May/June 2024 Cambridge International AS & A Level Sociology Exam Review
The May/June 2024 examination series for Cambridge International AS & A Level Sociology (9699) offered a balanced and highly representative assessment of the contemporary syllabus. Across all four papers (P12, P22, P32, and P42), candidates faced questions that probed both classical sociological debates and modern social issues, requiring deep conceptual precision and sustained evaluation.
Difficulty Verdict & Structural Demands
Overall, the 2024 papers maintain a moderate-to-high difficulty rating (4 out of 5 stars). While the short-answer descriptions and structured concept questions in Section A of Papers 1, 2, and 3 offered accessible entry points for well-prepared candidates, the high-tariff evaluative essays (the 26-mark and 35-mark questions) demanded a highly sophisticated level of analytical skill. In particular, the Paper 4 sections on Globalisation, Media, and Religion pushed candidates to demonstrate sustained evaluation (AO3), requiring them to navigate complex, non-reductionist arguments rather than simply rehearsing rote-learned perspectives.
Where the Marks are Won: Analytical Precision
Top-performing candidates secured excellent marks by demonstrating sharp conceptual control and applying relevant research evidence. Key areas where high marks were achieved include:
- Methods of Research (Paper 1): A clear understanding of positivist preferences for questionnaires, highlighting reliability and objectivity, coupled with methodological concepts (e.g., researcher effect, replication).
- The Family (Paper 2): Exceptional answers on feminist limitations and Marxist explanations that successfully avoided economic determinism and integrated contemporary family diversity.
- Education (Paper 3): Robust debates surrounding gender advantages and role allocation, utilizing key theorists like Bowles and Gintis, Parsons, and Bourdieu to critique the meritocratic thesis.
Examiner Pitfalls & Critical Areas of Improvement
Examiner reports highlighted several persistent student pitfalls across this series. A major weakness was senseless juxtaposition—where candidates presented theories side-by-side (such as Marxism vs. Functionalism) without explicitly evaluating their relative merits or linking them directly to the question prompt. Additionally, many candidates struggled to distinguish between closely related terms; for instance, conflating cultural deprivation with material deprivation in Paper 1 and 3, or assuming transnational organisations in Paper 4 refers solely to commercial multinational corporations, ignoring crucial NGOs, charity networks, and intergovernmental agencies.
Strategic Advice for Upcoming Series
To excel in future sessions, students should focus on mastering the three-step structure for medium-tariff questions: identify the point, explain it clearly with sociological terminology, and anchor it with a concrete empirical study or conceptual model. For high-tariff essays, candidates must dedicate the first few minutes to constructing a clear plan that establishes a balanced argument, ensuring that the concluding section is not rushed but acts as a decisive, evaluative judgment.
Future Predictions
Given the heavy focus on secularisation, role allocation, and transnational organisations in the 2024 papers, future series are highly likely to test areas that were left largely untouched. Candidates should prioritize reviewing Weberian and Neo-Marxist explanations of religion as a force for social change (such as Liberation Theology and the Protestant Ethic), educational policies and marketisation, and the debates surrounding cultural globalisation versus hyperglobalism.