|
Being an
OU student – our academic year begins in January with exams at the end of
October – I’m ahead of you here, having already done my end of year exams. I see a
real problem with philosophy exams, which however does not mean they should not
be used, but does say the conditions need to be correctly set and communicated
to the students. A really good physicist needs to demonstrate a good grasp of
the accepted truth of his science, but a philosophy student needs to
demonstrate a good grasp of philosophical analysis and communication as well as
a good understanding of the arguments on either side of key issues and debates.
As a result a “pat” answer to an exam question should get a mediocre score, but
an original and insightful answer should get a good score, but might also risk get
a bad score. Therefore the philosophy student has a different risk profile. My
approach is to go for the “original” essay as if you do badly as a result of skilfully
demonstrating your originality then the qualification, in my opinion, is worth
little. The comforting
advice I got from my OU tutor was that I would score marks for good analysis
and communication, raising the relevant issues, addressing the pros and cons of
either approach and not for “giving the right answer”. (e.g. one of our exam
questions was “Is the mind immaterial, as dualists claim?
“ now the
current view might be no, but marks
for the actual result of the argument should be insignificant compared to the marks
for incisive deconstruction and assessment of the alternative positions). He
also suggested a modicum of humour would help, apparently marking philosophical
essays can be rather boring and the markers appreciate a little entertainment. Half our
score was based on continuous assessment through submitted essays, but ones
final grade related to the worst score – i.e. score 70% in the essays and 40%
in the exam and get a Grade 4, scrape through pass, score 70% in the essays and
70% in the exam and get a Grade 2 pass (2/1 equivalent). This meant that if you
plagiarised your essays e.g. from the internet, you’d get caught out in the
exam. I think this is a good and fair way of working. I think
assessing a students verbal skills would not be productive – although some
great philosophers were great orators, others were poor. I think the real test
is the use of language, and the written word allows proper consideration and
adjustment of ideas before communicating them. Having said that all courses
should give the opportunity for verbal debate, both to improve verbal skills
and also to better understand arguments. By the
way, my tutor’s advice was sound, and my continuous essay (TMA’s we call them)
and exam marks were within 3% of each other. Bernie Doeser Sandiway,
Cheshire, UK. |