I always find it helpful reading the examiner’s reports but in recent years I have also found them highly frustrating, vague and somewhat unfair. This year’s Philosophy and Ethics reports come with very few surprises, a selection of helpful pointers (which I summarise below) and a general repetition of previous years’ comments. However the Christian Thought section infuriated me due to the clear disparity in expectations (with the other modules of the course) and a complete disregard of the cohort of students we teach. Can I order a reality check please?
Helpful all-round pointers:
| Best Answers | What to Avoid |
| Selected relevant material. Selection of material in response to Q is as much about what is left out as what is put in. Unclear why certain arguments were brought into an answer e.g. Tillich’s symbol in Aquinas’ analogy. This works but only when evaluatively. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Fs-9Rx6q9Po | Weaker students wrote everything they knew. Questions are intended to test how well candidates can use the material to respond to a specific question. Not just a recall test. Need to think and plan responses, rather than seeing a key word and launching into a pre prepared answer. |
| Focus directly on the Q. Most successful responses focused on the specific words in the Q e.g. the word ‘sufficient’ found in the Q can change the direction of an answer. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9VRdJjEvFes https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KdZnPH98LNk | Evaluation was juxtaposed rather than developed. This means that arguments, such as those presented by key scholars, are simply stated (regurgitated info) rather than exploring why they are relevant and how their argument impacts your overall discussion. |
| Introduction included an outline of what was going to be argued with hypothesis and reasoning. Outlining thesis/ judgment in introduction. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/azNF-rVAKWg | Absence of planning was noticeable. |
| Structure your paragraphs by starting with a view, rather than a name, which tends to lean to an essay that is driven by A02 rather than A01. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QIQj6v2_a4U | Having a simplistic view of content. |
| Embed discussion, use the material as a vehicle for discussion (A02). Argument driven approach rather than stating criticisms of scholars. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RoJn9UlkVGQ | Longer essays are not necessarily better – focus can drift. |
| Relevant synoptic links made. https://youtube.com/shorts/xstsllLKJqc | Being synoptic can lead to time wasted exploring other topics that did not significantly increase credit for the question being answered. |
| Unnamed scholarly views can be credited highly – you don’t need a ‘menu of scholars’ (love this phrase, already used it two or three times in my lessons already!). https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qwsMq8j7d3E | Unnecessary comparisons with other theories. For example in a Cosmological question contrasting with Teleological and/or Ontological – WHY would you do this?!? – unless fuelling the debate – multiple concepts can dilute the responses made – don’t ‘shoehorn’ other aspects of the course into answers. |
Stay tuned for the summary of the DCT section of the examiner’s report, which needs a far more in-depth exploration. Coming soon 😊 (You can now find it here: Do the exam markers for DCT need a reality check?)
