The Student Room Group

Hat 2023

How did people find the Oxford HAT today? I thought difficulty-wise it was okay, but I am not at all confident in my response; would have much rather taken last year's paper, that was significantly easier during revision.
(edited 1 year ago)

Scroll to see replies

I found it ok, like you said I think the text wasn’t as good as last year’s, but hoping my response was fine!
Was difficult because it was a work of mythology - how much could you plausibly infer about the priorities of society from a popular myth? It often felt like I was taking a big leap of logic in my answer
Reply 3
Original post by henryrugg06
Was difficult because it was a work of mythology - how much could you plausibly infer about the priorities of society from a popular myth? It often felt like I was taking a big leap of logic in my answer

Definitely agree, I made my first paragraph about the reliability of the source as I usually do, then my next three paragraphs before the conclusion were about the people being pragmatic in terms of how they treated life, how they expected rulers to be militarily strong and how they expected rulers to be righteous. The main theme I identified was that their lives revolved around maintaining societal stability and that they thought this was mainly achievable through monarchy. Literally no clue if any of it was appropriate to the question or if it was entirely surface level or if I was being dumb, but oh well! Just hope I did well enough for an interview mainly
Reply 4
Original post by Anonymous
I found it ok, like you said I think the text wasn’t as good as last year’s, but hoping my response was fine!

What did you write about? I kinda felt like my stuff was either too surface-level or totally off-topic honestly 😭
I really liked the experience and the extract, it seemed quite interesting. I think I didn’t write much, probably isn’t enough. Did you include something about agriculture and justice? How much did you write?
The extract was meh but looking at what you guys wrote about I'm kinda scared. I spoke about how they prioritise ancestral connections in decision making especially with the ruler. I also spoke about the reciprocal relationship between the ruler and their tribes and how the king is meant to be an arbitrator of disputes and in exchange the tribes provide him with loyalty in the form of war-bands. I also spoke about how a main preoccupation was the equitability of transactions especially agricultural ones.
Original post by do de die egg
The extract was meh but looking at what you guys wrote about I'm kinda scared. I spoke about how they prioritise ancestral connections in decision making especially with the ruler. I also spoke about the reciprocal relationship between the ruler and their tribes and how the king is meant to be an arbitrator of disputes and in exchange the tribes provide him with loyalty in the form of war-bands. I also spoke about how a main preoccupation was the equitability of transactions especially agricultural ones.

I wrote about agriculture and animal husbandry. Also about natural resources like gold, silver and bronze, used to create artefacts (was in the source) and about justice and stability. And that the king had the responsibility to solve disputes and control the military. As bias, I talked about Christianity and how it influenced his views.
Reply 8
Original post by 121254Gnrdocarmo
I really liked the experience and the extract, it seemed quite interesting. I think I didn’t write much, probably isn’t enough. Did you include something about agriculture and justice? How much did you write?

I actually didn't, no, but now that you mention it I definitely should have. Also, in total, I think I wrote roughly 1300 words. Not actually sure what the standard is on that, how much did you write?
(edited 1 year ago)
Reply 9
Original post by do de die egg
The extract was meh but looking at what you guys wrote about I'm kinda scared. I spoke about how they prioritise ancestral connections in decision making especially with the ruler. I also spoke about the reciprocal relationship between the ruler and their tribes and how the king is meant to be an arbitrator of disputes and in exchange the tribes provide him with loyalty in the form of war-bands. I also spoke about how a main preoccupation was the equitability of transactions especially agricultural ones.

I can't lie YOUR comment has me worried because in retrospect this is definitely more of what I should've been writing 😭
Reply 10
Original post by 121254Gnrdocarmo
I wrote about agriculture and animal husbandry. Also about natural resources like gold, silver and bronze, used to create artefacts (was in the source) and about justice and stability. And that the king had the responsibility to solve disputes and control the military. As bias, I talked about Christianity and how it influenced his views.

OH MY GOD CHRISTIANITY, THAT WAS WHAT I FORGOT TO WRITE ABOUT! I knew I had missed something 😭
Original post by arinkoc1
OH MY GOD CHRISTIANITY, THAT WAS WHAT I FORGOT TO WRITE ABOUT! I knew I had missed something 😭

Dw I didn't write about that and I don't think it was that relevant although you could've spoken about how it affects the reliability because it was written during Christianisation so when it was transcripted, some elements could've been edited
I’m so conflicted ngl. I don’t think I wrote enough but what I wrote was ok? Like the fact it was a myth, written by a judge (explains the need for truth), the importance of communal living, the apparent lack of hierarchy, value = usefulness, the fact it may not demonstrate what ppl actually want but it’s been used for 500 odd years so clearly it’s at least semi relevant. But I was so VAGUE and I didn’t write well like usually I’m good with style of essay but I just sort word vomited lol
Original post by Anonymous
I’m so conflicted ngl. I don’t think I wrote enough but what I wrote was ok? Like the fact it was a myth, written by a judge (explains the need for truth), the importance of communal living, the apparent lack of hierarchy, value = usefulness, the fact it may not demonstrate what ppl actually want but it’s been used for 500 odd years so clearly it’s at least semi relevant. But I was so VAGUE and I didn’t write well like usually I’m good with style of essay but I just sort word vomited lol

Oh and Christianity like maybe the values were based on Christian texts, values like idleness and sloth were seen as bad. All in all not my best but I’m confident we all did so much better than we think! Well done for even doing the test guys we r all clever and capable ppl!<3
Original post by Anonymous
Oh and Christianity like maybe the values were based on Christian texts, values like idleness and sloth were seen as bad. All in all not my best but I’m confident we all did so much better than we think! Well done for even doing the test guys we r all clever and capable ppl!<3


Why is everyone writing about Christianity. It was barely in the text there was only one line on it at the outset. Like if you talk about the values of Christianity isn't that external knowledge. I though you'd make a passing comment on it and that is it.
Original post by Anonymous
I’m so conflicted ngl. I don’t think I wrote enough but what I wrote was ok? Like the fact it was a myth, written by a judge (explains the need for truth), the importance of communal living, the apparent lack of hierarchy, value = usefulness, the fact it may not demonstrate what ppl actually want but it’s been used for 500 odd years so clearly it’s at least semi relevant. But I was so VAGUE and I didn’t write well like usually I’m good with style of essay but I just sort word vomited lol


Damn I wrote the opposite. I wrote how it is a highly hierarchical society with serfs/ slaves, overlords and merchants.
For mine I mainly tried to critically evaluate the source and how despite being mythology it is clearly useful in practice. I spoke about the truth needed in a ruler and the stuff about value - but tried to more focus on analysing the source as a whole. Only wrote 800 words!
Original post by do de die egg
Why is everyone writing about Christianity. It was barely in the text there was only one line on it at the outset. Like if you talk about the values of Christianity isn't that external knowledge. I though you'd make a passing comment on it and that is it.

Tbh ur probs right, I didn’t spend much time on it but I love religious history so it was my comfort zone. I didn’t really talk about anything from the bible those sentences just had to be after each other. I did say like oh maybe the values are based on bible stories and therefore that’s why it’s a myth, felt a lot like a parable
Original post by do de die egg
Damn I wrote the opposite. I wrote how it is a highly hierarchical society with serfs/ slaves, overlords and merchants.


Nah I got that vibe halfway thru my answer then I was like ahhh no can’t change it oh well
Original post by charlielux777
For mine I mainly tried to critically evaluate the source and how despite being mythology it is clearly useful in practice. I spoke about the truth needed in a ruler and the stuff about value - but tried to more focus on analysing the source as a whole. Only wrote 800 words!

Don’t worry, I wrote 600! I’m finished…

Quick Reply