Re: Philosophy and exams

[Edward Grefenstette <pha04eg@sheffield.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


This is a topic that comes up quite frequently during staff-student  
committee meetings.
The gist of the conclusions is generally that not all philosophy  
students are going to go on and do postgraduate studies, and  
therefore need their response to working under pressure, within  
monitored conditions, to be tested occasionally. Naturally the world  
of exam essay writing is quite different from the world of  
philosophical research, so why must those of us interested in evading  
the world of 'real' jobs go through with exams? After several years  
of bitc-errr polite insistence on the point, our department here in  
sheffield seems to be caving in and is potentially planning on  
allowing third year students to do more 'long essays' in lieu of some  
3rd year exams, thus leaving the students with a suitable choice  
between death by hanging on the corporate rope, or the more subtle  
library/gas-chamber which leaves you asphyxiated under a pile of  
books and broken dreams.

As you can see, I too am looking forward to the end of term.

Cheerio.

-- Edward.

On 14 Dec 2005, at 14/12/200516:04, Robert Charleston wrote:

> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS- 
> DIS@bups.org
>
>
> As a man who suspects he's about to be mugged of a few marks in the  
> next couple of days, as results are due, what do people think of  
> philosophy exams?
>
> I can see pros and cons.
>
> On the 'con' side: Most (time) of the course I'm on involves  
> writing essay papers over a few days, with a known question and  
> some reference books. It's a good mode of operating, can be  
> stressful when you don't leave enough time, but there's a fairly  
> reliable correlation of effort and result. I am then examined at  
> the end, using *a completely different skill*. One that I haven't  
> practised during the year, have not had feedback on my technique  
> for, and which I am poorly prepared for by the longer, more  
> involved essays that are required for good marks during continuous  
> assessment. There's really not much you can do in an hour,  
> especially when you don't know what you're going to be asked.  
> Furthermore, it doesn't seem to resemble professional philosophy  
> life very much, which *is* about writing papers over several days  
> or weeks from MA onwards, at least on most courses I've heard  
> described. So what on Earth is the point of the philosophy exam?
>
> Pro side: Continuous assessment essays can be bought off the  
> internet or copied. Exams are definitely your own work. You only  
> write on 8-9 topics per module on continuous assessment. By not  
> telling you what's in the exam, you are being forced to learn more  
> than you will write on - extra coverage without extra marking load.  
> The marking load for assessing everybody fully, with prepared,  
> carefully worked-out papers on all topics in a module, would be too  
> much for most departments. It is difficult enough to get all the  
> one-hour exam essay scripts marked.
>
> So, any important points here? Is the exam a pragmatic response and  
> compromise that helps departments not students? Or are these just  
> the suspicions and embittered ramblings of a scared and under- 
> prepared man?
>
> Rab.
>
>
> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the  
> mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml