February 21, 2001
Dr. Dominic Balestra, Chair
Dr. Brian Davies, Graduate Director
Fordham
University
Philosophy
Department
Collins
Hall
Bronx,
NY 10458
Dear Drs. Balestra and
Davies,
It
is the opinion of the undersigned students of the Fordham Philosophical Society
that, in their current form, the comprehensive examinations are no longer
meeting their designated purpose.
In
the document entitled “Qualifying for the Doctoral Dissertation,” the
Department states the following as its goal: “As a self-consciously pluralistic
department of philosophy we want our students to develop their special
interests against the background of a broad base of philosophical knowledge
and skills.” First, the Fordham Philosophical Society (FPS) wishes to
indicate that we wholeheartedly agree with these aims. We acknowledge that
Fordham is unique in its “strong commitment to the history of philosophy” and
we support this commitment.
The
comprehensive exams are the means by which it is able to insure that its students
do in fact graduate with this knowledge and appreciation for the history of
philosophy. Ideally, a comprehensive
exam would encourage a true mastery of the material, rather than a mastery of
test-taking strategies. The fact that so many people fail to high-pass all
three exams (no one in the last round) should be cause for concern. Something
is systemically wrong, and the effect is clear: excessive time is wasted on
exam preparation. Rather than doing
things that could improve us as potential philosophers (e.g., publishing,
presenting, teaching, finishing our degrees in a timely fashion), students are
perfecting test-taking strategies. We
should study the history of philosophy in order to situate our own philosophizing
within that tradition, not simply to jump through a bureaucratic hoop.
Our
department consists of a faculty and program that is much better than its
current national reputation. It is our
strong belief that a number of factors contribute to this, but one of the most
compelling is the failure of the current comprehensive exam scheme. We, as graduate student members of this
department, are committed to improving the reputation of our program and
contributing to an expansion of its existing strengths.
It
is with these commitments and concerns in mind that we write you today. In the interest of reforming the
comprehensive exams, the undersigned graduate students of the Fordham
Philosophical Society respectfully submit the attached proposal. The proposal is not a list of demands, but rather
a request for review and critical inquiry into a departmental problem. We are offering an initial set of
suggestions in order to sponsor dialogue on ways to improve this situation and
the quality of our department along with it.
Respectfully,
Fordham Philosophical
Society
Enclosure
(1)
Problems:
1)
There
appears to be no established, recognized standard regarding the composition of
questions. Questions have at times employed terms or shorthand specific to a
particular secondary source, or have involved issues that a student would
likely encounter only by taking a specific class with a specific professor.
2)
The
amount of material covered by the Modern exam is—to say the
least—disproportionate. At the moment, the exam encompasses everything from
after the Renaissance to the dawn of the 20th century. Where Ancient
and Medieval concern 4-6 critical figures, Modern involves 13. Where Ancient
and Medieval require familiarity with roughly 15 essential texts each, Modern
calls upon 25. (In a relevant inverse proportion, while specific courses on
essential texts and figures in Ancient and Medieval are taught on a consistent
rotating basis, Modern is not likewise represented. Aside from two
general survey courses—classical modern, 19th century—there are a
number of 6000/7000 level courses listed. However, rotation of these courses
being haphazard at best, few—if any—have been taught in any recent two-year
period.)
3)
While
Thomas Reid is a seminal figure in the context of post-Humean British
philosophy, his importance within the larger context of the history of
philosophy as a whole is open to debate. Some prominent readings give him
considerable attention, while others—no less prominent—barely mention his work.
Given that, his presence on the Modern exam is questionable.
Possible
Suggestions:
1)
Ensure
that questions are confined to those appropriate to the stated objectives of
the exams.
·
A
fixed database of established questions on a random non-repeating six-year
(e.g.) cycle would be an effective way both to establish consistency and to
eliminate idiosyncratic or otherwise inappropriate questions on any given exam.
·
The
reading list should be treated as delimiting the scope of the exams. That is,
texts covered only in course work, but not listed on the reading list, should
not appear on the exams.
·
The
comprehensive exams are intended to demonstrate that Fordham philosophy
students have a “broad base of philosophical knowledge” on the history of
philosophy. Given this objective, questions should focus on major issues and
trends within each historical period. That is, questions should not focus on
obscure aspects of major figures’ thought. A simple criterion for deciding the
centrality of an issue would be the relative “attention” it receives in
secondary literature (e.g., in Copleston). If an issue is not important enough
to be significantly discussed by the experts in a field, then it is inappropriate
to use it to determine whether a student has a “broad base” of knowledge of the
history of philosophy.
2)
The
Modern section should be significantly curtailed. In lieu of a better option,
the reading list could be pared back from 25 to nearer 15, thus thinning out
the entire section (e.g., the Meditations,
not the Discourse on Method; the Phenomenology, not the Philosophy of Right; the Essay Concerning Human Understanding,
not the Second Treatise on Civil
Government; the Monadology, not First Truths; Utilitarianism, not On
Liberty, etc.). Not only would this
make studying texts for the exam a more manageable affair, but it would also
bring the Modern section of the exam to within a comparable list of texts and
philosophers as the Ancient and Medieval.
3)
Eliminate
Thomas Reid from the reading list.
4)
Another
simple test for determining which texts should be eliminated would be to simply
eliminate any texts that have not been the subject of a question in the last
five years. For example, An Inquiry
Concerning the Principles of Morals, Timaeus.
5)
If
the Department is going to suggest certain translations or versions of texts,
then it is essential that the list be updated at regular intervals. Currently
there are texts on the list that are no longer in print or are no longer the
preferred version.
Problems:
1)
While
established standards for evaluating answers appear to be in place, they are not
being recognized or adhered to uniformly by every committee and every grader.
At the moment, there appears to be little in place to discourage (or prevent)
different committees and different graders from reinterpreting or amending the
objectives of the test to meet their own (conscious or unconscious) criteria.
This leaves open the very real possibility of an answer, perfectly adequate by
one standard, being rejected by another, or perhaps even more disheartening, of
a student who is perfectly capable of providing several equally valid responses
to a question failing for no other reason than having employed the “wrong
strategy” (i.e., the student had given an answer to a question in line with the
philosophical commitments of certain members of the committee in the hope of
having them as graders, and the student ends up having graders with opposed
views to those for whom he was writing).
2)
The
“critical/analytical/argumentative” standard seems to have no agreed upon
meaning nor – ostensibly because of this – a consistent application. The
resulting plurality of interpretations sets for the test taker the impossible
task of “guessing” what a potential grader expects.
3)
Grading
is undertaken without an appreciation for the fact that questions are often
susceptible of multiple interpretations.
4)
Graders
seem to approach the evaluation of answers in terms of whether the “right”
answer was given, rather than whether the answer given is a defensible interpretation.
5)
Once
completed, the exams are not always graded in a timely and disciplined manner.
Possible
Suggestions:
1)
While
a certain degree of subjectivity is unavoidable and only to be expected, there
should be only one set of criteria. It should be clear, unambiguous, and
communicated to and recognized by absolutely everyone involved. At a minimum,
answers should be judged by standards appropriate to a depth of knowledge and
acquaintance with the subject commensurate with a general competence in the
history of philosophy, not those of an AOS in the subject involved.
2)
Agreed
upon standards should be distributed to graders with the exams to be evaluated. Another suggestion that would assist
normativity in grading would be to have graders submit outlines of acceptable
(i.e., high pass) answers with their grades for the exams. Not only would this make explicit the
criteria used in grading the exam, but it would also facilitate the appeals
process, should there be need for an appeal.
3)
Graders
should be required to construct answers to the questions they grade, which
answers are then submitted along with the grade. This practice, which is common
among teachers who grade the New York State Regents Exams, helps to increase
consistency and to decrease idiosyncrasy.
4)
As
the number of exams in question is relatively small in number, the review
process should proceed in a timely manner.
To this end, multiple copies of exams should be distributed whenever
technically feasible (i.e., for exams taken on computer or written in
handwriting legible enough to be photocopied).
5)
In
order help students better understand faculty expectations, an information
session should be held annually at which at least one faculty member from each
committee is in attendance. In the context of a representative question, each
faculty member could explain what they expect of an answer that rises to the
level of pass and high-pass respectively.