NZ Scholarship Classical Studies common mistakes
NZ Scholarship Classical Studies · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a narrative retelling of the source passage or plot of the work rather than constructing an argument, so the essay describes what happens without ever asserting and defending a thesis about it.
Candidates revise plot and content during preparation, and under time pressure the safest-feeling move is to reproduce what they know. Scholarship questions reward analysis, but summary is the habit school assessment has reinforced.
What to do instead
Before writing, draft a one-sentence thesis that makes a contestable claim (e.g. 'Virgil uses agricultural labour to critique Augustan ideology'), then check every paragraph advances that claim. Ban sentences that only narrate events; convert each into an analytical point with evidence and interpretation.
Quoting or citing primary evidence vaguely ('as Homer says somewhere', 'the text shows') without precise reference, context, or explanation of how the evidence supports the argument.
Candidates memorise themes rather than specific lines, and Scholarship demands close engagement with primary sources. Vague citation feels adequate because the general point is correct.
What to do instead
Build a bank of 15-20 precise, short quotations or passages per prescribed author/work with book/line or section references and a note on what each proves. Practise integrating evidence in the pattern: claim, evidence, interpretive explanation, link back to thesis.
Ignoring the specific wording and scope of the question, instead writing a pre-prepared essay on a favourite topic (e.g. 'Women in Athens') that only loosely touches what was asked.
Candidates rehearse model essays and hope to deploy them; anxiety about unfamiliar wording drives retreat to familiar material. Scholarship markers penalise irrelevant content heavily.
What to do instead
Spend the first 5-8 minutes unpacking the question: underline the key terms, identify what is being asked about what, and write a brief plan that explicitly addresses each term. In the introduction, restate the question in your own words to commit to its scope.
Treating 'classical studies' as a single monolithic culture, collapsing Greek and Roman, or different periods and poleis, into one undifferentiated 'ancient world' without acknowledging change over time or regional difference.
Survey-level knowledge blurs distinctions, and candidates use broad labels ('the Greeks believed...') for convenience. Scholarship requires sensitivity to historical and cultural specificity.
What to do instead
For every claim, specify who, where, and when (e.g. 'fifth-century Athenian citizen ideology', 'late Republican Roman elite'). Keep a chronology and map of key authors, genres, and contexts to hand, and flag anachronism explicitly when comparing.
Engaging only with the primary text and omitting scholarly debate, alternative interpretations, or awareness of the critical tradition, so the response reads as personal opinion rather than participation in a discipline.
Candidates often lack exposure to secondary scholarship or fear that citing others weakens originality. Scholarship criteria reward critical engagement with interpretation.
What to do instead
Read a small number of accessible scholarly discussions (e.g. introductions in commentaries, journal articles) and practise summarising two competing readings of a passage. In essays, present a counter-interpretation and rebut or qualify it, showing awareness that meaning is contested.
Overgeneralising about 'the audience' or 'the reader' without evidence, or assuming a single ancient audience response when reception is historically variable and often unknown.
Audience is a convenient analytical hook, and candidates import modern assumptions about how texts were received. Ancient performance and readership contexts are complex and often contested.
What to do instead
Ground audience claims in specific evidence: occasion, genre conventions, performance context, dedications, or ancient testimony. Where evidence is lacking, hedge explicitly ('the intended effect may have been...') and discuss the limits of our knowledge rather than asserting a single response.
Confusing the author's voice with the narrator's or characters' views, and reading a character's speech as the author's own opinion, especially in drama and epic.
Students often treat texts as transparent expressions of authorial belief, missing narrative framing, irony, and dramatic convention. This is a common analytical error in literary close reading.
What to do instead
Practise distinguishing 'who speaks' from 'who authorises': examine framing, narrative distance, choral commentary, and the consequences characters suffer. When attributing a view, state whose voice it is and what textual signals shape how we should take it.
Making sweeping comparative claims ('the Romans copied the Greeks') or value judgements ('ancient slavery was less bad than modern slavery') without definition, evidence, or awareness of the ethical and historiographical problems involved.
Comparison and moral evaluation are natural responses, but candidates lack frameworks for responsible comparison and may import modern categories uncritically.
What to do instead
Define terms before comparing, specify the dimension and context of comparison, and support evaluative claims with evidence and acknowledgment of difference. Practise framing comparisons as questions with criteria rather than verdicts.
Poor time and argument management: spending too long on the first question, leaving later questions underdeveloped, or producing a structureless essay with no signposted argument.
Scholarship papers are demanding and candidates over-invest in one response. Without planning, essays become associative rather than argued.
What to do instead
Allocate time by marks before starting, keep a visible clock, and write a 3-5 point plan for each answer. Use signposting sentences at paragraph openings and a conclusion that returns explicitly to the thesis. Practise full timed papers under exam conditions.