DEVIANCE AND NONCONFORMITY IN
PREMODERN EUROPE
EXAM DO S AND
DON’T S
THE EXAM
 There are 10 general questions ranging across the




themes of the module
As the exam paper states, you are expected to answer
each question with reference to ‘at least two’ deviant
groups (I’d suggest two to four, can also allude to
others)
You must answer two questions in two hours
It counts for 50% of your final mark (combined with
the long essay)
Scripts (and long essays) will be double-marked by
two markers
REVISION
DO
 Select 4 or 5 themes / 6
to 8 groups to revise
thoroughly
 Choose topics / groups
that are interlinked
 Dissect short essays and
read around them
 Look through past
papers and think through
essay plans
DON’T
 Rely on just knowing
about 2 themes / 4
groups
 Forget to think about
links between topics
 Just read through short
essays ignoring different
angles
 Forget to consult past
papers and essay plan
EXAM TECHNIQUE
DO
 ANSWER THE
QUESTION
 Structure your answer –
intro & conclusion
 Provide supporting
evidence – historians’
views, examples
 Argue a focused but
balanced case
 Think about the broader
context
 Give each answer
sufficient time
DON’T
 Rattle off all you know or
regurgitate
 Lose sight of the question
 Be vague and fail to
support with evidence
 Argue as if there’s only
one point of view
 Be irrelevant or range too
far away from topic
 Leave too little time for
the last question
OTHER TIPS
 Demonstrate breadth of knowledge (of module




themes or different countries/case studies) – bonus
marks available for the ‘iceberg effect’ here!
If asked to address a particular aspect don’t spend
too long on other aspects unless they link directly to
the question
Check your facts – chronology, examples etc
Markers are impressed by range and specificity
(also check Marking Criteria)
Markers prefer legible scripts!
First Class (70+)
1. Persuasive and direct answer to the question, establishing the wider
significance of the issues concerned.
2. Comprehensive coverage of the relevant material; accuracy in the
details.
3. A direct and coherent argument, well supported by relevant evidence.
4. Critical analysis of relevant concepts, theoretical or historiographical
perspectives or methodological issues.
5. Fluent and engaging writing style; persuasive presentation and
structuring of arguments.
6. Work which, in addition, displays evidence of creativity, originality,
sophistication and freshness of arguments will be awarded marks of 75+
Upper Second (60 – 69)
1. Direct answer to the question, establishing the wider significance of the
issues concerned.
2. Adequate coverage of the relevant material, accuracy in the details.
3. Skilful mobilisation of evidence in relation to the argument being
presented.
4. Narrative and description taking second place to analysis.
5. Competent manipulation of relevant concepts, theoretical or
historiographical perspectives or methodological issues.
6. Fluent writing style; effective presentation and structuring of arguments.