7AAN2004 Early Modern Philosophy report on summative essays

Transcription

1 7AAN2004 Early Modern Philosophy report on summative essays On the whole, the essays twelve in all were pretty good. The marks ranged from 57% to 75%, and there were indeed four essays, a full third of the total, in the Distinction range, and all but one of the others were in the Merit range, that 57% being the exception. Nobody was even close to failing outright, and the average mark was a very gratifying 67.3%. The chosen topics were wide-ranging: four people did opt to write about the existence of an external world, but otherwise no particular topic predominated. Sometimes the argumentation was a little bit superficial, but there was good stuff there too. And, although some people were content just to stick with the material discussed in the module itself and in the lecture notes provided most did make some effort to do something a bit more original, e.g. by drawing on primary and/or secondary literature that had not been directly discussed, or just by defining a clear thesis and working to establish it. All in all, they were a nice bunch of essays.

2 7AAN2011 General Philosophy: Ethics The vast majority of marks for this course were in the mid-60s range, with a very small minority of marks falling below 60 and above 70. The spread of questions addressed was fairly varied, although utilitarianism proved to be the most popular topic. In terms of the essays that fell below the 60 mark, there were two main problems: Confusion in relation to very central issues in the reading material. A lack of adequate detail in developing arguments and addressing the question. In relation to the essays that fell into the standard 60s range, there were really three recurring themes in terms of areas for improvement: Clearly answering the question, as opposed to just discussing material in the area. Lack of adequate clarity and accuracy in reporting core views and argument. Insufficient critical analysis. In relation to the essays that really stood out, the following features were key: Very careful, detailed, and accurate reporting of views and literature. A very clear answer to the question, with clear sign-posting indicating how the discussion supports the answer. Evidence of independent analysis and thought beyond the reading.

3 7AAN2026 Greek Philosophy I: Plato (Exam) Overall the standard of essays for this exam was very good, with marks ranging from There was one exception one paper was failed with 48. Answers to both questions on this paper demonstrated some basic understanding of the relevant material, but were very brief, with only minimal analysis, and often obscure, with significant language errors. By far the most popular questions were those on the Parmenides (Does the Parmenides show that there can be no forms as Socrates characterizes them?), and on the knowledge/true belief distinction in the Meno. Both questions were generally well answered, with essays offering good discussion of the relevant material. The best essays were very clear and well-structured, demonstrated close reading of the relevant primary text/s and a very good understanding of the relevant issues, and offered intelligent and detailed analysis, showing evidence of independent thought. The more targeted question on the Parmenides (qu. 8) was not attempted; nor was qu. 2, on the Phaedo, nor qu. 4, one of the questions on the Republic

4 Sherri Roush Spring 2016 Exam Report 7AAN2058 Philosophy of Medicine No one attempted any of the following three questions: 2. Compare Boorse s naturalistic conception of health with the alternative Aristotelian conceptions defended by Cooper and Megone. Which do you find more plausible, and why? 3. Compare and contrast two different views of what a function is. Which view is best suited for use in a definition of health? 4. Which view of health makes the most sense when applied to the case of mental disorder? Which view of health explains best what is wrong in these cases? The most popular question, with three takers, was number 6: 6. Should we disallow the use of drugs for enhancement of functions or performance beyond the statistical norm? Can a principled distinction be drawn between use of drugs for medical treatment and their use for enhancement? The mean score for that essay was The second most popular question, with two takers, was: 1. Can the distinction between health and disease be defined naturalistically, that is, without appeal to values? Discuss a particular naturalistic view of health in order to make your points. The mean score for this question was One person attempted Question 5 5. Only physical diseases are real diseases. Discuss. And received a score of 69. One person attempted Question 7 7. Explain and assess the importance of randomized controlled trials in the evaluation of therapies. And received a 70, which was the highest score on any essay. One person attempted Question 8 8. Should the concept of placebo be abandoned? and received a 66. These samples are too small to make generalizations. There were varying degrees of knowledge, analysis, understanding, and creativity. The average score per essay was 67.9.

5 Exam report 6AANA026 Philosophy of Science 17 students (about half the class) answered question 2: Explain the problem of induction, and explain and evaluate what you think is the best possible response to it. The average score was 64.5, and scores ranged widely from 50 to 72. The most common failure came from the bad start of not being explicit enough about what the problem is. Answers to this question were also plagued by inaccuracies, about the problem, and especially about Popper s view. The second most popular question was number 12, answered by 11 people: Explain and critically evaluate the No-Miracles argument. The average score was 65.3, and scores ranged more narrowly from 60 to 70. Most set up the argument tolerably well. The main weakness was lack of analysis or development of the line in response to criticisms. But several did not understand that the question was about the inference from observables to unobservables. Question 10 was answered by 9 people: Explain how the methods of experiment and simulation both depend on background knowledge. Does this mean that they are equally strong (or weak) methods of gaining knowledge? The average score was 62.2, with scores ranging widely from 50 to 72, in a bimodal curve. The weakest essays had some descriptions but didn t understand the issue. Some had description of the two methods and a vague outline of the other-things-equal argument. The best essays explained how the two methods depend on background knowledge, and explained and critically analysed the other-things-equal argument for the superiority of experiment. Question 5 was answered by 7 people: Compare and critically evaluate the merits of a view of scientific explanation based on laws and a view based on causal processes. Which one do you think is superior all things considered? The average score was 61.1, ranging from 45 to 74. This was the question with the widest range, and the lowest and among the highest scores (question 8 also had a 74, and question 3 had a 75). Among weaker essays there was a tendency to only discuss the law view and its problems and not discuss the causal view at all. The lowest scored essay was word salad. Question 9 had 5 people answering: Kuhn writes: No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature. Why does he think this, and what does he think happens instead in science? Could Popper defend his view in the face of this? The average score was 64.4, with scores ranging between 55 and 70. Most had a decent account of Kuhn s view of revolutions, but only two had any account of why they don t count as falsifications. The best two did, and one even had an idea how Popper could reply.

6 Question 8 was also answered by 5 people: What is multiple realizability, and does it threaten the reductionist program? The average score was 63.6, with a range from 55 to 74. Weaker essays explained one or other of reductionism and multiple realizability, to some extent, but not both. Stronger essays explained both. The best one, which was among the three highest scores of any essay in the exam, also explained the threat and had thoughtful things to say about why it might not succeed. Question 1 was answered by 4 people: What is the verifiability criterion, and how is it supposed to allow science to be meaningful and yet avoid idealism? Does it succeed? The average score was The range was from 55 to 72, but the median was 68. (Three of the 4 did much better than 55.) Three of the essays explained the problem Schlick faced and something of his solution. The best two also critically analysed it. The weakest essay showed little understanding of what the problem or Schlick s view was. Three people answered question 6: In order to be a scientific explanation of a particular event, must the facts cited make the event probable? Why or why not? The average score was 65.3, with the range from 63 to 68. All had reasonable understanding of the issue and of Hempel s and Salmon s view on it, some more developed and analytical than others. None did enough to give an answer to the question which view is preferable or why. One person answered question 3: What is the problem of auxiliary hypotheses? Can the deductivist solve this problem? If not, what are the consequences for his view? The student who answered this question wrote the best essay in the class, coming in at 75. This was a very thorough discussion of the problem, ending by developing a thoughtful idea about how Popper could handle this. The average score per essay was The following questions weren t answered by anyone: 4, 7, 11, What is the Bayesian conception of rational belief and scientific inference? Explain and evaluate at least one argument that it is rational to follow the axioms of probability. 7. Explain and assess Armstrong s account of the laws of nature. 11. Explain the pessimistic induction over the history of science and one counterargument, and critically evaluate both. 13. Is van Fraassen s account of the distinction between observables and unobservables problematic? If so, can Constructive Empiricism still be defended? Questions 7 and 13 were for re-sitters only.

7 7AAN2062 Special Topics in the Philosophy of Mind Most of the essays for this course fell within the 60s range, with few falling below or above, although there were a number of essays that were at the very top end of the 60s bracket, with borderline marks. Free will was by far the most popular topic. In terms of the essays that fell below the 60 mark, the following problems were especially noticeable: A lack of clarity, both in terms of analysis of literature, and in terms of spelling out the core point of the essay. Some confusion in interpretation of core literature. For those that came within the 60s bracket, the essays showed a great deal of clarity and a good grasp of core literature, especially at the upper end. The main points for improvement were the following: Overly narrow discussion, focusing, say, just on a single author without engaging more deeply with some of the literature on the syllabus for the topic. A good summary of relevant literature, but with not quite as much independent analysis as would be ideal. For those that achieved a mark above 70, the following features made the work stand out as exceptional: A very sharp and insightful analysis of the literature and of the important core points on which the dispute turns. An impressive degree of originality in argument and analysis. An exceptionally clear, structured, and well sign-posted discussion.