There were eighteen candidates in all for SP5 in 2002-03, split evenly between those candidates who took the paper under the portfolio option (9) and those who took the examination (9). The results were also evenly split, with a third of each group of candidates gaining First-class marks, and no II.2 marks or lower. This is a very high proportion of First-class work, and much of the writing was indeed of great interest, although there were no distinction performances. As is to be expected, the examination produced a greater spread of marks, with an upper quartile of 70 and a lower quartile of 63.5, compared to 69.5 and 65.5 respectively for the portfolios. This seems to be a feature of portfolio work: the overall level of quality is polished, but there is less obvious spread between the different performances.
Questions were answered from all six topics on the course, but candidates seem to have dropped the Nation and Narration topic from their studies since only one candidate chose to answer on it. It is a shame that more did not try because, as has been said in previous reports, a good answer on the Nation and Narration topic really does stand out. The most popular topic was, as usual, Labyrinths of Fiction (15 answers), followed by Nightmares of the Urban (14 answers) and Penning the Dictator (13 answers).
Scripts as a whole showed engaged and considered argumentation. It was notable that a number of candidates answered (well) on film for the Nightmares of the Urban topic. As a piece of general advice, the best answers on film show some awareness of what makes a film different from a text, i.e., some accounting for issues of film form, visual style, etc. Question 6(a) ('A fin de cuentas, son juegos textuales sin ninguna relevancia social') was not always answered well, with candidates seemingly attracted to the question but finding themselves ultimately unable to relate the ludic elements of the texts to social and political issues.
One or two candidates seem to make no bones about citing primary texts in English. Secondary material (critical works) can, of course, routinely be cited in English, but citing primary works in translation gives a poor impression. It is also something of a vicious circle: if students do not read texts in Spanish, they will find it gets harder and harder to do so, and mastery of the language spirals downwards. It is therefore a false economy to do so, even when under pressure of time.
This year had the largest ever cohort of SP5 students: thirty-four in all. The group as a whole produced some very good work, with eight students (24%) gaining first-class marks, only three II.2s (9%) and no Thirds or Fails. The median mark awarded was very high at 66%, indicating the overall good quality of work written by candidates. Scripts as a whole gave an impression of careful and engaged preparation, with far fewer of the ahistorical gaffes often seen in previous years. In terms of general advice, it should be said that some candidates did not seem very aware of the precise question they were answering and could, indeed, have gained a better mark if they had written the same essay but in answer to a different question on the paper. This might be indicative of pre-prepared essays, or of lack of attention to the precise terms of the question. Either way, it is an issue candidates are strongly urged to pay careful attention to in any examination.
Questions were again answered from all six sections of the paper, but there was a shift away from the Nation and Narration topic, with only three answers offered. This may have been an unintended result of the warnings given in last year's report about candidates' lack of basic historical and social knowledge, and certainly there was more of an air of caution in the way the topics which required historical knowledge were approached this year. Having said that, a good answer on the Nation and Narration topic really does stand out, and it is to be hoped that with the addition of some new texts, candidates will be prepared to tackle the topic once more next year. The most popular topic was, as usual, Labyrinths of Fiction (24 answers), followed closely by Penning the Dictator (22 answers), Charting Revolution (20 answers), Nightmares of the Urban and The 'Racial' Other (17 and 16 answers respectively).
In general, candidates dealt very well with the comparative requirements of the paper, seeming to enjoy the chance to stand back a little from the texts and relate them to broader intellectual currents and frameworks. However, candidates should always try to include some close textual analysis of each text, whether literary, cinematic, or artistic, and often this is where the most original points can emerge. The best essays successfully balanced comparative frameworks with respect for the specificity of each text.
The overall results were good, with most students engaging creatively with a wide variety of texts. Intellectual adventure, discriminating research and controlled writing were rewarded by the examiners. Five out of twenty-five students gained first-class marks for the paper as a whole, with some strong performances in the II.1 category. There were six II.2 marks.
Questions were answered from all six sections of the paper, but in contrast to previous years Nation and Narration figured prominently (with 11 answers). The most popular topic was Labyrinths of Fiction, followed by Charting Revolution, The Racial Other and Penning the Dictator. Nightmares of the Urban attracted the fewest responses.
While most students adopted a properly comparative approach to good effect, some answers lacked balance in terms of the space allocated to a discussion of wider issues in relation to the chosen texts. Some of the least convincing responses tended to offer a reasonably incisive analysis of one text with only a cursory glance at other material. Token references tend to undermine the integrity of any argument and should be avoided. The paper requires genuinely researched and textually specific understanding of a topic rather than a generalising gloss. In order to avoid survey-like answers that rely on scant knowledge and which tend not to engage with the set question, it is advisable that students focus on 2 or 3 'core' texts to allow for depth and development. It is also important for students to have a command of basic facts about texts before endeavouring to compare them and reach general conclusions: some students mistranscribed titles and had a confused sense of chronology and history (including date of publication, cultural context, period, authorship...). If a student chooses to make reference to a context (historical, literary, cultural etc) it is essential that he/she does so in an informed manner. For instance, answers for Nation and Narration were often disappointing because of a ridiculous lack of basic historical and social knowledge. It is also helpful if students use literary or theoretical terms in a qualified manner rather than as if these were self-evident labels.
Students are encouraged to manifest critical independence and individuality in their answers - and some achieved this by combining a clearly argued interpretation with a careful assessment of an author's/text's strategy in relation to the issues under review - race and hybridity in Alejo Carpentier, for example. However, some answers tended to fall into the trap of dismissing authors/works based on assumptions rather than argument. Secondary sources can potentially provide stimulation, insight and guidance but should not be regarded as providing a definitive point of view to which one can simply subscribe without explanation as to its applicability/validity.
Once again, in its second year of operation, the "Topics" format of this paper has proven to pay good dividends in terms of adventurous answers and variety of texts covered. This format seems to discourage the production of stock answers and rewards students who are prepared to think creatively in their association of diverse material. Overall results were very good, with five out of twenty-three students (22%) gaining first-class marks for the paper as a whole, with only two II.2 marks.
Questions were again answered from all six sections of the paper, but this year showed a marked shift in the popularity of some of the topics. The most popular topic was still, unsurprisingly, "Labyrinths of Fiction", which produced seventeen answers, followed by "Penning the Dictator" with fifteen answers (one of the less popular topics last year). "Charting Revolution" and "Nightmares of the Urban" had good numbers of answers at thirteen and twelve respectively, with "The 'Racial' Other" (last year's least popular topic) coming in close behind with ten answers. In strong contrast to last year, the least popular topic this year was "Nation and Narration", which only attracted two answers.
In general, candidates seem to have taken on board last year's advice that they should avoid producing survey-like answers with too many texts crammed in and that they should concentrate on no more than three "core" texts in any one answer (although they may of course bring in brief reference to other texts by way of comparison). However, some candidates seemed to be relying on very scant knowledge of the texts they were discussing: it is not impressive, for example, to see candidates writing about the "nameless" protagonist of El juguete rabioso, or referring to "Arlt's" well-known novel, Los de abajo. Some candidates also showed a shameful lack of basic general knowledge about the society in which the texts they were discussing are set: the indigenous inhabitants of Mexico are not Quechua but descendants of the Aztecs or the Maya (the latter particularly on the border with Guatemala, where Rosario Castellanos' novel Balún Canán is set).
Question 5(a), which asked candidates to discuss the
proposition that suffering/ violence/ torture are always
"surplus to" or "in excess of" any attempt to symbolize them,
was not generally answered well by the five candidates who
attempted it; in particular, most did not seem equipped to
deal with the notion of "excess" and supplementarity in
writing. Two candidates answered Question 2(d), on the
principal social problems besetting the modern Latin American
city, with reference to a mixture of cultural and historical
material. Candidates who wish to take advantage of the
historical/sociological possibilities of this paper are
advised to ensure that they practise writing such essays
during the year, since historical writing and social analysis
entail particular skills, and combining them with cultural
analysis entails certain problems that need to be addressed in
such answers.