[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Home]

Re: Replies

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


Oops! of course,hume DID go to university - he just never got a job in one. Sorry, my bad.

nj

nj8 wrote:

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


I think (a) and (b) don't quite represent my points David - perhaps my fault for writing in haste!

What I actually said was (a) 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)

I agree that studying at university has a number of benefits besides acquiring a degree, and that it's easier and more profitable to do philosophy with like-minded souls. But university courses are (at present) geared up to give degrees, and your original post seemed to protest against the assessment that is unavoidable if degrees are to be awarded (unless everyone gets one just for paying their fees). So, my point was that if you object to this assessment, then study in a degree-free context that doesn't require you to do the assessment: extra-mural classes, adult education, local philosophy societies, BUPS, conferences, OU (and skip the exams) etc. After all Socrates, Descartes, Hume, Spinoza etc etc never darkened the door of a university...

And on (b) I said (in a nutshell) that assessing arguments and deciding which is best is the very meat and drink of philosophy, so if one wants to produce better philosophy, one's work is going to have to be assessed by someone at some point. That's pretty much the same point as is made at (c). I was careful to say that exams might not be the best way of doing this, but your original post asked 'why we need assessment at all', and this was what I was responding to.

best
nick jones (aka nick 1)


David Mitchell wrote:

*Replies*
* *
There were a number of objections raised to what I said, so I’ll try to answer them as best I can and apologies if I misrepresent anything that was written.
/[a] If we don’t have assessment, and philosophy can be done by isolated individuals why should any one bother going to university?[Nick 1]/

If by ‘getting a degree’ you mean studying at university as opposed to actually just getting a bit of paper called a degree then the answer to this seems obvious. Whilst philosophy can be pursued in isolation people stand more chance of progressing if they have access to teaching and support esp. at the beginning of study. Going to university means having access !
to
teaching/lectures + resources that wouldn’t be available outside a degree course. Further, being in a social situation with other students you hope would also encourage fruitful debate thought etc.

Therefore, just because we could do philosophy without getting a degree, doesn’t mean going to university is pointless without a system of assessment to reward us with a certificate for our troubles.

!


/[b] It is possible to say that x is a better philosopher than y, and assessment can gauge this, therefore examination is neither unnecessary, nor antithetical to the spirit of philosophy./

I didn’t set out to prove that in philosophy there were no differences in ability between individuals, or that examination was totally ineffectual as a means of reflecting !
those
differences. My point, fundamentally, was, rather that if philosophy ought to be an end-in-itself then examination is unnecessary and that there is nothing to be gained by assessing and examining students. As such my argument didn’t depend on the claim that it is impossible to say x is a better philosopher than y, but that this is not important. O.K some people might be better than others at writing essay, but why do we need to gear the whole study of philosophy around attempting to create a ranking of who is best and worst at this.

In
conclusion, from the fact that we /can/ meaningfully assess differences in ability it doesn’t follow therefore that we ought to have assessment, or that this assessment should be central to the study of philosophy. In other words it is not enough to show that we can demonstrate that x is better than y through exams, we have to be able to say why doing this is worthwhile.



/[c]//We need assessment in order to develop our ‘analytic skills’ and develop as philosophers’’// [Nick2]/

I agree that criticism and evaluation are important to the development of philosophical understanding. We need to be shown where we can improve, what we’re doing wrong etc. and have some sense of where we’re going, to develop our skills fully, I just don’t see why formal examination is necessary for this. Without any overarching system of examination, tutors could still criticise and in some sense ‘evaluate’ essays, and suggest means for improvement, to help develop students’ critical capacities.
My objection then is not to ‘assessment’ in general [i.e evaluating, criticising ideas/ essays etc], but to a system in which ‘assessment’ is formalised and elevated to the fundamental dominating principle of all study. It is this overarching system of assessment, where grading and examination has become an obsession, that I regard as unnecessary and oppressive, not all evaluation.

David

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Yahoo! Photos* <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/photos/*http://uk.photos.yahoo.com/> – NEW, now offering a quality print service <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/photos/*http://uk.photos.yahoo.com/> from just 7p a photo.




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