE 65.97 66.75 0.78 25 34 18 14 30 47 13 12DH 63.17 64.69 1.52 13 16 42 32 14 27 27 22TH 66.66 66.11 0.55 37 27 10 29 35 49 15 19

Number &Number & % Number & Number &

% of Firsts

of Firsts who

% of women % of men

overall are womengetting Firsts

getting Firsts

2012 54 (22.2) 25 (46.3) 25 (22.1) 29 (22.3)2011 69 (29.4) 30 (43.5) 30 (28.6) 39 (30)2010 69 (29.2) 27 (39) 27 (25.2) 42 (32.6)2009 70 (29.5) 23 (32.8) 23 (21.1) 47 (36.7)2008 63 (24) 23 (36.5) 23 (18.9) 40 (28.6)2007 56 (24.5) 22 (39.3) 22 (21.6) 34 (26.8)2006 62 (22.4) 29 (46.8) 29 (22.5) 33 (22.3)2005 53 (20.8) 19 (35.9) 19 (16.5) 34 (24.3)2004 61 (22.3) 23 (37.7) 23 (18.5) 38 (25.5)

62 (24.9) 25 (39.8) 25 (21.7) 37 (27.7)

Summary of gender performance relating to First Class results

40