[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Home]
Re: Exams, what are they good for...
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Well ... just two questions, David. Presumably, as in any human
activity, one can do philosophy more or less well? In other words, one
can identify and express problems in a coherent way, and show that
certain conclusions are more defensible than others (and if one isn't
interested in doing this, and becoming better at doing this, why would
one want to study philosophy at all? In fact, what would one be
studying?). In that case, surely it is possible for someone to assess
that ability and decide whether ‘x is a better philosopher than
y’(whether or not exams are the best way of doing it), and surely one
would want to know how well one was doing, in order to do it better? So
I cannot agree that 'assessment is irrelevant to the real purpose of
studying philosophy ... it is antithetical to it'
Also, if you don't want a degree, why study for one? You can do
philosophy without taking a degree (that has been true of most great
philosophers down the ages).
best
nick
David Mitchell wrote:
*Should we have exams?*
* *
The debate so far seems to be centred on whether exams or coursework
are better as a means of assessment, but would someone please explain
why we need either, that is why we need assessment at all. The
acknowledged, and explicit, purpose of assessment seems to be to
differentiate between students in terms of ability. As such the exam
system is a means by which potential employers can identify higher
levels of ability/effort in candidates for jobs. Conse! quently
education here becomes a means to an end, which for the individual is
a better job, and for companies a method by which they can ‘screen’
potential employees
If that is the purpose of assessment how does this relate to the study
of philosophy? In other words, is philosophy just another elaborate
way of getting access to better paid employment or should it be about
something different. Philosophy and its study, in contrast to the
nature of exams, should be an end in-itself, something which is done
for its own sake, and which does not require any future ‘reward’ for
its justification. If we, ultimately, do philosophy because it is an
enriching/life enhancing activity though why do we need assessment at
all? In something like medicine or law where there is a s! pecific
task that requires proof of competence then the reason is obvious, but
less so in philosophy. Some might argue that without assessment
students would be deprived of the ‘incentive’ to work. Perhaps there
would be people who without the threat of exams wouldn’t bother to
study, but aren’t there plenty of people who do that now, with the
incentive of assessment to work, anyway?
But isn't assessment necessary for determining who ought to be
eligible for post graduate study? In answer to this I don’t see why
post-grad work shouldn’t be open to anyone who can show sufficient
enthusiasm for the subject and that they can take their study further.
A series of interviews/discussions could establish the former without
the need to subject everyone to any ove! rarching structure of assessment.
Furthermore it is not just that assessment is irrelevant to the real
purpose of studying philosophy but that it is antithetical to it. The
existence of assessment in philosophy serves to alienate students from
the subject, by associating it with coercion rather than freedom.
Without the threat of assessment, work could be something that is done
for its own sake, and enjoyed as such precisely because it is done
freely. Further students are more likely to see philosophy as end
in-itself when the instrumental means-end mentality that currently
pervades education is curtailed.
This process of alienation is also felt all the more keenly by those
who for whatever reason are less successful in the ‘examination game’.
If you label someone a failure in something, even in relative terms,
then the chances are they will direct their life and energies in other
directions, away from philosophy. In any case who is to say that ‘x is
a better philosopher than y’, a tutor, an exam, a machine? The bottom
line is that at degree level such questions ought to be irrelevant,
even if we can say they are intelligible. The whole process of
examination though encourages students to view education as a
competitive struggle that is a means to the end of 'beating' others in
the ‘success game’ rather than as an end-in-itself.
In short then, assessment, whether it be through exams or coursework,
is not merely unnecessary but an alienating, inhibiting influence on
the proper study of philosophy. What you would put in its place I
can’t say exactly, besides the imperative that the subject is done for
its own sake, and that teachers and tutors would be there to assist
and discuss, not judge and assess. As for people eager to demonstrate
what bright and hard working employees they will make, I can only
suggest you do a degree in business studies or economics, after all
its more likely to get you what you want.
* *
David M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Cars
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/cars/*http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/>
NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online
search now
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/cars/*http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml