The rehearsed oral answer
Third oral examination: the candidate presents for eight minutes on 'Is consciousness reducible to brain processes?' and then answers questions for seven. The presentation is polished: it defines physicalism, cites Nagel's 'what it is like' phrase, and concludes that consciousness is not reducible. In the question-and-answer session the examiner asks what the candidate means by 'qualia'. The candidate gives a textbook definition and stops. Asked for an example where the definition would be contested, the candidate repeats the definition more loudly and says, 'That is just what qualia are.' Asked how a physicalist might reply, the candidate begins a new mini-lecture on Chalmers. The oral grid rewards understanding, responsiveness, and use of examples. The candidate's presentation alone would score 15/20; the examiner's notes say 'rehearsed'. You must award a mark and record evidence for moderation.
1. What distinguishes a rehearsed performance from understanding in this oral, and what follow-up question would you ask next?
Read the worked answer
Rehearsal reproduces a script; understanding can recombine and defend it under pressure. The candidate's first definition of qualia is accurate but closed. The follow-up is diagnostic: it asks for a contested example, which requires the candidate to relate the definition to a problem. When the candidate repeats the definition, that is evidence of a gap, not merely nerves. The next question should be concrete and low-branching: 'Name one experience you are confident has qualia, and say what a physicalist would say about it.' If the candidate still cannot move between definition and example, record that as a failure of responsiveness, not of knowledge. A second probe could ask, 'If qualia are private, how could a brain scan ever count as evidence about them?' This tests whether the candidate can use the concept, not recite it.
2. Award a mark between 8 and 16 and justify it against the grid, citing specific evidence.
Read the worked answer
Award 11/20. Understanding: 12/20-the presentation defines physicalism and Nagel's phrase correctly, but the question-and-answer session shows the candidate cannot apply 'qualia' to an example or answer a physicalist reply. Responsiveness: 8/20-the candidate repeats a definition when asked for an example and starts a new mini-lecture instead of answering. Use of examples: 7/20-only Nagel's bat is mentioned, and it is not used to test the thesis. Presentation clarity would be high, but the grid weights understanding and responsiveness. 15/20 would reward delivery and recall; 11/20 reflects that the candidate has a script but not a working grasp. The mark should be recorded with the exact questions and answers, not the impression 'rehearsed'.
3. How would you document the mark so that a second examiner could defend it?
Read the worked answer
Documentation should include: the presentation title and timing; the exact question-and-answer questions; a short verbatim transcript of the candidate's responses to the qualia probe; the assessor's judgement against each criterion; and a note on what would have counted as a better answer (for example, an example of pain and a physicalist reduction). This lets a second examiner see why responsiveness was marked low. Avoid writing only 'rehearsed', which is a conclusion without evidence. If the school records oral exams, note whether the candidate was offered thinking time; if not, the fairness of the probe may be questioned. The record should also note that the candidate's presentation was strong, so the mark is not a global judgement of the candidate.