June 2005
This was the last year of the “old-style” SP2. Candidates for Tripos 2006 should note that the format of the examination has changed substantially, and should bear this in mind when reading the advice below, especially as at lest one comparative answer will now be compulsory.
There were only two candidates for the Portfolio option in SP2, confirming that Part Ib candidates saw this paper as an “easier bet” for examination than some of the other Ib papers. No doubt this will change with the stronger comparative element required of SP2 henceforth. Comments in this report will be limited to scripts answered for examination.
There were 44 candidates for Part Ia and 14 candidates (plus 2 portfolios) for Part Ib. Candidates across the two parts performed at an almost equal level, with median marks of 64.75% and 64.25% respectively (excluding portfolios). A higher proportion of Ib candidates gained firsts (21.4% as opposed to 15.9% for Ia), but a higher proportion of Ib candidates also gained II.2s.
The most popular text at Part Ia was Cervantes (19 answers), while the most popular at Ib was García Lorca (9 answers). Overall, Cervantes was the clear winner of the popularity stakes, with 25 answers across both parts. García Márquez came in a close third with 20 answers overall.
Standards of presentation have slipped quite markedly this year with poor English usage and frequent misspelling both in English and in Spanish (even authors’ names and supposedly learned quotations). Many candidates referred to “El colloquio de los perros”, while García Márquez was frequently referred to as “Marquéz” (implying that candidates mispronounce the name as well as misunderstanding the way surnames are used in the Hispanic world). There were frequent mix-ups of their/they’re/there; “who’s” instead of “whose”; use of contractions (don’t, isn’t) which should be avoided in formal writing; misuse of possessives (“societies harmony” for “society’s harmony”); baroque spellings of basic analytical vocabulary (“Castellian”, “tradgedy”, “farse”) or of country names (“Columbia” for Colombia). None of this enhances the overall impression made by a candidate’s writing and in general evinces lack of care. Most of our students would fail if we were to apply the Spanish academic rule of three spelling mistakes disqualifying a candidate’s work.
The commentary exercise was generally not well answered this year, with some candidates using the passage merely as an excuse to write whatever they wished about the text to hand. Although contextualizing is welcome in commentaries for this paper, it should not be at the expense of close analysis of the language and themes evinced in the passage or poem. General themes may then be extrapolated from the detail, but there should always be some connection to the passage itself.
Several candidates tried to disguise brevity of answers by using double spacing. Four sides double-spaced in big handwriting does not make for a complete answer – equivalent to less than two sides of normal single-spaced writing. Candidates are advised to practise timed writing more extensively in the run-up to examinations. Given the brevity of some answers, candidates should not waste time copying out the question title.
Some of the examples used seemed particularly hackneyed: the examiners must have read the first sentence of Cien años de soledad, copied out textually, some sixteen times, and candidates are advised to look for more original quotations and points to make – there is after all plenty of scope for providing fresh examples from a 400-page novel.
Candidates need to take some care in their assimilation and use of theoretical concepts. In relation to Tusquets, there was some confusion over the difference between female and feminine in gender theory, and the phrase “female writing” was used unreflectively by a few candidates.
All-in-all, the best answers, as usual, combined some fresh insights into a text with wide-ranging illustration and a careful focus on the issues asked by the question title. There were very few comparative answers this year, and they generally struggled to provide a clear conceptual ground for comparison. This should improve in the coming year with the greater emphasis on comparative analysis.