Assessment Report

New Zealand Scholarship
Classical Studies 2020

Standard 93404

Part A: Commentary

Candidates who gained Scholarship often, and Outstanding Scholarship candidates always, knew the texts / sources beyond the set books or obvious references, and made use of that knowledge to support their arguments. For example, in Question 11, the quote refers specifically to the end of the Aeneid, but some essays did not address it at all. At Scholarship level, some candidates discussed it, but were not familiar with it beyond the reversal from pietas to furor. Outstanding Scholarship level candidates were able to pose a range of specific explanations for it.

Scholarship and Outstanding Scholarship candidates recognised that the answer to a question may be negative: for example, in the Death section of the resources, where the question was about dishonourable deaths, they noted which deaths might actually not be dishonourable, or that there might be differing views about whether a particular death was dishonourable or not, or that the dishonour might belong to the killer rather than the deceased.

Part B: Report on Performance

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

  • wrote expressively with a degree of stylistic sophistication
  • wrote expressively with a degree of stylistic sophistication
  • demonstrated in-depth knowledge of content, based on wider reading
  • integrated relevant primary and secondary source evidence into their response
  • developed and sustained a cogent argument, discussed alternative viewpoints and reached balanced conclusions
  • showed an ability to think independently and make insightful observations
  • in Section B, focused on the context and subtext of the resources provided, avoiding formulaic insertions of pre-prepared background material
  • answered each question in full, engaging critically with its underlying implications and / or assumptions.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • wrote clearly and produced a structured response in essay format
  • had a sound knowledge of the topic, based on wider reading
  • supported their argument with a range of relevant primary source evidence
  • showed some knowledge of secondary sources
  • were sensitive to issues such as genre and historical context
  • answered the question set directly and reached valid conclusions, based on evidence
  • in Section B, focused on analysis of the resources provided, incorporating background detail when directly relevant to the discussion
  • fully answered three questions.

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:

  • failed to write clearly and / or structure their argument effectively
  • failed to write clearly and / or structure their argument effectively
  • showed limited understanding of the question and / or a weak knowledge of content
  • did not provide evidence to justify their conclusions and failed to use primary sources
  • introduced irrelevant material, not related to the question
  • ignored the question and reused pre-prepared material
  • did not sustain an analytical approach, drifting into narrative or (in Section B) paraphrase
  • in Section B, did not set analysis of the resources provided at the heart of their discussion
  • did not answer three questions, either because they were unprepared or spent too long on their first two answers.

Subject page


Previous years' reports
2019 (PDF, 162KB) 2018 (PDF, 94KB) 2017 (PDF, 41KB) 2016 (PDF, 187KB)

Skip to main page content Accessibility page with list of access keys Home Page Site Map Contact Us