# data[].attributes.body
I have noticed that students are generally able to write 4 marks well. Most of them also score full credit for question 1. However the challenge is for questions 2a, 3a & b, and 4/5

Most of them give long introductions and aren't able to connect correct sociological material to their content.

# data[].attributes.body
I have put averages at some places and few other I have put majority members marks.

Attaching the sheet for your reference

# data[].attributes.body
So during my marking, there were so many interesting things that I observed in the students essays, especially their use of scholars and sociological concepts.
But to my surprise our grading differed, where mine happened to be more than most of you. So I just needed to know what are some of the criteria that you guys used that I missed. So that we can all agree to a standard grade. (on the essay side only).

# data[].attributes.body
Interested to know the rationale why you gave this only 2 marks. I felt this showed all the criteria required for full 8 marks - 2 characteristics given and explaind ie qualitative being high in validity - then refers to material by Durkeim and explains relevence. Then student considers value of multiple perspectives and refers to Keat and also later on mentions Venkatesh in context of longitudinal study enabling wider pov to be recorded. Even if some of the explanations were not as detailed, still felt this should warrent at least 6 marks

# data[].attributes.body
Candidate J - top response AO1 8, AO2 10 AO3 13

Could distinguish 10 paragraph response. Know that quantity not everything! However, student guide suggests that students try to give 4/5 per side of essay. This to me showed a detailed response with wide range of issues examined

Candidate K - weakest response. Showed least critique and evaluation

AO1 6, AO2 7 AO3 7

Candidate L - mid response - showed more criticism of theoretical arguments, for example when discussing Functionalism and Weber

AO1 7 AO2 9 AO3 9

# data[].attributes.body
Q1 - all 3 given full marks but writing too much

Candidate G

Q2 no explanation of parentocracy

Q3 - too much written. Conclusion not required

Q4 Top essay Ao1 8 AO2 8 AO3 9

Candidate H

Q2 - not answering Q in first example

Q3 stronger response than G here - 10 marks

Q4 - mid tier response AO1-3 6,6,6

Candidate I

Q2 answer relates more explicitly to class rather than ethnicity and those disparities

Q3 only one example given

Q4 incomplete essay AO1-3 : 3,3,3

# data[].attributes.body
Candidate D - strongest

Q1 , 2a , 2b and 3a  - gave full marks

Q3b - awarded 4 marks. Not really quite sure if I was being mean or not sure what a full mark answer constituted!

Q4 - Gave a wider range of arguments on both sides of essay

AO1 7, AO2 6, AO3 8

Candidate E - mid band

Q2a no clear material used in 2nd idea - capped at 6 marks

Q2b - long intro not necessary, but better written than candidate D

Q3a - no ref to soc theorists/research

Q3b - very anecdotal

Q4 -imbalanced essay and too brief. Not enough evaluation AO1 8 AO2 6 AO4

Candidate F - weakest response

Q1 - gender socialisation answer incorrect - not a  govt policy

Q2a no explanation given for each point identified, although material explained.

Q2b - on par with Ds response

Q3a - gives 3 ideas although only 2 required

Q3b - no explicit research/theorist mentioned

Q4 Brief and capped to AO1 4 AO2 3 Ao3 2

# data[].attributes.body
Candidate A is the strongest candidate - gives concise and more succinct answers. As such awarded full marks for Q1, 2a , 2b and 3a. For Q 3b they were a bit rambly and as such I capped the response at 3 marks

Their essay is a bit list like with not much evaluation/critique of arguments - so capped at level 4.

As previously stated I gave 6 in each AO stand

Candidate B - this students gives very long winded, writing too much! eg Intro in Q1  and 2a completely not required. For me this detracts from what the questions actually requires them to do.

In Q3a they dont refer to any material explicitly - or maybe I'm too harsh!

Q4, their essay, they didn't refer to any research/theorists. Feel this is needed for a top band response. They give 4 well constructed arguments, for and against. This seems to be too narrow and as such capped essay at level 3 with 5 in each AO strand

Finally Candidate C- the weakest candidate

Q1- no elaboration so capped at 2 marks for identification only

Q2a  - only 1 explanation offered. No ref to material or why it explains issue -2 marks

2b - lacks understanding of the key terms used

3a - first part irrelevant and bit rambling and then the part which actually answers the question is too brief

3b - Student gives 2 brief reasons although answer only require 1 detailed counter argument

Q4 - on the whole a largely 1 sided response, which lacks detail. Capped each AO to 2,2,2