\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{hyperref}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% USER DEFINED MACROS - IF YOU MUST USE THEM, INSERT THEM HERE


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\title{Assessors Report: FHS Part C Examination in Mathematics 
Trinity Term 2017} 
\author{}

\begin{document}

Please complete and return with your scripts or complete electronically 
and email to Helen Lowe 
(\href{mailto:loweh@maths.ox.ac.uk}{loweh@maths.ox.ac.uk}) by Friday 16th June.


\section*{Appendix A - Part A Assessors' Report Form}

Report on ({\textit{course title}): C3.7 Elliptic Curves

%insert course title



\subsection*{Section A – Confidential Report for Examiners}

This section will not be published.  
Please include any changes made to the marking scheme.

%insert changes (please also provide a copy of any amended solutions)

  There were no changes to the marking scheme.
  The exam was midly harder than average, and I am sympathetic
to some upwards scaling.

If possible, please give your own estimate of which raw mark out of 50 
should correspond to a scaled mark of 70 (out of 100, the bottom of 
the First class), which raw mark should correspond to a scaled mark 
of 60 (the bottom of the Upper Seconds) and which raw mark should 
correspond to a scaled mark of 50 (the bottom of the Lower Seconds).

%insert estimates below

\begin{itemize}
\item Raw marks which might be scaled to 70: 33.


\item Raw marks which might be scaled to 60: 25.


\item Raw marks which might be scaled to 50: 20.


\end{itemize}

\subsection*{Section B - Comments on the paper for inclusion in 
the Examiners' Report} 
\textit{This section will be published in the Examiners' Report.  
Please include comments on each of the questions, summarising 
the standard of answers and noting any common difficulties 
encountered by the candidates.}

%insert comments

There were 19 candidates; 12 answered Q1, 18 answered Q2
and 8 answered Q3. In Q1, parts (a),(b) were well answered, but
many candidates found part (c) difficult. In Q2(b), most candidates
answered well the case when p is congruent to 2 mod 3, but very few
completely answered the case when p is congruent to 1 mod 3.
For Q2(c), about a third of the candidates wasted a lot of time
trying to remove the $X^2$ term from the curve, which is messy
(it is easier just to leave the curve in its given form).
Q3 was only answered by 8 candidates; most of those who answered it did
so to a high standard.

\end{document}