This 10 mark (no item) question could appear at the end of either paper 1, or paper 3.
In this post I consider a ‘top band’ answer (both are provided by the AQA here) which achieved 10/10.
NB – If you would like to attempt this question BEFORE looking at the full mark response below, then you can review the topic first by clicking here >>> ‘Is sociology a science?‘.
The Question (no item!)
‘Outline and explain two arguments against the view that sociology is a science’ (10)
The Mark Scheme:
Note: there are no marks for evaluation on the 10 mark no item questions (there are for the ‘analyse with the item’ 10 mark questions!)
Student Response:
Highlighted to show the different stages of development
Interpretivism is the view that sociology is not a science. Interpretivists argue that, because humans think and reflect, scientific methods are inappropriate as they do not allow us to truly understand and dig beneath the surface of behaviours and actions. Unlike objects, which can be analysed using scientific methods, Interpretivists argue that human beings change their behaviour if they know they are being observed, called the Hawthorne Effect, therefore if we want to understand social action, we have to delve into meanings using qualitative, unscientific methods.Interpretivists are subjective, meaning science is not appropriate for sociology in their opinion as it gives objective results and data.Interpretivists argue that the purpose of sociology is to understand human behaviour, no quantify it using scientific methods, therefore it cannot possibly be a science.
Kuhn stated that science is paradigmatic, meaning there is a fixed set of rules and principles which science uses. It is like a set of norms and values and is accepted by all scientists.Therefore, according to Kuhn, sociology is pre-paradigmatic and hasn’t reached the stage where there is a general paradigm shared by most social scientists. This is seen by the fact that sociology has a range of views and theoretical perspectives and there is no agreed set of norms and values.Feminists will always disagree with functionalists. Sociological perspectives may also have internal disagreements such as Merton’s criticism of other functionalists. Those who criticise Kuhn, however, would question whether science itself has a paradigm. Many sciences exist with different sets of paradigms such as psychology
Examiner Commentary: (10/10 marks)
KT’s Commentary
If you’re freaked out by the above response, don’t be: if this wasn’t written by an examiner, it’s written by an outstanding candidate.
Students typically find this topic one of the most difficult, and most answers will come NO WHERE NEAR this standard.
Technically, I don’t think the last sentence should get any marks, because it is not focused on the actual question.
Source:
AQA 2015
Student responses with examiner
commentary
AS AND A-LEVEL
SOCIOLOGY
7191 AND 7192
Below is an example of a 30 mark essay question which achieved 28/30.
It’s an interesting example of a question which looks like its asking you to evaluate a specific aspect of the Functionalist perspective on education. However, if you look more closely at the item, you’ll need to do this by drawing on Feminism and Postmodernism to evaluate!
The example is taken from the 2017 Education with Theory and Methods Paper (paper and mark schemes available from the AQA 0website) and the specific question is as follows:
The Question with Item
Mark Scheme (Top Band Only)
Student Response (paraphrased by KT)
Item B states that education plays a role in socialisation. Feminists argue that education reinforces hegemonic masculinity. However, other sociologists such as Functionalists argue that education transmits shared values and post-modernists for example argue that education is diverse and transmits a range of values.
Feminists suggest that education transmits patriarchal ideology. Radical Feminists would say that male teachers/ pupils behave in ways that reinforce hegemonic masculinity. For example, male teachers tell boys off for ‘behaving like girls’ and they also ‘rescue’ female teachers when they are disciplining students. Radical feminists say that this makes females feel inferior to males and therefor means that the role of education is to reinforce the idea that males are the dominant gender. However, a specific evaluation is that the male teachers may rescue female teachers because they are in a more authoritative position. Additionally, post-modernists would disagree with feminists and argue that education is no longer based on inequality, but based on diversity.
Functionalists suggest that education transmits shared values. Durkheim argues that the role of education is to create social solidarity and value consensus. He argues that education achieves this via assemblies, teaching a common history (giving a sense of national identity and bring people together) and teaching core values such as respect which bring social order. Parsons agrees and argues that education is the focal socialising agency and ‘Parsons bridge implies that education takes people from particularistic values of the family/ home to universalistic values of the work place. The New right agree with functionalists that the role of education is to transmit shared values. However, Marxists disagree with functionalists and argue that the socialisation aspect of the role of education is not to create value consensus but that education is uses as an ideological state apparatus, to transmit ruling class ideology.
Marxists suggest that the role of education is to ‘brainwash’ the working class. Althusser argues that education is an ideological state apparatus that transmits ruling class ideology in order to legitimse the inequality caused by the capitalist class. Bowles and Gintis argue that there is a ‘hidden curriculum’ that socialises the working class into obedient workers in order to benefit capitalism. For example, they are taught that being punished for minor issues is acceptable and the importance of punctuality and that they have to obey the people above them in the social hierarchy – e.g. teachers then boss. However, a specific problem of the hidden curriculum is that a study by Willis showed that students can see through the role of education and reject the hidden curriculum.
Bowles and Gintis also argued that there is a correspondence principle where school mirrors work. Similarities such as extrinsic satisfaction (only doing something for rewards, not because you enjoy it eg school to get GCSEs, work to get money) socialise working class pupils to not expect a rewarding job when they leave school and this benefits the capitalist class. As a result, Marxists argue that the role of education is to transmit ruling class ideology and benefit the bourgeoisie. However, functionalists and new right disagree and argue that values are shared to create a value consensus. They argue that marxism is wrong for basing it on conflict when it is really consensus.
Functionasts such as Parsons suggest that education is meritocratic. This means that pupils are taught that they need to work hard if they want to achieve. He argues that the education system is based on this which suggests people only fail if they do not try hard enough. However, Marxists such as Bordieu argue that education promotes middle class values which means working class students fail because their values are not wanted by the school – not because of meritocracy. Ball argued that meritocracy is a myth. However, new right agree and argue that it is down to the individual to work hard and achieve.
Perhaps the main strength of explaining the role of education in transmitting ideas/ values is the functionalist view that education is used to create shared values, because it can be applied to real life education because schools do have assemblies and promote core values. Perhaps the main weakness is the postmodern view because although education is more diverse, each school still has an ETHOS that has been developed by middle class individuals.
Post modernists argue that marxists, feminists and functionalists are out of date. Liberal feminists would argue that the role of education is no longer to reinforce hegemonic masculinity but that inequality/ patriarchy is improving.
Examiner Commentary
Mark 28/30
Conceptually detailed and located within a broad theoretical framework. Sophisticated analysis and applied clearly to the question. Explicit evaluation throughout.
Did not score maximum as at times evaluation was not fully developed, e.g. postmodernism.
KT’s commentary
An obvious strength of this answer, in addition to the above is it’s clear use of the item!
They also use phrases, such as ‘a specific evaluation’ of this is….
This also shows you that you need good depth of knowledge of the basics of functionalism and Marxism, but you also need to evaluate them with specific comments and P/M to top mark band.
Source:
A-level
SOCIOLOGY
Feedback on the Examinations
Student responses and commentaries: Paper 1 7192/1 Education with Theory and Methods
Published: Autumn 2017
This post draws on marked examples from the AQA exam board’s A-level sociology papers 7192/1: Education with Theory and Methods to demonstrate what you need to do to get an A* grade in sociology A-level.
NB – The later links below will only become operational later this week! (Everything by Friday!)
However, let’s play it safe and say that the easiest way to ‘guarantee’ your A* is to max out the short answer (4-6) mark questions, and then sneak into the top mark bands for every other question. If you did that you’d end up with a total score of 67/80, made up of the marks as below
Q01 – 4/4 marks
Q02 – 6/6 marks
Q03 – 8/10 marks
Q04 – 25/30 marks
Q05 – 16/20 marks (because top-banding is HIGHLY unlikely
Q06 – 8/10 marks
= Total marks of 67/70, which is still COMFORTABLY into the A* category!
The remainder of this post explains how to get full marks in the first two short answer ‘outline and explain’ (4 and 6 mark) questions and then examines the ‘top band’s of the mark schemes for the other 10 mark and essay questions, drawing on specific examples from a the AQA’s specimen papers and some model marked scripts from last year’s 2017 A-level sociology examination series.
For more details on how these exams are assessed, please see the AQA’s we site.
Strategies to get an A* in A Level sociology (focusing on paper 7192/2)
Questions 01 and 02: the four and six mark questions
I’ve covered this in this post: how to answer 4 and 6 mark questions in A-level sociology. This post outlines the ‘1+1’ technique to answering these questions as well as containing a few examples
You might also like the following post:
A 4/6 mark answer from June 2017 – Outline three ways in which factors within school may affect gender differences in subject choice (06) – link takes you to a 4/6 marked response, but includes the mark scheme which shows you how you could have got 6//6.
Q03: Applying material from item A ‘Analyse Something’
To summarise the key points from the top band of the mark scheme for this type of question, you need:
Good knowledge and understanding of relevant material
Two reasons/ ways/ effects (whatever the action word is)
Two developed applications from the item
analysis and/ or evaluation of these effects.
So far, so abstract: this link will take you to a full mark answer modified from the AQA’s 2017 A-level education paper.
You might also like this post, which outlines a 5/10 marked response, with good indicators of how to do it, and how not to do it!
Question 04: the big, 30 mark, pure education essay question
This question will ask you to evaluate something using an item.
To get into the top mark band, you basically need to demonstrate excellent knowledge and understand, analysis and evaluation, AND use the item, and conclude!
Click here for example of a 28/30 mark answer from the June 2017 Paper…. the question is on ‘the role of education in transmitting values’.
Q05: The Methods in Context Question
This is the question which asks you to evaluate the usefulness of using any method to research any topic within education.
The AQA marks these questions in band, let’s forget about bands 1 and 2, your’re way better than that:
Band 3 = good knowledge of methods
Band 4 = method applied to researching education in general
Band 5 = method applied to researching the topic in particular.
This is an example of a 20/20 methods in context answer, marked by the AQA (taken from an AS exemplar paper, but the format of question is the same for the A-level). The specific question is ‘Applying material from [the item], and your own knowledge, evaluate the strengths and limitations of using structured interviews to investigate the influence of the family on pupils’ education (20).
Q06: Outline and Explain Two…(10)
This final question will ask you to outline and explain two reasons, arguments, ways, criticisms etc…. there is no item, and unlike the other 10 mark question, there are no marks for evaluation!
Click here for an example of a full mark, 10/10 answer to to the question: ‘outline and explain two arguments against the view that sociology is a science (10). This is taken from the AQA’s 2015 Specimen material.
Remember that this exact question could appear on either paper 1, or paper 3!
mind maps in pdf and png format – 9 in total, covering various topics within the sociology of education
short answer exam practice questions and exemplar answers
how to write sociology essays, including 7 specific templates and model answers on the sociology of education
Theory and Methods A Level Sociology Revision Bundle
If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my Theory and Methods Revision Bundle – specifically designed to get students through the theory and methods sections of A level sociology papers 1 and 3.
Contents include:
74 pages of revision notes
15 mind maps on various topics within theory and methods
Five theory and methods essays
‘How to write methods in context essays’.
Sources
The AQA’s 2015 A level specimen paper and commentaries.
A-level SOCIOLOGY: Feedback on the Examinations Student responses and commentaries: Paper 1 7192/1 Education with Theory and Methods. Published: Autumn 2017
Below is an example of an abbreviated (by me) marked response to a 10 mark ‘analyse with the item question’ which achieved a top band-mark, or 9/10.
The example is taken from the 2017 Education with Theory and Methods Paper (paper and mark schemes available from the AQA website) and the specific question is as follows:
The Question with Item
The Mark Scheme (top band only)
Student Response:
Item A states that ‘there is now a wider range of school factors’ which leads to the introduction of academies and free schools. This increases parental choice as parents can choose to send their children to this wider range of schools. This wider range schools has improved pupils’ experience of education because it means that pupils have a more personalised learning experience – e.g. personalised timetables that can include extra revision for example. The New Right argues that academies have improved education because they have raised standards through competition, but Marxists argue this has mainly benefited the middle classes because they have the cultural capital to take advantage of the education system.
Additionally, the item states that ‘league tables on school performance are also publicly available’. This has increased parental choice because parents can use them and OFSTED to help make a decision about where to send their child. The New Right argue this changes pupils’ experience of education because schools have to raise standards to attract consumer parents. However, Marxists say this only benefits the middle classes as they have the economic capital which leads to cultural capital, they make a choice effectively. In contrast Gerwertz found that working class parents were disconnected choosers – they sent their child to local school, which means working class children have a negative experience of education because they end up going to the failing schools at the bottom of the league tables.
Examiner Commentary:
Mark: 9/10
Both paragraphs are conceptually detailed with analysis, evaluation and located in a theoretical context.
Thorough knowledge and understanding, evaluation and analysis, application needs to be more developed in paragraph one for maximum marks.
KT’s commentary:
Personally I thought the two paragraphs were a bit repetitive, but there you go.
If you like this sort of thing, you might also like to check out this 5/10 mark response to the same question.
Source:
A-level
SOCIOLOGY
Feedback on the Examinations
Student responses and commentaries: Paper 1 7192/1 Education with Theory and Methods
Published: Autumn 2017
Bauman begins by citing, among others, Henry Ford as an example of someone who epitomized Modernity’s attitude towards work in relation to time. Work, done in the present, was valuable because it was driving history forwards. Those in power had such a belief in their hold over the present that they could look forward with confidence, feeling they could plan the future, control it. Progress, says Bauman, is a declaration that history is not relevant.
Progress stands not for any quality of history, but of a self-confidence in the present. Faith in progress stems from two things – the belief that time is on our side, and that we are the ones who make things happen. As Alain Peyrefitte put it – the only resource capable of making mass transformations is trust in society now and in the future we will share.
Are we propelled into the future by the horrors of the past, or are we dragged towards it by the hope of better things to come? The sole evidence by which to make a judgement is the play of memory and imagination, and what links or separates them is our self confidence or its absence. To the former, progress is an axiom, to the later the idea is laughable.
Aside for H. Ford quote about exercise – ‘Exercise is bunk. If you are healthy, you don’t need it; if you are sick, you won’t do it.’
Today, we have lost our self-confidence and thus our trust in progress because….
Firstly there is a lack of an agency able to ‘move the world forwards – this is because the state remains fixed to a locality, but power flows well beyond its reach, and thus power has flowed from politics – thus we no longer know who it is that is going to move society forwards (thus our main question is not what is to be done, but who is going to do it)
Secondly, the idea of the ‘great society’ is dead – The ones that were planned (Marxism and economic liberalism) have both failed to live up to their expectations, and anyone who proposes a grand plan today is laughed out of court.
However, the modern idea of progress, even if there can be no salvation by society, is not one that is likely to end soon….. the life of modern men is still understood as a task, something to be worked on, it is something to be made…. The question is, what might progress actually look like in the age of ‘no salvation by society’?
The idea of progress has been deregulated and privatised – deregulated because the offers to ‘upgrade’ present realities are many and diverse and whether something counts as an upgrade is open to contest, also we can’t be certain if what we do will result in upgrading) , and privatised because individuals are called upon to use their own individual wits to improve their lives.
He now quotes Beck’s risk society – The tendency is towards the emergence of individualised forms and conditions of existence….. one has to choose and change one’s social identity as well as take the risks of doing so…. The individual himself or herself becomes the reproduction unit of the social in the lifeworld.
The problem is that the feasibility of progress rests on our hold on the present but we live in a world of universal flexibility… under conditions of acute and prospect-less Unsicherheit, penetrating all aspects of individual life – the sources of livelihood as much as the partnerships of love or common interests, parameters of professional as much as cultural identity, modes of presentation of self in public as much as patterns of health and fitness, values worth pursuing as much as the way to pursue them. And we all know from experience that plans may not work out like we plan them.
Bauman now suggests that Chaos Theory in science fits the mood of liquid modernity perfectly.
Where science and work use to anchor us to the present and guide us to the future (basically giving us structure), now they do not, and as we lose hold on the present, the less the future can be embraced… Stretches of time labelled future get shorter and the time-span of life as a whole is sliced into episodes dealt with ‘one at a time’. Continuity is no longer the mark of progress, life has become much more episodic.
Jacques Attali suggest that the labyrinth is the image which illustrates our ideas of the future. Chance or surprise rule in the labyrinth rather than pure reason.
Today work does not offer us a secure route to the future, it is more characterised by ‘tinkering’, and it does not have that fundamental grounding feature it had in the heavy modern period. For most people work is now judged on its aesthetic value – how satisfying it is of itself…. it can no longer give us satisfaction on the basis of ‘driving the nation forwards’, instead it is judged on its capacity to be entertaining or amusing.
(140-147) The rise and fall of labour
This section is simply a classic statement that industrialisation lead to freeing labour from the land, only to be tied to the Fordist Factory, but at least unionised Labour and Capital were equally as tide to each other – and came to be backed up by the welfare state. All of this gave some measure of stability.
(148 – 154) From marriage to cohabitation
The present day uncertainty is a powerful individualising force. It divides instead of uniting. The idea of ‘common interests’ grows ever more nebulous and loses all pragmatic value.
He now follows Bordieu, Granovetter and Sennet to flesh out how changes in the conditions of unemployment have led to workers seeing traditional unionisation as being inadequate because of episodic, temporary work placements – there is little change for mutual loyalty and commitment to take root and this goes hand in hand with disenchantment. The place of employment now feels like a camping site.
Bauman likens this loosening of ties between labour and capital as being like cohabitation…. in the background is the assumption of temporariness….. but this disengagement is unilateral,,,, capital has cut itself free from the needs of this particular bunch of labourers. Capital, of course, is not as volatile as it wants to be, but it is extraterritorial, lighter than ever.
To an unprecedented degree politics has become a tug of war between the speed with which capital can move and the slowing down capacities of local powers to ward off the threat of capital disinvestment, and paradoxically, one of the ways local authorities can keep capital in place is by allowing it freedom to leave.
Today, speed of movement has become perhaps the paramount factor of social stratification and the hierarchy of domination…. The main sources of profits seem to be ideas rather than in material objects… and the objects of competition here are the consumers, not the producers.
He now cites Reich’s four categories of work…From top to bottom – decreasing status.
Symbol manipulators
The reproduction of labour
Personal services
Routine Labourers
The bottom category are the easiest to replace, and they now they are disposable and so that there is no point in entering into long term commitments with their work colleagues….. this is a natural response to a flexibilised labour market. This leads to a decline in moral, as those who are left after one round of downsizing wait for the next blow of the axe.
At the other end of the pole are those for whom space matters little – They do not own factories, nor occupy administrative positions – Their knowledge comes from a portable asset – knowledge of the laws of the labyrinth…. to them novelty is good, precariousness is value, they love to create and play and embrace volatility.
Bauman now relays a tale of being in an airport lounge and seeing two business men spend and hour and a half each on their phones conducting business as if the other did not exist – such people, he says, exist in outer space – they are not connected to any particular locality.
He now turns to Nigel Thrift’s essay on soft capitalism who focuses on its vocabulary – surfing, networks, coalitions, fuzzy logic…. this is an ambiguous and chaotic world where knowledge ages quickly.
He rounds off by saying that those who are in charge are virtually networked and for them information moves at an incredible pace…. the life expectancy of knowledge is short, they live in a world of the perpetual new beginnings.
However, such people are ‘remotely controlled’ – they are dominated and controlled in a new way – leadership has been replaced by the spectacle, and surveillance by seduction.
(155-160) Excursus: a brief history of procrastination
Cras, in Latin, means tomorrow. To procrastinate is to manipulate the possibilities of the presence of a thing by putting off, delaying and postponing its becoming present, keeping it at a distance and deferring its immediacy.
Procrastination as a cultural practice came into its own with dawn of modernity. Its new meaning and ethical significance derived from the new meaningfulness of time, from time having a history, from time being history.
Procrastination is what makes life meaningful. To illustrate this, Bauman spends some time outlining the meaning of the pilgrim in modernity. The pilgrim is someone who is going somewhere, but they are allowed the time to reflect on where it is they are going, thus the pilgrimage is meaningful. The pilgrim’s life is a travel-towards-fulfillment, and travelling towards fulfillment gives the pilgrim’s life its meaning,but the meaning it gives is blighted with a suicidal impulse; that meaning cannot survive the completion of its destiny.
Procrastination reflects this ambivalence…. the pilgrim procrastinates in order to be better prepared to grasp things that truly matter.
The attitudinal/ behavioural precept which laid the foundation of modern society and rendered the modern way of being-in-the-world both possible and inescapable was the principle of ‘delay of gratification’… without this, there is no idea of progress.
Procrastination, in the form of ‘delay of gratification’ (he’s pushing the definition of procrastination here!) says Bauman ‘put sowing above harvesting, and investing above creaming off the savings, but this delay also elevated the status of the end product to be consumed…. the more severe the self-restraint, the greater would be, eventually, the opportunity for self-indulgence. Do save, since the more you save, the more money you will be able to spend. Do work, sine the more you work, the more you will consume.
Owing to its ambivalence procrastination fed two opposite tendencies. One led to the work ethic another led to the aesthetic of consumption…. however, today we no longer value delay of gratification, this is just seen as hardship plain and simple!
Today we live in a ‘casino culture’ – we don’t want to wait for our pleasures, we want them immediately, in this moment, and moreover, each moment of pleasure lasts for a shorter and shorter instant… thus procrastination is under attack – under pressure are the delay of gratifications arrival, and the delay of its departure.
I think this might be the most importat bit….
In modern society, the ethic of delayed gratification justified the work ethic, and we may need something similar to in the consumer society…. we need the principle of dissatisfaction to justify the central role of desire….
To stay alive and fresh desire must, time and time again, be gratified, yet gratification spells the end of desire. A society ruled by the aesthetic (NB not ethic) of consumption needs a very special kind of gratification, akin to the Derridean phamakon – the healing drug and poison both at the same time, administered slowly and never in its final dose…. a gratification not really gratifying.
Today, our culture wages a war agains procrastination, a war against taking distance, reflection, continuity and tradition, a war against what Heidegger’s ‘modality of being’.
(PP160-165) Human bonds in the Fluid World
The feeling of our time summed up in works such as ‘Risk Society’ involves a combination of the experience of…
insecurity -of position, entitlements, livelihood
uncertainty – about continuation and future stability
un-safety – of one’s body, one’s self and their extensions… possessions and neighbourhoods.
Bauman now suggests that, in terms of livelihood, unemployment is structural and all we need do is look around to see that no one is in a really secure job…. and in this context, immediate gratification is rational. It makes even more sense when we know that fashions come and go (enjoy it now or the moment is gone) and that assets can become liabilities.
Precarious economic and social conditions make people look at objects as disposable, for one off use…. the individual should travel light.. and we apply this to things as well as to human bonds (which rot and disintegrate if not worked at).
Partnerships today tend to be seen as things to be consumed, not produced. In the consumer market, the ostensibly durable products are as a rule offered for a trial period, return promised if the purchaser is less than fully satisfied. If the partner in partnership is conceptualised in such terms, then it is no longer the task of both people to make the relationship work – til death do us part no longer applies, as soon as our partner ceases to give us pleasure, we look to discard and replace them. This leads to temporariness in relationships.
There is also something of the self-fulfilling prophecy about this!
Perceiving the world, complete with its inhabitants, as a pool of consumer items makes the negotiation of human bonds exceedingly hard. Insecure people tend to be irritable, they are also deeply intolerant of anything that stands in the way of their desires, and since quite a few of their desires are bound to be frustrated, there are plenty of things and
people to be intolerable of. (NB I think he’s arguing that it is lack of face to face stable human bonds that leads to insecurity, uncertainty, unsafety, and then that leads to insecurity). He rounds off the section by suggesting that consumption is also lonely, unlike production which requires co-operation towards a joint goal.
(165 -167) The self-perpetuation of non-confidence
Alain Peyrefitte suggested that the common, uniting feature of modern capitalist society was confidence – in oneself, in institutions and in others. They all sustained one another. Together, these three formed the foundational structure of modernity – enabling investment in the future. Employment-Enterprise was the most important of these.
This is no longer the case… no one expects to be in the same job ten years from now, and many of us would prefer to risk our pensions on the stock-market. Bauman also reminds us again of the power imbalance – the precariat especially, bound to the local, are increasingly subject to the whims of capital, which the state is unlikely to regulate. I think his point at the end is that the old labour movements are dead (again it’s not that clear).
Two examples of marked exam scripts from the AQA: one candidate achieved 3/6, the other achieved 6/6.
Together these should give you a good example of the standards of marking on the short mark outline and explain questions which appear on the AQA’s A-level sociology papers 1 and 3
Below is an example of two actual marked response to a 6 mark ‘outline question’, marked by AQA examiners.
The example is taken from the 2017 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods Paper (paper and mark schemes available from the AQA website) and the specific question is:
Outline three functions that crime and deviance may perform (6)
While this example is taken from 4 mark outline question from the education paper, the general advice below on how to answer such questions applies equally both the 4 and 6 mark outline questions on both A level sociology papers 3 and 1.
Two marks for each of three appropriate functions clearly outlined or one mark for each appropriate function partially outlined, such as:
boundary maintenance (1 mark); the social reaction to crime and deviance by media and courts reaffirms society’s shared values (+1 mark)
deviance brings about social change (1 mark); new ideas or institutions always initially appear as deviance from existing norms (+1 mark)
minor deviance acts as a safety valve (1 mark); it diverts potentially dangerous motivations into less harmful channels (+1 mark)
it acts as a warning (1 mark); a high level of deviance indicates an institution is not functioning properly and needs reform (+1 mark)
crime and deviance create employment (1 mark); their existence provides work for those in the media, the criminal justice system, moral entrepreneurs etc (+1 mark).
Other relevant material should be credited.
No marks for no relevant points.
Marked exemplar 1:
KT’s commentary
This candidate got 3/6
The second point and explanation is just barely enough!
Marked exemplar 2:
KT’s Commentary
This is a good example of HOW TO DO IT!
Three clear functions (highlighted in boxes) with three clear explanations, underlined.
It is also good practice as this candidate does to use examples… the example works better to my mind in the last point and secures them with a guaranteed 6/6/
It must have take quite a while to find such a ‘classic’ example of ‘perfect form’ for a 6 mark outline question. Not many scripts are this clearly 6/6!
Sources:
A-level SOCIOLOGY Feedback on the Examinations Student responses and commentaries: Paper 3 7192/3 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods
(Published: Autumn 2017)
The AQA’s 2017 Paper 3 Sociology (7192/3) Mark Scheme.
NB – the first document is NOT available on the AQA website, but any teacher should have access to it via eaqa. I’m sharing it here in order to make the exam standards more accessible, and to support the AQA in their equality and meritocratic agendas, because there will be some poor students somewhere whose teachers aren’t organised enough to access this material for them.
Examples of actual student responses marked by the AQA, showing you the standards expected to get certain marks!
Below is an example of an actual marked response to a 4 mark ‘outline question’, marked by AQA examiners.
The example is taken from the 2017 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods Paper (paper and mark schemes available from the AQA website) and the specific question is:
Outline two reasons for ethnic differences in criminal conviction rates (4)
The mark scheme for this question is as below:
Two marks for each of two appropriate reasons clearly outlined or one mark for each appropriate reason partially outlined, such as:
The police are racist (1 mark); they are less likely to stop and search white people and so they are less likely to detect their offences (+1 mark).
Some minority ethnic groups are relatively deprived (1 mark); and so they commit more utilitarian crime (+1 mark).
Ethnic minorities have a younger average age profile (1 mark); and offenders in general are disproportionately young (+1 mark).
Some ethnic groups are more likely to commit crimes against the person (1 mark); and so they are more likely to be witnessed by victims, identified and caught (+1 mark).
Other relevant material should be credited.
No marks for no relevant points.
While this example is taken from 4 mark outline question from the education paper, the general advice below on how to answer such questions applies equally both the 4 and 6 mark outline questions on both A level sociology papers 3 and 1.
The first candidate’s response above is an excellent example of a classic ‘1+1’ strategy…. give a reason and explain HOW this leads to differences.
Obviously the second response is a good example of ‘how not to do it!’. You need to get yer answers right!
The candidate could have selected any of the other ‘identifiers’ in the mark scheme above to pick up an additional two marks.
Sources:
A-level SOCIOLOGY Feedback on the Examinations Student responses and commentaries: Paper 3 7192/3 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods
(Published: Autumn 2017)
The AQA’s 2017 Paper 3 Sociology (7192/3) Mark Scheme.
NB – the first document is NOT available on the AQA website, but any teacher should have access to it via eaqa. I’m sharing it here in order to make the exam standards more accessible, and to support the AQA in their equality and meritocratic agendas, because there will be some poor students somewhere whose teachers aren’t organised enough to access this material for them.
In my experience, students underplay the importance of this aspect of the course, but in fact there is a total of 40 marks for pure theory and or methods questions and an additional 20 via the methods in context question, so in fact, these are the MOST IMPORTANT areas of the Sociology A-level syllabus which students should revise.
This post simply provides a visual overview of mainly the Theory part of the theory and methods aspect of the syllabus, and if you like this sort of thing, or even just want to show your appreciation, you might like to purchase my ‘Theory and Methods Revision Bundle’… it includes more detailed revision notes on theory andmethods as well as exemplars of exam questions, mind maps, and all the slides below in PPT format and picture format, and lots lots more
Positivism and Interpetivism
Is Sociology a Science?
Can Sociology be Value Free?
Functionalism
Marxism
Feminism
Social Action Theory
Modernity
Postmodernity
Social Policy
To follow… research methods slides!
Theory and Methods A Level Sociology Revision Bundle
If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my Theory and Methods Revision Bundle – specifically designed to get students through the theory and methods sections of A level sociology papers 1 and 3.
Contents include:
74 pages of revision notes
15 mind maps on various topics within theory and methods
Five theory and methods essays
‘How to write methods in context essays’.
Power Point Overview of sociological theories in slide and picture format.
Q01: Outline two problems of using questionnaires with closed questions in sociological research
Looks like a simple start although you will need to think a bit (it is an exam, after all!) to get beyond the ‘imposition problem’. You’ll also need to be careful to talk about just ‘closed’ questions.
I would have gone with:
Both will need expanding on, this is just a quick look!
The imposition problem – means respondents can’t express what they really feel.
Ethical issues with sensitive topics – closed questions may not allow people to express their feelings.
Q02 – Evaluate the disadvantages of using qualitative methods in sociological research
NICE!
Intro – outline what they are: primary = unstructured interviews, the two types of participant observation. Secondary = LOT – public and private documents. Also mention the sacred Interpretivism vs Positivism.
Then I would do the following with linked evaluations comparing different qualitative methods:
Lack of reliability
Lack of representativeness
Overall evs – good validity
A whole host of practical problems.
Evs – some are better than others.
Generally good ethics.
Conclude – they’re a real hassle, and have terrible problems with R and R, but Intp argue it’s all worth it because of the better validity!
Possibly the easiest question in the history of AS Sociology! I won’t insult anyone by reproducing the answer here…. see this post on socialisation if you MUST double check the definition.
Q09: Using one example briefly explain how childhood might be a negative experience for some children in the UK today.
Also very easy – you could either pick up on something from toxic childhood or go via the increased control of girls/ poverty of the working classes, or just abuse?!?
Q06: Outline three reasons for the fall in the death rate in the United Kingdom since 1900
The AQA are being nice this year, aren’t they! Develop each of these points for an easy 6/6:
economic growth
medical advances
social policies
See this post on the decline in the death rates for how to develop each of the points. NB: you might want something more specific from within each general area!
Q11: Outline and explain two ways in which postmodernists argue that increased choice for individuals has affected patterns of family life (10)
OK so it’s about postmodernism, but it it’s quite general so you should be OK:
In terms of choice for individuals, there is more choice over:
whether or not we get married
when we leave home, IF we leave home (kidults)
whether or not we have children and when we have them
what the relationship looks like (pure relationship/ negotiated family)
sexuality and sexual identity
Any of the above, developed in terms of PATTERNS of family life – this might be family structures AND/ OR the life course…..
Actually well done the AQA, this is a good question, I likie!
Q12: Evaluate sociological views on the impact of government policies and laws on the role of the family.
The item refers to the functionalist perspective and how this suggests laws support the family, using welfare as an example.
Then it says the New Right believes policies such as the divorce act have undermined the traditional role of the family.
So…if you use the item, you’re basically being asked to focus on the extent to which welfare policies and the divorce act have undermined the ‘traditional role of the family’.
Personally I’d outline the Functionalist and New Right views, discuss the extent to which the policies mentioned in the item have undermined these functions, then focus on other social change factors and bring in postmodernism and feminism to evaluate.
I’d then generalise to other policies – civil partnerships/ maybe policies relating to childhood.
Hmm, you know what, in terms of a balanced and accessible exam paper…
If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my Theory and Methods Revision Bundle – specifically designed to get students through the theory and methods sections of A level sociology papers 1 and 3.
Bauman begins by citing, among others, Henry Ford as an example of someone who epitomized Modernity’s attitude towards work in relation to time. Work, done in the present, was valuable because it was driving history forwards. Those in power had such a belief in their hold over the present that they could look forward with confidence, feeling they could plan the future, control it. Progress, says Bauman, is a declaration that history is not relevant.
