MATSEC IM Classical Studies common mistakes
MATSEC IM Classical Studies · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answers a character or theme question on a set text by narrating the plot in order ('first Aeneas arrives in Carthage, then...') and never makes a claim that answers the question.
Under exam pressure, candidates fall back on the summary they memorised; plot feels safe and fills pages, and they have not practised turning knowledge into an argument.
What to do instead
Underline the key terms in the question, write a one-sentence thesis before starting, then choose three or four episodes that answer it. For each, state the point, give a short quotation or specific detail, and explain the effect. Leave out episodes that do not serve the argument.
Cites a single version of a myth as fixed fact-e.g. 'Medea killed her children' or 'Zeus was born in Crete'-without naming the source or acknowledging that other versions existed.
Handbooks and summaries present one tidy narrative; candidates memorise it as data and do not realise that myth is a variable tradition told differently by different authors and cities.
What to do instead
For every myth, learn at least two ancient versions with author and context (e.g. Hesiod, Pindar, Euripides, Ovid), and practise phrases such as 'In Euripides' version... whereas...'. Explain what the variation does for the teller's purpose rather than trying to decide which is 'true'.
Uses Greek and Roman political terms interchangeably-calling Athenian strategoi 'consuls', the agora 'the forum', or the demos 'the Senate'-in a comparative answer.
The vocabulary is parallel but not equivalent; revision lists translate both sets into one English word, so the differences disappear.
What to do instead
Build a two-column table for each pair (consul/strategos, Senate/ekklesia, forum/agora, patrician/eupatrid) with who qualified, powers, term length and checks. In essays, keep the ancient term and gloss it once, then compare functions explicitly.
Treats a literary or documentary source as a transparent window on events, writing 'Plutarch tells us that...' as if the statement settles the question, with no comment on the author's date, genre, audience or bias.
Source criticism is often taught as background, not as a skill to be performed; candidates know the author's name but not how to use it in an argument.
What to do instead
Use a five-point source template every time: author/date, genre, intended audience, purpose/argument, and what the source cannot tell us. Then corroborate or contrast with one other source. Practise writing one sentence of source criticism inside each paragraph, not only in a separate 'sources' section.
In an art or architecture question, writes a visual inventory ('the frieze shows figures moving left; the columns are fluted') without naming the period, technique, function or patron, and without comparing it to another monument.
Candidates trust description as analysis because it is easy to verify; they lack a vocabulary for style and context and fear getting dates wrong.
What to do instead
Use a fixed grid: material and technique, date and place, patron and function, composition and style, and one comparison. Turn each descriptive observation into a claim about function or meaning-e.g. not 'the figures overlap' but 'overlapping figures create depth that serves the triumphal narrative'.
Quotes a set text inaccurately or invents line references, writing 'as Homer says in Book 3' when the detail is in Book 6, or paraphrasing a famous line inside quotation marks.
Candidates memorise isolated phrases from notes or translations without checking the book/line, and under time pressure they decorate with quotation to sound authoritative.
What to do instead
Learn six to eight short quotations per set text with exact book/line or play/line references, checked against the prescribed translation. If unsure, paraphrase without quotation marks and name the passage ('the teichoscopia in Iliad 3'). Credit comes from accurate use, not quantity.
Judges ancient institutions or behaviour by modern standards-calling Athenian democracy 'unfair because women could not vote', or Roman slavery 'not that bad'-and stops there.
Moral reaction is immediate and feels like analysis; candidates have not been shown how to historicise without excusing.
What to do instead
Replace the verdict with a question: who was included/excluded, what did contemporaries say, and what did the system depend on? Use ancient evidence for both justification and criticism (e.g. ps.-Xenophon, Aristotle, inscriptions) and distinguish ancient debate from your own evaluation, signposting the difference.
Mistakes 'compare' for 'describe' or 'to what extent' for 'list': writes two separate paragraphs on A and B and never states a similarity, difference or degree.
Command words are read as topic labels; candidates plan by text or author rather than by criterion.
What to do instead
Decode the command word before planning. For compare, choose two or three criteria (e.g. portrayal of leadership, use of divine intervention) and write each paragraph around the criterion, not the author. For 'to what extent', state a line and concede a counter-case before concluding.
Muddles chronology and geography-places the Peloponnesian War after Alexander, calls the Ptolemaic kingdom 'Roman Egypt', or locates the Parthenon in the Agora.
Dates and places are revised as isolated lists; without a mental timeline or map, facts float free.
What to do instead
Draw one timeline from 800 BCE to 476 CE and one map of the Mediterranean with ten anchor sites, and add every new event/monument to both. In essays, date the evidence before using it; if you cannot date it, say so rather than implying a false sequence.
Reads archaeological finds as direct labels of ethnic identity or as illustrations of a text-e.g. 'the Mycenaean graves prove the Homeric poems are true'-ignoring deposition, stratigraphy and formation processes.
Archaeology is often taught as a source of colourful objects; candidates do not distinguish evidence of behaviour from evidence of identity, and want to make texts and digs agree.
What to do instead
Learn the formation sequence for a site: construction, use, destruction, deposition, later disturbance, excavation. Ask what human action produced the assemblage before interpreting it, and treat text and material as independent lines of evidence that may converge or conflict.