FORM OF REPORT ON EXAMINATIONS 2020/21

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION IN ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT

PART I

A1. STATISTICS

Category Number Percentage

2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018

Distinction 42 n/a 38 27 46.7% n/a 43.7% 34.2%

Pass 48 n/a 41 47 53.3% n/a 47.1% 59.5%

Fail 0 n/a 8* 5 0% n/a 9.2% 6.3%

Incomplete 1 n/a 1 0 1.1% n/a 1.1% 0%

Total 91 n/a 88 79

*Offered the opportunity to re-sit in September 2019

A2. MARKING OF SCRIPTS

All scripts were single-marked, except when the first marking indicated a possible fail (42 or
less), or if a candidate was a borderline pass/distinction. The final mark awarded to double -
marked scripts was agreed between the two examiners.

B. NEW EXAMINING METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Preliminary examinations took place online this year via the Inspera platform. The
examinations run smoothly, and students were given the opportunity to take practice exams
in order to familiarise themselves with the platform. Students performed well given the
circumstances.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES IN CONVENTIONS

None.

D. COMMUNICATION OF EXAMINATION PROCEDURES TO CANDIDATES

The Examination Conventions were published on the Economics & Management Canvas
page. There were further communications which were sent out to students before the exams
regarding Inspera. Useful material such as the open book exams guide, the Inspera student
guide, the guide about mixed mode of completion, was published on the Management Canvas
 page. The E&M Prelims Plenary took place online this year where students had the opportunity
to ask the Chair questions about their exams.

PART II

A. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE EXAMINATION

All students took compulsory courses in three subjects: Financial Management, General
Management and Introductory Economics. Each course was assessed by a 3-hour online
open-book examination in Week 9 of Trinity Term. The Examiners’ Board met on 15 July 2021,
and the students were informed of their results on 19 July 2021.

B. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY ISSUES AND BREAKDOWN OF THE RESULTS BY

GENDER

Number of Candidates

Overall Number Male Female

2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
91 n/a 88 79 60 n/a 69 55 31 n/a 19 24

Distinctions

Male % Overall % Within Grade % of Males

2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
31 n/a 30 16 34.1 n/a 34.1 20.3 73.8 n/a 78.9 59.3 51.7 n/a 43.5 29.1
Female % Overall % Within Grade % of Females
2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
11 n/a 8 11 12.1 n/a 9.1 13.9 26.2 n/a 21.1 40.7 35.5 n/a 42.1 45.8

Pass
Male % Overall % Within Grade % of Males
2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
28 n/a 32 37 30.8 n/a 36.4 46.8 58.3 n/a 80 78.7 46.7 n/a 46.4 67.3
Female % Overall % Within Grade % of Females
2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
20 n/a 8 10 22 n/a 9.1 12.7 41.7 n/a 20 21.3 64.5 n/a 42.1 41.7
 Fail

Male % Overall % Within Grade % of Males

2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
- n/a 6 2 - n/a 6.8 2.5 - n/a 66.7 40 - n/a 8.7 3.6
Female % Overall % Within Grade % of Females
2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
- n/a 3 3 - n/a 3.4 3.8 - n/a 33.3 60 - n/a 15.8 12.5

Incomplete

Male % Overall % Within Grade % of Males

2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
1 n/a 1 - 1.1 n/a 1.1 - 100 n/a 100 - 1.7 n/a 1.4 -
Female % Overall % Within Grade % of Females
2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
- n/a - - - n/a - - - n/a - - - n/a - -

Breakdown of Results by Gender by Paper

Introductory Economics

All Female Male

n 91 31 60
Mean 65.4 65.3 65.4
Median 66 66 66
St Dev (pop) 8.5 8.5 8.5

Range % of All % of Female % of Male

70 or above 39.6 38.7 40
60-69 31.9 25.8 35
50-59 22 29 18.3
40-49 6.6 6.5 6.7
Below 40 0 0 0
Financial Management

All Female Male

n 90 31 59
Mean 65 64.9 65
Median 66 66 66
St Dev (pop) 8.8 8.9 8.8

Range % of All % of Female % of Male

70 or above 36.7 19.4 45.8
60-69 27.8 32.3 25.4
50-59 22.2 29 18.6
40-49 11.1 12.9 10.2
Below 40 2.2 6.5 0

General Management

All Female Male

n 90 31 59
Mean 65.1 65 65.1
Median 66 66 66
St Dev (pop) 8.8 8.8 8.8

Range % of All % of Female % of Male

70 or above 28.9 22.6 32.2
60-69 65.6 74.2 61
50-59 5.6 3.2 6.8
40-49 0 0 0
Below 40 0 0 0
 C. DETAILED NUMBERS ON CANDIDATES’ PERFORMANCE IN EACH PART OF
THE EXAMINATION

Summary mark statistics for each paper are as follows:

Introductory Economics Financial Management General Management Total

2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018 2021 2020 2019 2018
No of
91 n/a 88 79 90 n/a 87 79 90 n/a 88 79 90 n/a 87 79
Scripts
Mean 65.2 n/a 65 61.4 63.3 n/a 60.3 61.2 66.8 n/a 66.1 64.5 195 n/a 192 187

Median 67 n/a 66 62 64.5 n/a 62 64 66 n/a 67 64 198 n/a 194 190

StDev 9.4 n/a 10.2 9.2 11.1 n/a 15.4 13.4 4.3 n/a 7.3 3.5 19.9 n/a 27.8 21.9
Q1 59 n/a 61 55 57 n/a 53 53.5 64 n/a 63 62.5 179 n/a 179 176
Q3 72 n/a 71 67.5 72 n/a 71 70 70 n/a 70.3 66 211 n/a 210 203
Max
89 n/a 84 80 85 n/a 84 90 76 n/a 80 72 237 n/a 230 242
Mark
Min
44 n/a 0 40 37 n/a 0 19 55 n/a 13 53 145 n/a 13 124
Mark
70+ 36 n/a 34 14 33 n/a 24 24 26 n/a 25 9 n/a n/a n/a n/a
60-69 29 n/a 38 38 25 n/a 28 26 59 n/a 58 65 n/a n/a n/a n/a
50-59 20 n/a 13 17 20 n/a 16 15 5 n/a 4 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
40-49 6 n/a 2 10 10 n/a 10 9 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Below
0 n/a 1 0 2 n/a 9 5 0 n/a 1 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
40
D. COMMENTS ON PAPERS AND INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS

D1. Introductory Economics

For the first time the paper included a Probability and Statistics section in addition to
Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. Candidates had to answer at least one question from
each section and four questions in total. In the Micro and Macro sections there were two
problem questions and two alternative essay questions. Probability and Statistics had two
problem questions and an either-or question (one a problem and the other mini-essays). The
standard deviations of the marks for the Probability and Statistics questions were higher than
for Micro and Macro, but the mean marks were also generally higher (apart from for the most
popular question in this section). 41% of answers were on Pr obability and Statistics.

Q1. A very popular question, taken by 65% of candidates. The first three parts were relatively
straightforward and were well-done in general, though candidates sometimes did not explain
fully why the aggregate demand parameter does not determine the long-run price and just
asserted that it was not in the formula. Most correctly calculated consumer surplus and the
price elasticity of demand. Parts d and e were harder. Most found the consumer price subsidy
in d. The lump-sum subsidy question proved harder. Some assumed that all fixed costs would
be subsidized (which would lead to entry of more firms). In the last part the calculations of
consumer surplus and the subsidy cost from the previous two parts could be used to compare
welfare outcome. The average mark was 64.7, with a standard deviation of 14.9.

Question 2 attracted relatively few answers, but many of these were very good: it seems to
have appealed mainly to students very confident with problem questions in
microeconomics. 15% of candidates answered this. A surprising number failed to draw the
isocost lines correctly, drawing parallel diagonal lines instead. The gist of part a, however,
was well understood. Nearly all knew how to approach part b, but differentiating with an
exponent of alpha caused a disappointing number of students to stumble. Candidates were
generally successful with part c, although some failed to use the wage from part b as instructed
in the question, and instead argued from their understanding of the bookwork that w would not
be set equal to R (we already know this from part b). In part d, almost no candidates noticed
that the reservation wage itself might change, but otherwise good and sensible points were
made, with most noticing that existing workers would be worse off but some previously
unemployed people would gain jobs and so be better off, and some candidates also noticing
that the firm would sell more units of its output at a lower price. The average mark was 62.3
with a standard deviation of 14.7.

Question 3 "Either". Answers to this question were generally good, and quite varied. 8% of
candidates answered this. Better candidates explained exactly what a public good or
externality is, and why it is relevant in this context (either approach is acceptable). Many
candidates also discussed inequality, and that the most vulnerable might not be able to afford
the vaccine; the best answers here explained this in terms of the Gini coefficient. Candidates
also discussed well the monopsony purchasing power of the government in the vaccine
market. The average mark was 62.1 with a standard deviation of 3.3.

Q3 Or 14% of candidates answered this question, which attracted some interesting answers.
Most understood that utility functions represent preferences, and some mentioned the
conditions on preferences that allow for utility functions to be defined. On the usefulness of
utility functions many had good discussions of whether one can assume cardinal significance
to utility and some mentioned comparability across people. Many mentioned the practical point
that utility functions allow for positive analysis such as deriving demand functions. The average
mark was 62.4 and the standard deviation was 5.0.
Q4 This was a relatively unpopular question, answered by 14% of candidates, but those that
did answer it tended to do it quite well. Most could write the consumer’s budget constraints.
Those that struggled did so because they failed to use the logic from part (b) to inform their
answer to part (c) – they simply used the classic Euler equation without taxes thus exposing
the gaps in their understanding. Most got the difference between the Neoclassical and
Keynesian consumption functions. Part (e) gave rise to some answers regarding Ricardian
Equivalence which also exposed lack of understanding. Part (f) was generally well answered
though weaker answers only identified one other reason for a decline in spending (uncertainty
or restrictions). The average mark was 69.3 and the standard deviation was 11.7.

Q5:

This was the most popular question in the paper, answered by 89% of candidates. Most could
answer the standard material for part (a) and (b). Part (c) was generally well answered
although most failed to assess the relative position of the IS curve post fiscal stimulus – they
would instead just assume not enough was done or it was rig ht back to zero. And few
recognised that the Effective Lower Bound plays a key role in how monetary policy could react.
For (d), it was a standard answer though some were not clear on the role of expected inflation
in the adjustment. The government budget constraint was typically well presented though few
students got the explicit link to sustainability from the budget constraint. For part (f), most
missed that if inflation is a problem, the central bank can raise interest rates or sell assets.
The average mark was 67.1 and the standard deviation was 6.4.

Q6:

(EITHER) - Less popular essay (and macro essays were generally less popular). Generally
fine in the small set. 4% of candidates answered this.

(OR) Most popular macro essay, answered by 11% of candidates. Students generally gave a
basic explanation of the Solow and Romer models. Many did the descriptions but failed to
provide a direct answer to the question of what it means for growth policy. Some missed the
need to focus on growth theories (stated in the question) and discussed issues surrounding
the output gap (as in Q5) – these were penalised. The average mark was 61.6 and the
standard deviation was 6.3.

Part C

Question 7 (Probability Theory). This was answered by 75% of candidates. A straightforward

question. The main places where candidates lost marks were in part (a) for inaccurate drawing
of the partition, part (b) for beginning the proof from an unproven intermediate result (the union
of two events rule) rather than the Kolmogorov axioms, and an incorrect application of
Bayesian updating in part (e). The average mark was 58.6, and the standard deviation was
17.6.

Question 8 (Statistical Inference). The second most popular question in this section answered
by 40% of candidates. Generally this was well answered with the only exception being the
mini-essay in part (a): good answers were structured around the desirable properties of
estimators – bias, consistency and efficiency. In part (e) some candidates incorrectly applied
the test for differences in proportions (means of binary variables) rather than the difference in
means. The average mark was 65.0 and the standard deviation was 16.2.

Question 9 either (Causal Inference). This question was tackled by one candidate in five.
Generally it was very well done and the best-answered of the Part C questions. The average
mark was 69.0 and the standard deviation was 16.5.
Question 9 or (Choice of topics). These were mainly bookwork mini-essays and were generally
well done. Where marks were lost they were as follows: (a) not mentioning that probability,
under the Kolmogorov approach to such things, is a function; (b) only focusing on one of the
i’s in iid. 36% of candidates answered this. The average mark was 67.6 and the standard
deviation was 16.8.

D2. Financial Management

Financial Reporting

The Financial Reporting part of the exam paper consists of three sections. Section I tests
students’ understanding of key notions and general concepts; Section II is numerical and
examines students’ ability to produce and analyse financial statements; Section III requires
students to critically evaluate a statement or topic providing evidence of independent thinking,
essay writing skills and knowledge of the relevant literature. The average (median) marks per
section are 61.2% (60.7%), 69.5% (73.8%), and 71.2% (66.7%) for Sections I, II, and III
respectively.

I. General knowledge questions

Q1 Difference between cash flow and profit and which is more important . Most students
provided a generic discussion of the differences between cash flow and profit. Some students
failed to make any points on their relative importance. Stronger responses typically provided
clear differences with examples and demonstrated understanding of the accrual concept,
matching, and timing issues. A few students generically referred to accounting for “money”
when discussing cash flow.

Q2 Creative accounting and the purpose of audit. Several students demonstrated some
knowledge of creative accounting and what is means in the context of fraud and/or earnings
management. Some students focussed only on creative accounting and either mentioned
audit only in passing or barely at all. Some students had good examples of creative accounting
and acknowledged the difficulties in identifying it and the important role audit plays.

Q3 Benefits and challenges in setting up global sustainability reporting standards . Most

students were able to discuss some of the more obvious benefits and challenges. Some
students were able to get into more detailed understanding of the challenges and benefits and
relate them to other topics covered with harmonisation, standardisation, and the links to similar
issues faced in financial reporting.

II. Numerical questions

Q4 Income statement & balance sheet exercise. In technical questions some responses
contained calculation or presentation errors, and these were marked down as a result. This
question was similar to those provided and to do well in this question candidates needed to
have a solid grasp of accounting fundamentals (i.e. double-entry accounting and accrual
accounting). Candidates were given step marks for correct workings and for clearly showing
steps and calculations, and for stating assumptions where relevant.

A. The majority of students (64%) received all marks for this question. Students lost marks for
occasionally missing one of the expense items.

B. For the most part students did well on this question and knew to add net income to the
previous year’s retained earnings.
C. Students did satisfactorily, on average, in this question. The most common issues were 1)
not including all prepaid expenses as a current asset (only very few students realised that only
60,000 should be in current assets and the rest is non-current); and 2) making calculation
errors.

D. Students for the most part demonstrated good understanding of intangibles. Better quality
answers were clear about the distinction between initial measurement and subsequent
treatment and provided details about when to amortise and test for impairment for
finite/indefinite lived and the implications of these treatments.

Q5 Financial statement analysis.

A. Many students did well in this question (median score was 3 out of 4), correctly using a
range of performance measures and discussing outcomes as appropriate. Better answers
provided comprehensive perspectives on performance analysis and suitable limitations of ratio
analysis.

B. Many students could identify and calculate key liquidity ratios correctly and demonstrated
that they were able to select suitable measures and understand what they captured. Median
score for this question was very high.

C. Students did less well on this question relative to Part B. Answers tended to be high level
without real understanding of what EPS captures and communicates.

Q6 Consolidation.

There was high variation in the quality of numerical answer to A.

A. Most students understand the concept of goodwill and get the logic to calculate goodwill.
However, many students did not get the correct amount of goodwill as they slipped or
misunderstood one or more intangible assets.

B. Students did well on this question with several providing an appropriate explanation of NCI
and getting the full mark.

III. Essay questions

Either Q7 or Q8

Eight students chose Q7 and 82 students chose Q8. Irrespectively of the chosen question,
there is a tendency for students to use arguments/literature that is generally related to the
broad topic of the question, but which is not relevant to the particular question. Essays which
received high marks were adapted to answer the particular question, showed detailed
explanations, good coverage, independent thought, and a critical understanding of the
material.

Q7 Conceptual framework. This essay required students to demonstrate their understanding

of the conceptual framework and the importance of qualitative characteristics. Good essays
demonstrated the fundamental importance of the conceptual framework as a building block
for standard setting and were able to comprehensively discuss qualitative characteristics in
detail.

Q8 Corporate social responsibility. This essay required students to explain their understanding
for corporate social responsibility and link it to the “purpose” of the corporation. This was a
popular choice of essay. Good essays went into detail to answer the question, discussed
relevant theories/literature, demonstrated insights into the role of the corporation and how it
conflicts and coexists with profit generating motives. Weaker essays failed to consider some
key points of corporate social responsibility and kept the discussion at a high and general
level.

IV.

The Financial Analysis part is section IV of the exam paper and consists of five questions that
are all compulsory. Some questions are transversal, i.e., refer to multiple topics of the course
to test students’ ability to connect learned concepts with one another. While the course is very
technical by nature, the paper aims at striking a good balance between quantitative and
conceptual questions to reward students for mastering both the theory and the quantitative
aspects as well as for developing an economic intuition. Overall performance was high with
an impressive percentage of students achieving a First class standard, but there was also a
small disappointing tail of students who performed poorly. The final question saw some
variance in performance which may be linked to a lack of time to complete the question fully.

Q9 Focused on derivatives. Parts a)-c) required students to calculate the price of options and
the risk neutral probability. Most students answered these parts correctly. Parts d) -e) were
definitional questions that required an understanding of the difference between American and
European options. This question was not as well answered as the previous parts. Part f was
a definitional question on the advantages of futures and forwards, which most students
managed. Students achieved a mean mark of 6.1/10 on this question. This question had the
poorest performance and the narrowest variance.

Q10 was a question that covered investment project appraisal and optimal machine life. Part
a) was a quantitative question requiring a calculation of NPV. Part b) required the calculation
of an equivalent annuity cost. Parts c) and d) required some calculations and an explanation
of the value of IRR. Overall this question proved to be the one which had the third highest
marks with 6.2/9 marks.

Q11 focused on bonds and interest rates. Parts a) and b) required the calculation of different
spot rates using bootstrapping and the forward rate formula. Most students performed well on
these parts. Part c) required the calculation of Macaulay Duration and was similarly well
answered. Parts d)-f) were calculations of the Yield-to-Maturity. These parts proved harder
and average marks here were lower. The mean mark for the question was 7.4/9.5, making it
the highest mean mark and the variance of marks was the second lowest.

Q12 was a question on portfolio construction and the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). Parts
a) and b) required calculations of the expected return and standard deviation from a minimum
variance portfolio and the Sharpe ratio. Some students failed to correctly calculate the weights
for the minimum variance portfolio, but were given full marks for correctly calculating the
Sharpe ratio. Part c) required an explanation of why the minimum variance portfolio was
unlikely to be the market portfolio. Parts d)-f) were EMH definitional questions and most
answers were correct. Mean marks for this question were 8.1/10.5, which made it the second
highest mark, although there was a high variance on the marks, mainly attributable to relatively
poor performance on parts a) and c).
Q13 focused on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), dividend discount model (DDM) and
capital structure. Parts a) and b) were straightforward CAPM calculations, which were
generally answered correctly. Part c) required calculating the betas af ter a change in capital
structure and part d) required a short explanation of why the expected return changes with a
rise in debt. These questions were generally answered correctly where they were attempted.
Part e) was a capital structure arbitrage question and part f) a definitional question on why
capital structure might impact firm value. Part e) proved troublesome for many students, while
part f) was answered well by most students. This question had the second lowest mean marks
of 6.9/11 and had the largest variance. It seems likely that this may have been driven by a
lack of time as it was the last question of the exam.

D2. General Management

This year was the first year in which students sat General Management Prelims in the new
online, open-book format, after no examinations last year. The new format does not seem to
have made a huge difference in the quality of the answers: the best answers were still very
good, and the worst answers were still very random (sometimes both appeared in the same
paper). The preponderance of typed exams meant that students’ responses were much more
legible, with both positive (the assessors spent more time marking the questions and less time
trying to decipher them) and negative (students did not received the benefit of the doubt when
interpreting) outcomes.

As with previous years, students have mastered material that covers nearly all of the
management side of the degree (the Financial Management paper correspondingly covers
Accounting and Finance). This is a wide-ranging course since it may be all of Management
that a student is exposed to during the three years of the degree, and students are to be
complemented on their ability to muster, in nearly all cases, four reasonable answers.

The best questions answered the question that had been asked, providing support from the
readings, presenting relevant answers, and often providing critique in some way. They were
well-written and concise without being terse.

The most significant reason students dropped marks was not answering the question, instead
reproducing a tutorial essay line of argument or simply bringing in vague discussions of
anything – or everything – that seemed related to the topic area.

Given the open book format, students seemed (mostly) to be more comfortable in giving credit
appropriately for other people’s words, ideas, examples, etc., especially to the readings, but
not all students seemed to grasp that this also applied to material presented in lectures (in
particular the Marketing lectures in Hilary Term).

There were also the usual number of amusing malapropisms and mistakes of fact or
interpretation: the early 1900s were less than forty years ago; humankind has apparently not
yet landed on the Moon (but has travelled to Mars), etc.

Questions

Q1 Which would be more useful for a UK high-street retail company trying to deal with the
consequences of covid-related shutdowns, institutional theory or sensemaking?

[Answered by 3]
This question drew mainly on MT Week 5, although institutional theory was covered in multiple
weeks beginning in Week 1.

Fewer than five candidates answered this question.

Q2 What differentiates an organisation from a mob? Does it matter?

[Answered by 21]

This question drew mainly on MT Week 7, Culture and Change, and MT Week 5,
Organisations and Organising.

Students took two different approaches to answering this question, based on whether they
interpreted “a mob” in the sense of its primary meaning, or as “the Mob”, in a secondary
meaning, although illegal criminal syndicates are also organisations (as indeed many of them
pointed out). (Both sets of answers were acceptable and marked on their merits.) In good
answers from both sets of students showed an appreciation for organisational boundaries,
organisational culture, and organisational purposes. There was some sophisticated discussion
of “mobs” over the past year, from both sides of the political spectrum. Some critical answers
from the second set provided interesting parallels between illegal criminal syndicates and
CEOs in “legitimate” organisations behaving badly. Some weaker answers provided a recap
of General Management without any particular focus on the question.

Q3 Why might an Indian steel manufacturing corporation want to own a plant in the UK?

[Answered by 24]

This question drew mainly on HT Week 6, Corporate Strategy.

Good answers brought in both market factors and non-market factors. Some weaker answers
relied on generic explanations for internationalisation and overseas entry that did not take
account of the particulars of the question, or focused on factors of dubious relevance.

Q4 How have property rights influenced the evolution of capitalism? How has this influence
been affected by at least three different varieties of capitalism?

[Answered by 6]

This question drew mainly on MT Week 1, Capitalism and Corporations. There were some
very good discussions that included issues such as intellectual property rig hts, and some
weaker ones that did not go much beyond share ownership.

Q5 Could AI completely replace the role of managers, based on current trends in

disintermediation at lower levels such as Airbnb, Uber, and Deliveroo?

[Answered by 51]

This question drew mainly on MT Week 4, Managers and Managing.

This question was one of the three most popular. Students displayed a good knowledge of the
way in which platform-based companies were using AI, for example the algorithmic
management at Deliveroo. There were some good discussions of the links to Taylorism and
Fordism, and of issues such as risk and uncertainty. Good answers drew out the implication
for different levels of managers; weaker answers treated managers as some sort of
amorphous and undifferentiated blob. Some weaker answers focused on supply chain
strategy without relating it specifically to the question that had been asked.

Q6 Will social movements like Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and Extinction Rebellion
change the way companies approach marketing? If so, in what ways and why?

[Answered by 70]

This question drew mainly on HT Week 1, Marketing.

This was the most popular question, perhaps because students were able to draw directly on
examples from the lecture (although the lecture was not consistently credited in an appropriate
way). Given the number of good answers, those that provided critique, especially the
downsides, tended to receive better marks. Some better answers provided a sophisticated
analysis of the relationships between consumer identity and consumption behaviour; trends
such as ethical marketing; and implications for companies. A small number of questions
asserted that BLM, etc., were primarily marketing endeavours, and ignored the implications
for existing firms, or relied on mostly boilerplate discussions of topics such as iconic brands or
social media without really relating them to the question.

Q7 What might be some implications for organisations and consumers of a large container
ship becoming stuck in the Suez Canal for a couple of weeks?

[Answered by 41]

Most students were able to provide a satisfactory account of the impact of supply chains, and
to give an account of supply-chain management and just-in-time manufacturing, although they
did not always link the two topics in their answer to give an overall plausible explanation.

This question drew mainly on HT Week 3, Manufacturing and Supply Chains.

Q8 Would you rather start a business in fashion, fast-food or fin-tech? Why? Make sure to
argue from the perspectives of market demand, industry competition and the resources
required to succeed.

[Answered by 52]

This was another popular question, with a wide range of quality in the answers. Some of the
weaker answers did not have a firm grasp on Porter’s Five Forces mode l or the core
competences/resource-based view, despite the perennial popularity of this topic on Prelims
examinations. A few answers missed the obvious flagging of the question to competitive
strategy.

This question drew mainly on HT Week 7, Entrepreneurship, and HT Week 5, Competitive

Strategy.

Q9 “Any CEO should be able to work anywhere in the world.” Do you agree? Why or why
not?

[Answered by 32]

This question drew mainly on HT Week 8, Governance, and on MT Week 8, International

Business.
Students took two paths in this answer. Some linked this mainly to the governance issues,
and particularly to the current “work from home” pandemic-enforced remote working, either
arguing that CEOs should or should not be able to telecommute once the pandemic is over.
Others linked this to cultural competence, and discussed whether top management skills were
generic or specific, providing good examples of cross-cultural successes and failures. Both
answers were acceptable.

Q10 Barbara Kellerman recently wrote that the leadership industry ‘has failed over its
roughly forty-year history to in any major, meaningful, measurable way improve the human
condition” and that “the rise of leadership as an object of our collective fascination has
coincided precisely with the decline of leadership in our collective estimation”. Do you agree?
Why or why not?

[Answered by 8]

This question drew mainly on MT Week 6, Power and Leadership.

Although there were relatively few candidates answering this question, the answers were
mostly of high quality and were based on core tenets of leadership theory. The “innate” versus
“contextual” aspects of leadership were particularly useful in this question.

Q11 Use at least two established theories of technological innovation to analyse the current
status and likely future impact of space travel to Mars.

[Answered by 35]

This question drew mainly on MT Week 3, Technological Innovation.

Most answers were able to identify at least two relevant theories and to apply them to the
topic. Answers that tried to apply many different theories were likely to treat each too shallowly.
A small number of questions ignored “… of technological innovation”. Students displayed a
good knowledge of current space endeavours by American and British CEOs, but occasionally
this discussion overwhelmed the task at hand.

Q12 In addition to ethical considerations, for what further reasons should consumers care
whether Uber and Deliveroo drivers are employees or contract labourers?

[Answered by 17]

This question drew mainly on HT Week 4, Services and Processes.

There were a number of thoughtful answers to this question, with many highlighting the
implications of the employment relation to service quality. Some answers focused mainly on
the ethical considerations, and gave short shrift to “… further reasons”.

E. COMMENTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS AND

OTHER MATERIAL WHICH WOULD USUALLY BE TREATED AS RESERVED BUSINESS

Eight candidates submitted a Mitigating Circumstances application. The examiners

considered the applications, and agreed no adjustments were necessary for six of the
applications. The examiners reviewed the classification outcome for one of the candidates
who submitted a Mitigating Circumstances application and agreed to adjust their classification
to Distinction. One of the Mitigating Circumstances applications was deferred to the Final
Exam board in September when the candidate who submitted the application will sit the
General Management and the Financial Management papers.

F. NAMES OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

Prof Dimitrios Tsomocos (Chair), SBS

Dr Simon Cowan, Economics
Dr Peter Eso, Economics
Dr Oren Sussman, SBS