4AANA001 Greek Philosophy I (Exam)
All questions on the exam paper were attempted. The most popular questions were
those on slavery in Aristotle and true belief in Plato’s Meno. The slavery question was
generally well answered, with some excellent essays on this. Essays on true belief in
the Meno, though generally of a reasonable/good standard, tended not to focus
sufficiently on the specific image/passage identified in the question (i.e. the Daedalus
image). Also popular, were the questions on happiness in Aristotle and on the four
causes in Aristotle. The former was generally reasonably well answered. Essays on
the latter tended to be overly descriptive, listing the causes, rather than setting out
analysis of what causes coincide and in what way.
The grades for this module covered the full spectrum, ranging from fails to
firsts. The majority of papers were in the 2.1 bracket. The papers with very low marks
(under 40) were papers that were incomplete – had only the beginnings of answers,
had only answered one question. There were also some papers in the 40s – these were
papers with no clear argument, extremely limited analysis, if any, and very little
reference to the relevant text/s. The particularly good essays, in addition to being well
presented and having a clear argument, made very good use of the relevant primary
literature to support analysis, and engaged critically with the relevant secondary
literature, demonstrating a very good understanding of the material and issues.
Ethics I 4AANA002
The exam included questions that pertained to questions covered in the lecture with
the exception of one week (the material on animals) as well as a full suite of questions
to cover the material assigned from previous years not covered in the current version
of the module. The answers were generally very good (a mean score of 65). There
were 2 fails, 18 passes, 103 merits, and 24 firsts. Essays typically fell below a merit if
they showed some failure to understand the key concepts or arguments or didn't
engage with the arguments but provided a mere summary of the main ideas. The best
essays typically identified some interesting argument, explained it in detail, and
responded to it critically. These essays would either draw on additional research or tie
together issues from various parts of the module (e.g., while there was no question
dedicated to animals, some realized that they could use the material on animals to
shed some light on, say, consequentialism or Kant's ethics). It is generally a good idea
to try to synthesize the material covered in a module and generally a bad idea to focus
on one week's material to the exclusion of others.
Exam Report for 4AANA004 Metaphysics I (Prepared by RR Waller)
The examination for 4AANA004 consisted of eight questions, out of which students
were to choose exactly two (avoiding overlap in answer content). The questions were
as follows:
1. Evaluate Olson’s Thinking Animal Argument for Animalism.
2. According to Parfit, what kind of relations matter in cases of survival?
3. Does the idea of material constitution offer an adequate solution to the alleged
problem of distinct precisely collocated material objects?
4. Does the rejection of restricted composition support mereological nihilism?
5. How does Prior account for the idea that time flows?
6. Hume claims that we don’t perceive necessary connections between causes
and effects; Anscombe claims that we do observe causation. Adjudicate the
disagreement here.
7. Discuss a problem for free will that is raised by time travel (for example,
whether you might be able to kill your grandfather before your father is born).
8. Evaluate what you regard as the best objection to compatibilism.
Essay questions were taken from each of the five major topics covered in the module.
Questions were formulated to require students not just to summarize main positions
and arguments discussed, but also to critically evaluate those positions and arguments
(e.g., #1). For some items, evaluating the module material included critical
comparison of accounts covered (e.g., #6). For items that were largely expository in
nature, the concepts in question were some of the more difficult ones for students
(e.g., #5). Critical reflection increased the value of answers to these items.
160 exam candidates completed the examination out of 188 students enrolled in the
module. The mean score was 61.97 (standard deviation of 8.16). The median mark
was 62, with marks ranging from 25 to 76. The distribution of marks were 20%
Distinction (1st), 44% Merit (2:1), 32% Pass (2:2), 2% Fail (3rd), and 2% Fail (Fail).
Several features characterized standout essays: excellent scholarship; insightful
synthesis of material; inclusion of related material beyond core readings; and original
connections or claims. For instance, a typical essay to #8, a popular exam question,
would summarize the Consequence Argument and then note Frankfurt-style examples
as a counterexample to the premise that moral responsibility (and the freedomrequirement for moral responsibility) requires alternative possibilities. Some students’
essays were, in addition, well-motivated, appealing to reasons in the broader literature
as to why one would endorse compatibilism or incompatibilism. Standout essays went
beyond these elements: Some delved into technical criticisms of the Consequence
Argument, assessing the argument’s logical structure and alpha and beta rules. Other
standout essays tackled other, more recent objections to compatibilism, such as
manipulation arguments. Some of the best essays noted the worry that if determinism
precludes free will and moral responsibility, there are reasons to doubt that adding
indeterminism secures the control required to be morally responsible. This was a more
nuanced point discussed at the end of the unit, which hinted at moral responsibility
skepticism. Some of the best answers on the exam came from students who answered
#6: While some students simply summarized Hume on causation and then
summarized Anscombe on causation, a select few engaging in lengthy, insightful
comparison of the two and evaluated Anscombe’s criticism of Hume from the
reading.
4AANA008 Methodology
As often in formal modules, grades were spread out, from 30 to 100. Results were
overall extremely good, with one third to a half of students getting Firsts. The exam
rewarded exercise practice and breadth of coverage. Students who had done at least a
minimum of work on every part of the module tended to get higher grade. Students
who gave no answers to the questions pertaining to the later part of the module
(decision theory, game theory), or tried to guessed without having revised, did worse.
4AANA101 Introduction to Philosophy
Grades were satisfactory, from 37 to 80, with a majority of students in the upper
seconds and almost a third in first. Students who did not answer the Logic questions
were particularly penalized. The most common and costly mistake in essays was for
students to reproduce the layout of a lecture without tailoring it to the essay question
chosen.
4AANB005 Descartes & Hume exam report 2015–16
The highest mark awarded was 74, the lowest 25, and the average was 61.83. As
usual, most students—56%—got marks in the 2:1 range, but there were also 28% in
the 2:2 range, and only 12% of firsts, which is a little on the low side and somewhat
disappointing. There were, however, very few seriously weak scripts. Only two
people actually failed altogether, and in both of those cases the reason was quite
simply that they only answered one question.
The two most popular questions by far were those on Descartes’ arguments for the
existence of God—where more people chose to focus on the Ontological Argument
than the Trademark Argument—and on Hume on induction. Of those who opted to
answer other questions besides these two, there was a pretty even spread of topics,
with few if any questions going untouched.
And no particular misunderstandings seemed to be common across the cohort,
simply because serious misunderstandings were rare altogether. Irrelevance is
always a problem, and is bound to bring down the mark: but actually that was pretty
rare this year too. Those students who merely went through the standard material,
but did so clearly and accurately, were basically those who wound up with a 2:1
mark. Those who tried to do something more original were usually rewarded for the
attempt, especially when they made it work; although the risk inherent in making
such an attempt is that the original arguments offered will simply unravel under
scrutiny, and unfortunately that did bring some people down. Evidence of wider
reading, whether secondary literature or other parts of the primary literature that
were not directly discussed in the module, was also rewarded. Basically, the key to
getting a high mark was to do something, anything, that went beyond what was
already there in the lecture notes. And perhaps some questions lent themselves to
that better than others: the arguments of the First Meditation, for instance, are just
so basic that it’s hard to mess them up too badly, but they also don’t really offer
much of an opportunity to introduce any great insights.
Examiners’ Report 2015-16
4AANB006 Political Philosophy 1
Students selected questions from across the whole exam paper, and everyone
followed the rubric correctly, though some candidates ran out of time for their second
essay.
The most popular questions were on Rawls and on multiculturalism, and the least
popular were on global justice, Nozick, and luck egalitarianism.
In general, the examiners were impressed with the quality of the essays, and in
particular with the students’ understanding of the material. There were very few
essays below the 2.ii boundary.
The best essays focused on answering the exam question, showed an excellent grasp
of the relevant academic debates, developed a clear and coherent argument in
response to the question, concentrated on working through a few points in depth, and
engaged critically with the literature. The weaker essays tended not to answer the
question, tried to cover too many points at a superficial level, hadn’t quite understood
some of the key concepts, relied too heavily on the formative essay topics and/or the
lectures, and included material that wasn’t directly relevant to answering the question.
Some of the strongest essays were on Nozick and on luck egalitarianism (showing an
excellent understanding of the material), and some of the weakest were on democracy
and liberty (which tended not answer the question). The liberty essays often just
outlined Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between negative and positive liberty rather than
directly answering the question in hand.
Common misspellings: Isiah (instead of Isaiah), Dworkins (instead of Dworkin), and
Rawl (instead of Rawls).
Examiners:
Sarah Fine
Andrea Sangiovanni
Sherri Roush
Examination report: 4AANB007 Epistemology 1
The examination results were broadly satisfactory. Out of a total of 119 students,
there were two failing grades, one 3rd, thirteen 2/2’s, and 28 1sts. The remainder
were 2/1’s.
Every question on the paper was attempted by a fair number of students,
although the questions on Gettier and on perceptual knowledge were particularly
popular.
The majority of the students offered little beyond an account of the required
readings. However, a sizeable minority attempted something more interesting, and
there were fifteen or so outstanding papers, giving evidence of extensive reading
and real critical perceptiveness. At the other end of the scale, however, there were
quite a few students who really struggled—despite the fact that the core material
was really very elementary indeed.