Writing essays Department of Philosophy School of Humanities 2011-12
Contents 1.
The purpose of this guide
3
2.
What is a good philosophy essay?
3
3.
Our marking criteria
4
4.
Six qualities we look for in essays
7
4.1 Clarity
7
4.2 Understanding
8
4.3 Argument
9
4.4 Knowledge
10
4.5 Independence
11
4.6 Relevance
12
5.
The writing process
13
6.
Language
13
7.
Quotations
16
8.
Paraphrasing
17
9.
References
18
10. Plagiarism
21
11. Length
23
12. Formatting
23
13. Deadlines and penalties
23
14. Submitting essays
24
15. Feedback
24
16. Writing exam essays
25
17. Further resources
26
2
1.
The purpose of this guide
This guide gives some general advice about writing philosophy essays, and explains what the Department of Philosophy values in such essays. It is intended for anyone taking a module in the Department (that is, with a module code starting ‘V7 . . .’), whether undergraduate or postgraduate. Some of the advice may seem very familiar or obvious to you. That’s okay. With luck there will be something else that is new or unfamiliar—or helpful, anyway. As well as advice about writing essays, there is also important information about submission procedures, penalties, and plagiarism. So please read this guide carefully and keep it for later reference. Writing well is one of the important transferable skills that studying philosophy can give you. It is helpful in most of the things you may do next after finishing your course. It also takes a lot of practice, and most of us can use tips and guidance to improve further. We hope that this guide, and the other support you get from the Department in writing essays, will help you to improve your essay writing skills. Please let us know if you spot mistakes or you have ideas for additional information the guide should contain:
[email protected] 2.
What is a good philosophy essay?
The qualities of a philosophy essay may differ from the qualities of other types of essay you may have written or may be expected to write during your degree. Different disciplines have different expectations of essays. So it is worth saying what we take the qualities of philosophy essays to be. These are the things we think make good philosophy essays good, and they are the things we look for when marking. Very broadly, good philosophy essays are clear, precise, well-argued, wellinformed, and to the point. They state ideas accurately, distinguishing them from other ideas with which they are easily confused. They advance considerations in support of a specific answer to the question under discussion, and stick carefully to that topic rather than getting distracted by other issues. Though these qualities are valued in other disciplines as well, they are given very high status in philosophy. For example, we tend to value sticking to the point very highly, whereas you might get more credit for ranging widely over a topic in a History essay, say. We also value clear, plain writing more highly than a more literary prose style. We’re not keen on essays containing a lot of quotations, though in some other subjects quotations may count as a kind of ‘evidence’. You should gradually get a feel for the Philosophy Department’s distinctive expectations regarding essays as you progress through your course. Take note of the way in which the articles and books you are asked to read are written, and reflect on the comments you receive on your own work. The following sections of this handbook also provide some guidance (especially sections 3-8). If you find yourself struggling to work out what is expected, you should consult a member of the Department for further advice. The best place to start is with someone who has marked one of your essays. Email this person and ask for an appointment to discuss the essay and his or her comments on it. If you have a Personal Tutor in the Philosophy Department you could also ask him or her for 3
some general advice. Be aware, though, that there is a limit to the value of purely general advice about essays. It’s usually more valuable to discuss a particular essay you have written with the person who marked it (see also section 15). 3.
Our marking criteria
We mark essays according to the Arts Faculty marking criteria shown in the table below. The best philosophy essays will be strong in all of the ways described. There is no precise formula for how well you have to do in each respect to get some particular overall mark. Note that from 2010-11 the Philosophy Department, in common with all other Departments and Schools in the Arts Faculty, has been using a system of ‘categorial’ marking, in which only four distinct marks (x0, x2, x5, x8) are available in each decile. Note also that the Class I range of marks is subdivided into ‘Exceptional Class I quality’ (90-100%) and ‘Class I quality’ (70-88%), to reflect the fact that to receive a mark of 90 or above, a piece of work must be of a truly exceptional standard.
Knowledge and understanding Exceptional Class I quality 100 98 95 92 90
• Innovative and original thought • Exemplary answer to the question • Outstanding knowledge and understanding of the relevant material
Professional and intellectual skills
• Well-formed in response to existing debates, with outstanding criticism of others’ arguments • Exemplary integration of reading • Sure handling of analytical terms and critical concepts • Precise, focused argument • Exemplary analysis • Exemplary discussion of evidence / examples
Technical skills
• Superb structure, maintained throughout, that helps to highlight salient points • Lucid style and accurate English at an outstanding professional standard • Outstanding professional presentation, including referencing and bibliography as appropriate
At higher levels of study, an answer in the 90-100 range might contain elements of publishable quality (depending on the discipline, topic, and task).
4
Knowledge and understanding Class I quality 88 85 82 80 ------78 75 72 70
Class II.i quality 68 65 62 60
Class II.ii quality 58 55 52 50
Professional and intellectual skills
Technical skills
• Independence of thought and/or evidence of originality, especially at the upper range • Comprehensive and effective answer to the question • Excellent, wideranging knowledge and understanding
• Well-digested reading • Sure handling of analytical terms and critical concepts • Accurate analysis and effective criticism of others’ arguments • Cogent argument, effectively directed to the question • Excellent discussion of evidence / examples
• Excellent structure • Clear writing and accurate English style • Professional presentation, including referencing and bibliography as appropriate
• Some independence in thought and approach • Thorough answer to the question, covering most or all aspects • Good to very good knowledge and understanding
• Generally welldigested reading • Appropriate handling of analytical terms and critical concepts • Critical awareness and satisfactory analysis of different points of view • Sound argument, generally welldirected to the question • Good to very good discussion of evidence / examples
• Good to very good structure • Generally clear writing and acceptable English style • Good to very good presentation, including referencing and bibliography as appropriate
• Adequate to good answer to the question, covering the main aspects • Adequate to good knowledge and understanding
• Fair degree of reading • Some awareness of different points of view, maybe with some deficiencies in analysis and characterisation • Serious attempt to make appropriate use of analytical terms and critical concepts, maybe with some deficiencies • Adequate and generally relevant argument • Some discussion of evidence / examples
• Generally coherent structure • Some deficiencies in clarity and English style, but generally adequate to good • Moderate presentation, including referencing and bibliography as appropriate
5
Knowledge and understanding
Professional and intellectual skills
Technical skills
Typical weaknesses in this class include over-reliance on one or two authorities; some irrelevance; some incoherence in argument and/or structure. Class III quality 48 45 42 40
Soft Fail quality 38 35 32 30
Hard Fail quality 28 25 22 20 -------18 15 12 10 -------8 5 2 0
• Some aspects of the question addressed adequately, but failure to address important aspects of it • Limited knowledge, with serious errors and/or omissions
• Limited to adequate reading • Some ability to interpret questions and to convey information adequately, but weak argument • Limited discussion of evidence / examples
• Adequate to weak structure; there may be some irrelevance • Moderate level of fluency and technical competence, with errors in grammar and/or vocabulary • Poor presentation, with poor or perhaps incomplete referencing and bibliography
• Could scarcely be considered a serious attempt at the task • Failure to address the question adequately • Little evidence of knowledge and/or understanding • Typically brief and/or incomplete
• Little or no evidence of relevant reading • Little or no discernible argument • Some demonstrable ability to communicate information about relevant material
• Little or no discernible structure • Widespread incoherence and/or irrelevance • Minimal acceptable level of fluency and technical competence; comprehensible overall even if characterized by errors in grammar and/or vocabulary • Poor or very poor presentation, with poor, incomplete or no referencing and bibliography
• Could not be considered a serious attempt at the task whatsoever • Failure to show understanding of the question • Failure to show evidence of any knowledge and/or understanding • Typically very brief and/or incomplete
• Failure to show evidence of relevant reading • Extensive incoherence and/or irrelevance • Little ability to communicate information about relevant material
• Extensive incoherence and/or irrelevance • An unacceptable level of fluency and technical competence, characterized by serious errors in grammar and/or vocabulary • Very poor presentation, with poor, incomplete or no appropriate referencing and bibliography
6
These descriptions give a good impression of the distinctive features of work at the different levels of performance. Variation within the degree class is determined by the positive and negative features of the work relative to the benchmark characterisations. You will receive feedback on your coursework coversheets in order to give you a general idea of how well you are meeting these standards. The written comments are there to give you a brief and memorable account of what the marker considers to be the main points and problems raised by the essay. It may be that any deficiencies in the way you have met these standards will be commented upon here, but for a detailed discussion of how your essay met these criteria, and for advice on what you can do to improve, you should make an appointment for an additional feedback session. The details of how to arrange this will be included on your feedback form (see also section15 below).
4.
Six qualities we look for in essays
These descriptions of marking criteria are all very well. But they may sound a bit like the following advice: ‘to bake a really good cake, make sure that you use the right ingredients, in the right mixture, and cook them for just the right amount of time’. That may be true, but it hardly tells you how to bake a good cake if you don’t already know. To some extent this is unavoidable, since we are trying to give general advice and to describe in a general way the differences between pieces of work at each level of quality. These aims inevitably breed a sort of abstraction. But the following subsections try to put a little more flesh on the bare descriptions, to give you a better idea of what we are looking for in philosophy essays. Roughly speaking, we are looking for six main qualities—which relate to the marking criteria described in section 3 as follows:
Marking criteria
Knowledge and understanding
Professional and intellectual skills
Technical skills
Six qualities
Knowledge; Understanding; Independence; Relevance
Argument; Relevance
Clarity
4.1 Clarity •
‘Clarity’ covers a number of things, from the general presentation of your work (in the case of essays), through the clarity of your written English, to the clarity and coherence of the general structure of your essay: does the essay have a structure, is this structure clearly explained and followed, etc.?
A good place to start is with clear language. Try to develop a style of writing that is plain and accurate. Choose words carefully, and aim to keep them as simple as possible. Avoid very long or complicated sentences, and use paragraphs, sections, and headings appropriately. (See section 6 below.) This does not mean that you should simplify the ideas you discuss. Sometimes it is appropriate to simplify ideas (for example, if you are discussing an idea only 7
briefly), but at other times it will be important to discuss an idea in all its complexity. The point is only that you should aim to do so using language that is a plain and simple as possible. Indeed, being clear in your use of language is one of the main ways of improving your essays—not least because unclear use of language often signals unclear underlying ideas. But even clear ideas can be mangled if they are expressed in an unclear way. Clarifying your ideas is where much of the hard philosophical work is done. It is usually a matter of thinking carefully about the following things:
• • • •
the the the the
nature of the problem at hand central concepts involved main claims and arguments made by others about this problem main claims and arguments you wish to make about this problem
Each of these tasks will probably be harder than it first seems. It’s all too easy to assume that the nature of the problem is obvious when it isn’t, for example. One of the main marks of a really good philosophy essay is an accurate and crisp statement of the nature of the problem to be discussed. It’s worth spending time on this, and a good way to check whether you have got it straight is to try to explain the problem to an interested non-expert (such as a housemate). Of course, you can use the same method to check whether you have a clear understanding of all of the other elements—the concepts involved, others’ claims and arguments, and your own claims and arguments—too. Finally, try to adopt a clear structure. Ask yourself how each sentence and paragraph is contributing to answering the title question. If it is not obvious to you, it won’t be obvious to your reader—but it should be obvious. Explain what you are doing. For example, you might say ‘Having defined compatibilism, I will now consider three objections to it in turn. First there is the objection that . . .’, and so on. 4.2 Understanding •
This relates to the depth of your understanding of the material you are writing on. Questions the marker will ask include: Has the author understood the reading they have done? If the author discusses any arguments from the reading, is the characterisation of these arguments faithful? Has the author presented the arguments in his or her own words, or merely quoted the originals? Is the author’s usage of any philosophical terminology accurate? Have the arguments that are discussed been accurately analysed? Can the author distinguish between relevant and irrelevant objections (this manifests how well you understand arguments themselves as well as their objections)?
Someone once defined a lecture as a method by which material passes from the lecturer’s notes into the students’ notes without passing through the mind of either. That’s a good joke, and contains an element of truth: it is possible to listen passively and to record information without really trying to understand it, figure out whether it is correct, how it could be improved or disputed, and so on. If that rings true regarding your experience of lectures, try to change the way you listen to them. One thing you might try is to record notes in a way that enables you to explain the main ideas later on to a friend who did not attend the lecture. More generally, try to develop the habit of distinguishing between what is really important and what is inessential detail, digression, or illustration. 8
When it comes to writing essays, some students assemble a collage of notes and quotations. Their main input in this process is stitching the various bits together. Done well, this might merit a 2:2 mark. The main problem with it is that it does not provide much evidence of your understanding of the issues under discussion. What does provide evidence of your understanding? Presenting a clear and concise statement of the problem; summarising others’ views clearly, concisely and accurately in your own words; presenting your own line of criticism of some of these. These things show that you are engaged with the debate, and that you understand what is going on. Compare the position of a barrister arguing a case in a trial and a journalist reporting what has happened in court. Some essays read like journalists’ reports of what has been said by the two sides. The best essays are closer to the stance of the barrister: they take a stand in the debate, and argue for a certain conclusion. This is a different matter than reporting the arguments made by others. (Writing a good philosophy essay is not quite like being a good barrister, for at least two reasons: the barrister’s ultimate aim is to persuade, whereas your aim in writing an essay should be to present a sound argument; and you should try to avoid being as one-sided in your discussion as a good barrister may be.) Note that use of quotations does not provide evidence of understanding. To use a quote you need to be able to copy something and insert it in a discussion in a relevant place. That shows some evidence of understanding (chiefly in the choice of quotation and place for insertion), but not much. You show far more evidence of understanding if, instead of using a quotation, you summarise the text in your own words (see sections 7-8 below). 4.3 Argument
•
‘Argument’ covers a range of things. At one level, it asks how well the views introduced are subjected to critical analysis: does the author attempt to subject the positions discussed to any criticism, or is the essay purely descriptive? It also covers the quality of the critical analysis: are the objections/considerations the author raises sound or are they obviously flawed? It is important to note that we are not asking that any objections you raise must be watertight, and it is entirely possible that we may spot something you missed, but we do ask that they are not obviously unsound and/or irrelevant. This criterion can also cover the rigour and quality of any arguments you construct independently of the literature.
Being argumentative is not a matter of simply having a view about the matter, or of taking a position that is contrary to someone else’s. When philosophers talk about ‘arguments’ they don’t mean a mere disagreement about some question. They mean a series of claims intended to support or justify a conclusion. Here is a simple example: We shouldn’t blame Betty for stealing the food, because blame is appropriate only when the agent could have done something else at reasonable cost. Betty’s only alternative to stealing the food was extreme hunger, and the cost of that is too high. This is an argument because it presents claims intended to justify a certain conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that:
9
We shouldn’t blame Betty for stealing the food. The claims presented to justify this conclusion are as follows: Blame is appropriate only when the agent could have done something else at reasonable cost. Betty’s only alternative to stealing the food was extreme hunger. Extreme hunger is not a reasonable cost. Now, this particular argument may or may not succeed in justifying its conclusion. But it does at least get to first base. It does more than merely assert the conclusion. And the claims it makes in support of the conclusion at least seem to bear on it, which is a good start. What’s more, it separates different thoughts— such as (i) the thought that Betty’s only alternative to stealing the food was extreme hunger, and (ii) the thought that extreme hunger is not a reasonable cost. This last feature is very helpful. It draws attention to the fact that someone could resist the argument either by claiming that Betty had some other alternative, or by claiming that extreme hunger is a reasonable cost in this context, for example. In fact, one of the main things that philosophers try to do is to distinguish different issues. You will learn much more about types of argument, and their merits, as you study more philosophy. For now the point is simply that you should try to argue for the central claims you make in an essay. 4.4 Knowledge
•
This relates to the breadth and depth of your knowledge of the material. Does your essay show that you have done the background reading and that you know a range of relevant arguments, objections and counter-objections? However, don’t fall into the trap of thinking that including everything you know will enable you to do well. More often than not, this leads to a poorly focused piece of work which is low on critical analysis (as there is little room left).
When writing essays there is usually a choice to be made between giving priority to breadth of coverage and giving priority to depth of coverage. You can’t go into great detail about every relevant issue or objection because you have limited time and only a limited number of words. So, what should you do? In philosophy essays, the answer is usually that you should give priority to depth. This may mean that you do not discuss some issues (a) which you know are relevant to the title question, and (b) about which you have something to say. That’s a shame, but it is usually better than trying to discuss too many issues, with the upshot that your discussion of each is shallow or cursory. One way of trying to improve depth is to make a habit of considering replies to any arguments you make. If you have just presented an argument against mindbody dualism, consider how a dualist might respond. What’s more, consider the strongest response you can think up, and then work out how you might reply to that. In this way you will go more deeply into the topic.
10
More generally, select which topics to include and which to leave out according to how powerful the arguments are. Don’t waste time discussing an objection that is obviously confused, for example (unless there is some very good reason for doing so). Some essay titles might direct you to discuss a certain number of views or topics. If so, obviously you should do just that. Breadth of coverage is of course more likely to be an important factor in longer pieces of work, such as dissertations or MA essays. Rarely will it be a good idea to sacrifice depth for the sake of breadth, however. If you fear that you will be penalised for failing to mention some issue X when you plan to go into depth on issue Y instead, mention the relevance of X and explain your choice to focus on Y in your Introduction. That is usually better than discussing X briefly but in a shallow way in the main body of the essay. 4.5 Independence Sapere aude! Have courage to make use of your own understanding! [This is] the motto of enlightenment. Immanuel Kant, ‘An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?’ (1784)
•
There are many ways of being independent. We are not asking for stunningly original arguments and objections, so you should not feel that independence is somehow beyond you. Every philosophy student can be independent—for example, if you determine the way you answer the question and what material to include (rather than simply following the course handouts/lectures etc.) then you are beginning to think independently. You can achieve higher levels of independence by explaining the arguments of others in your own words (this also helps to show understanding), constructing your own examples, and explaining why you think a particular position is flawed, rather than why other people think it is. At the highest level, independence can mean introducing your own considerations into the work, and even your own arguments and objections.
Doing well according to this criterion can be a tricky matter. Here are two opposite ways of getting it wrong. First way of getting it wrong. Write what you think without any reference to, or having thought seriously about, what others have said on the topic. Unless you are brilliant, this is usually a mistake. Most people’s thoughts on a topic are improved—made more subtle, more informed, and ultimately more interesting— by being cast in the form of a response of some sort to an ongoing debate. Second way of getting it wrong. Find a good book or lecture on the topic, and reproduce what it said in your own words. Those who have tried the first way and been criticised for it sometimes retreat too far, only to find themselves adopting the second way. That’s a real shame. Sometimes they go further, and conclude that students get penalised for saying what they think in essays—which is a tragedy. Aim for a happy balance between these two ways of writing essays, in which you say what you think about the question without ignoring what others have said. Sometimes your independent contribution will be quite large, as when you argue that all of the standard views about a question share a common and mistaken 11
assumption. Other times your independent contribution will be quite small, as when you discuss well-established positions using novel examples to make a point. However things go in this respect, though, remember that you are being asked to say what, in your view, is the correct stance on the issue at hand. You are not merely being asked to say what others have said about the issue. So even if you end up siding entirely with an established position, you should do so because that is the way you think the considerations stack up, not for any other reason. 4.6 Relevance •
This is probably the glue which holds everything else together. If the material is not relevant to the question you are addressing, it doesn’t matter whether it is accurate or well-written. Your marker will always be thinking about the following questions: Is the answer effectively directed to the question? Has the author distinguished relevant from irrelevant considerations? Always ask yourself whether the material you are thinking of introducing has a job to do in the essay. If not, you should leave it out. If you make sure that you only include relevant considerations, then you will probably find that the structure of the essay feels tighter, and that you have room to engage in adequate levels of critical analysis.
Being relevant is a matter of sticking ruthlessly to the task in hand. Your single aim is to answer the question posed by the title of the essay. Students often go wrong by answering a different question—one related to it, perhaps, but not the title question itself. If the title question is hard to answer, it may be very tempting to claim in the introduction to your essay that you need to address some different question instead. Unless this other question, and the discussion of it, really is a preliminary step to answering the title question, you should resist this temptation. This manoeuvre is very obvious to markers and you will be penalised for it. One way of trying to discipline yourself to sticking to the point is to use the language of the question throughout your essay, and especially in your concluding paragraph. Suppose, for example, that your title question is this: How does functionalism differ from the identity theory of the mind? Then you might consider using a sentence such as the following in your concluding paragraph: I have argued that functionalism differs from the identity theory of the mind in the following three ways. This may be a bit formulaic, but it does at least communicate to your reader that you are addressing the specific question you were asked, and not merely something within shouting distance of it.
5.
The writing process
Much of the hard work involved in writing an essay should be done beforehand. Most people find it helpful to begin by constructing a complete plan of the essay. 12
This helps you know precisely what you are going to say, and how you are going to say it, before you start writing. Writing a plan can also help you to identify gaps in your knowledge or understanding, which can then guide further reading and thinking. As you gain experience you may wish to try different kinds of plan. For example some people make detailed notes which they then put into order. Others use hardly any notes but make a rough draft of the whole essay, re-writing and polishing it several times. Others prefer to display the main points in order on a single sheet of A4, so that they can, as it were, see the whole shape of the essay at a glance. When you have constructed a plan, examine it carefully. Think of the essay as a single connected piece of work, in which every part is intimately related to every other. Is all the material relevant to the question? Is it arranged in the right order? Will the reader get a sense of the steady and systematic progress of an argument? Have you answered the question completely or, conversely, have you forgotten something rather important? Are you planning to spend too much time on this point and too little on that? Don’t make the mistake of leaving writing until the very end. That works for some people some of the time, but you run the risk of getting bogged down in the reading you have done, or simply running out of time to capitalise properly on the preparation you have done. So try to write something fairly early on—even if you subsequently change your mind and it does not get included in the final version of the piece of work. One very important part of the writing process is the revision or editing stage. Some people write so close to submission deadlines that they leave no time at all for this. That’s understandable, but it usually amounts to throwing away some marks. Most of us can make substantial improvements to our first drafts by revisiting them after a short period. Doing this helps to improve both the language used and the substance of the essay. It is much easier to see mistakes of all kinds when one is approaching a piece of work as a reader rather than as the person who has just finished composing it. You can only do this by revising your draft after a day or two. If you can’t organise your work to allow as much time as that for revision, at least do the following: read the essay through aloud, listening for passages which sound confused or are hard to follow. If you spot them, try to resolve the problem before submitting the essay. In any case, do not forget to proofread your essay before submitting it, in order to eliminate typographical errors. 6.
Language
You are writing in English, and should therefore obey the rules of English grammar and syntax. You should try to ensure that what you write is easily understood. Nothing is achieved by long sentences, unfamiliar words and obscure epigrams. Your readers merely fall asleep. Write simply, clearly and concisely. If a word or sentence contributes nothing to the sense of the essay, leave it out. When you have finished the essay, read it aloud. If you find it suffers from hiccups, or if it sounds like a third rate bureaucrat on a bad day, you know it needs further work.
13
The remainder of this section has the negative purpose of pointing out those errors of English usage—grammar, style and spelling—which seem to crop up most commonly in student philosophy essays. Most of it consists just of rules for ‘correct English’, but a few remarks (e.g. those on the use of quotation marks) concern extra conventions which philosophers in particular have found it useful to observe or stylistic infelicities to which people writing about philosophy seem particularly prone. A note on ‘correct English’: There is a pretty well defined set of rules for ‘correct’ written English. However as these rules tend to be static, there is the danger that observing them pedantically leads to an increasingly great gap between the written and the spoken language and to an unpleasant form of cultural snobbery about what counts as a ‘mistake’. You may choose deliberately to adopt ‘incorrect’ but more colloquial forms as long as this does not obscure your intended meaning. That’s fine: these hints and tips are only to make sure that you know what you are doing. General You should be careful to avoid the following general errors:
• • • •
‘Cannot’ is not two words, but one. Although ‘into’ is one word, ‘on to’ is two (except for a technical use in mathematics). Don’t confuse ‘its’ (possessive of ‘it’) with ‘it’s’ (contraction of ‘it is’). Generally, make sure you can spell:
ANALYSE (if using UK spelling; in North American spelling a ‘Z’ is used) ARGUMENT DEVELOP, DEVELOPMENT EXISTENCE (IN)DEPENDENT (adj.), DEPENDANT (noun) PRINCIPAL (adj.), PRINCIPLE (noun) SPATIAL Classical neuter nouns •
It is a common mistake to confuse the plurals of Latin nouns in -um and Greek nouns in -on with the singular. Examples: Singular:
DATUM
CRITERION
MEDIUM
PHENOMENON
Plural:
DATA
CRITERIA
MEDIA
PHENOMENA
The following may help you to remember this in the case of the Greek nouns: ONe criteriON; mAny criteriA; ONe phenomenON; mAny phenomenA. Vocabulary and Style Students often use certain terms and phrases incorrectly when writing philosophy essays. More often than not, this is through no fault of their own, as these terms are often widely misused, but it is important that you come to learn their correct usage. Be particularly careful about the following. Misusing/Confusing Words •
‘Refute’ means prove wrong. Don’t use it if all you mean is disagree with.
14
• •
• • • • •
Don’t confuse ‘disinterested’ (= impartial) with ‘uninterested’ (= not interested in). ‘Feasible’ means doable: don’t use it to mean plausible — a feasible undertaking but a plausible theory. (Misuse of ‘feasible’ is over 300 years old, but it still sounds wrong.) I imply something by my words; you infer something from them. An attitude (belief, desire or whatever) is innate if one is born with it: don’t use ‘innate’ if all you mean is ‘strongly held’. ‘Different from’ is correct UK usage; ‘different to’ is incorrect. ‘Different than’ is non-standard UK usage, though it is standard in North American usage. If a sentence begins ‘Therefore’, make sure that it does follow logically from what has gone before. Begging the Question: To beg the question (still, at least in academic writing) means to undermine your own argument by helping yourself to a premise that a sensible opponent would not concede—e.g. to argue that God exists on the grounds that everything in the Bible is true, is to beg the question. Do not use, ‘beg the question’ when what you mean is ‘invite consideration of the issue’. In particular, do not write ‘this begs the question of whether . . .’.
Other Stylistic Points • •
•
•
• • •
Don’t call something relevant or irrelevant without making clear what it’s supposed to be relevant/irrelevant to. Don’t use the word ‘absolute’ (e.g. as in ‘absolute truth’) unless it is clear both to you and to the reader just what contrast you are pointing to (what other kind of truth is there?). ‘Sic’ is Latin for ‘thus’. It is not an exclamation of surprise or disgust, and its only correct use is when quoting some mistake or other oddity to indicate to your reader that the oddity is indeed in the original and is not your own misprint. Split infinitives (Star Trek’s ‘to boldly go’) usually sound worse than the unsplit forms (‘to go boldly’/‘boldly to go’), but there are exceptions; follow your ear. Avoid the phrase ‘a bit extreme’. (Anyway, why shouldn’t an extreme view be true?) If you ever find yourself tempted to use the adverb ‘surely’, stop and ask yourself whether you shouldn’t be giving an argument instead. Don’t say ‘based around’ if what you mean is ‘based on’.
Gender •
There is a general problem when using English that arises from the fact that it has no gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. This leads to a difficult problem when dealing with characters like ‘a utilitarian’. The possibilities are: (a) Use ‘she’ throughout, or ‘he’ throughout. (b) Use ‘he or she’, ‘him or her’ etc. throughout. (c) Alternate ‘he’ with ‘she’. (d) Use ‘they’ as a singular pronoun. The problem can often be avoided by using plural forms, but this is not always possible.
15
Punctuation Please do try to use punctuation correctly. This is a very important part of writing clearly. Though it may seem pedantic to worry about the placement of commas, for example, this can make a great difference both to meaning and to ease of reading. For example, consider the following two sentences: • ‘Let’s eat Grandma!’ • ‘Let’s eat, Grandma!’ If you feel at sea about the rules of punctuation, you could read one of the guides recommended below. What follows are some specific mistakes to avoid: Don’t separate subject from predicate with a comma. So don’t write: • ‘The argument Descartes gives for this, is invalid’. Two independent main clauses not linked by a conjunction (such as ‘and’ or ‘but’) must be separated by a semicolon (or a colon), not a comma. For example: • ‘Locke accepts this; Hume doesn’t’. Finally, a sentence full of commas is almost certainly badly written and should be restructured so as not to need so many. Further reading If you would like further guidance on style, you could consult one of the following: Ernest Gowers, The Complete Plain Words, 3rd rev. ed (Penguin, 2004). William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, The Elements of Style (Longman, 1999). Lynne Truss, Eats, Shoots and Leaves (Profile Books, 2007). [Though don’t follow her advice on using apostrophes in dates: it should be 1990s, not 1990’s!] Joseph Williams, Style: Toward Clarity and Grace (University of Chicago Press, 1990). 7.
Quotations
One of the most difficult arts involved in writing is that of expounding other people’s views and of using quotation. Don’t just spray quotations all over the place: if you can’t think of an excellent reason for quoting someone verbatim, don’t quote them. There are two basic rules: (a)
(b)
As far as possible, expound Freda’s views in your own words rather than Freda’s. Never offer a sentence-by-sentence précis of her book or article. At best you are wasting time and at worst you are guilty of plagiarism. With practice you can state the main thesis of a book or article in two or three sentences. You should normally only use quotation to illustrate or confirm a controversial point of interpretation; you should never use it as a substitute for exposition. First state Freda’s view in your own words and then, if you wish, insert a short quotation to convince the sceptical reader that Freda does indeed say precisely that.
Most importantly, you must never allow yourself to plagiarise. You should be writing in words and sentences that come naturally to you, not in those that come 16
naturally to someone you have read. Your readers are hoping to read an essay that is an expression of your personality, not a thinly disguised expression of someone else’s. Those quotations over (say) twenty-five words long should appear as indented material. So clearly set off such quotations from the surrounding text. Do not use quotation marks around indented material. The reference for the source of the quotation should normally appear as part of the indented material, thus: We do not regard a herd of cattle as a physical object, but rather as a collection, though there would be no logical incoherence in the notion of a scattered object, as Quine, Goodman and others have made clear. (Chomsky 1975: 203) Other displayed material, such as numbered propositions for discussion, should also be indented and clearly separated from the surrounding text. Philosophers frequently talk about words, and have evolved a technique in the use of quotation marks for this purpose. To form the name of a word or phrase, enclose it in single quotes, as in the following examples:. • • •
World War II is a historical event beginning with the invasion of Poland;, ‘World War II’ is its name, beginning with ‘W’ ‘London’ is a name, not a city. London is a city, not a name. ‘London’ and ‘the capital of England’ are two expressions that refer to the same thing.
• Incidentally, don’t make the mistake of putting ‘scare quotes’ round your own words as though you don’t trust them. 8.
Paraphrasing
To paraphrase someone is to put his or her ideas in your own words. This means writing something from scratch. It does not mean taking the original text and swapping one or two words for synonyms. The latter practice—‘degenerate paraphrase’—will be highlighted by our anti-plagiarism software. In severe cases it shades into plagiarism itself. But even where it does not, it is sloppy scholarship and will be marked down accordingly. To see the difference between the two things, consider the following example. Original text: ‘No one can hold that everything, of whatever category, that has value, has it in virtue of its consequences. If that were so, one would just go on for ever, and there would be an obviously hopeless regress.’ Williams, ‘A critique of utilitarianism’, in Smart and Williams, Utilitarianism: For and against (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 82. Degenerate paraphrase (changes in bold): As Williams claims, nobody can hold that everything that has value, has it in virtue of its consequences. If that were true, one would just go on for ever. There would be regress that is obviously hopeless. Williams, ‘A critique of utilitarianism’, in Smart and Williams, Utilitarianism: For and against (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 82. 17
This inserts a few different words and swaps the order round a bit, and so is not a verbatim quote of the whole passage (though several phrases are quoted verbatim). As such it does not show any evidence of real understanding of the passage, or of Williams’ ideas. In contrast, a genuine paraphrase might be something like this: Williams points out a problem with the belief that all value is consequential value. This belief implies absurdly that everything that has value does so because of the value of something else. Williams, ‘A critique of utilitarianism’, in Smart and Williams, Utilitarianism: For and against (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 82. This accurately reports Williams’ claim in entirely new language. As such it is real evidence that the writer understands what Williams has said. Degenerate paraphrase is a very low-value skill, whereas genuine paraphrase is a high-value skill. One requires only a thesaurus, while the other requires a brain in gear. Practise one and shun the other. Note, though, that even in a genuine paraphrase the source should still be acknowledged, as it is in the example given above. 9.
References
Students should be aware that there is a mark penalty for inadequate citation. This will work as follows: if the markers deem that the citation/bibliography is substandard or inadequate in some other way they will deduct 5 marks from the mark awarded. These marks will—unlike lateness penalty marks—be recoverable if the student makes good the deficit. In order to recover the penalty marks students should re-submit the full essay with revised bibliography/citations directly to the module convenor or via the department office within one week of the essay’s return to the module pigeonholes. Students should note, however, that markers will not chase students for the supply of this material. If you are penalised on this basis you will have to re-submit your essay with revised bibliography/citations and ask for the full marks to be restored. Citations You need to provide a citation whenever you:
• • •
Use a quotation, or Attribute a view or idea to someone (such as ‘Descartes claims that . . .’), or Paraphrase an idea or view that you have read about.
The second and third of these reasons for providing a citation have an important exception: if the view, argument, or idea is so wellknown that it is common property in philosophical discussions, you do not need to provide a citation. For example, you can use philosophical terms like ‘a priori’ without providing a citation (unless, say, the essay is about how to understand ‘a priori’ and you are referring to a disputed view on that topic). However, if the view or question is not very well known and taken for granted in this way, you should provide a citation.
18
The citation is a reference to the relevant page or pages of the work from which the quotation, argument, view, or idea is taken.* Note that, as long as full bibliographical details are included in your bibliography (or list of references) at the end of your essay (see below), you can give citations in the text of the essay itself in a much shorter form: for example, using the author-date system explained below. (So don’t waste words in your essay by giving full bibliographical details unnecessarily over and over again!) Bibliographical conventions There are various different conventional ways of setting out this bibliographical information, as you will see from the philosophy books and articles that you read. The important thing is that you adopt a system that is clear and consistent. Please note the following: Your bibliography (or list of references) at the end of your essay should include the following information about the works cited:
• In the case of books: author, title, publisher, and date of publication. • In the case of articles published in journals: author, title of article, title of journal, volume number and year of journal (and, preferably, page numbers of article). • In the case of articles published in collections: author, title of article, editor of the collection, title of the collection, publisher, date of publication (and, preferably, page numbers of article). • For information about how to cite internet sources, see below. Italics are standardly used for the titles of books (and journals), but not for the titles of articles or chapters in books. Items in this bibliography (or list of references) are standardly arranged in alphabetical order by author’s name. Unlike footnotes or endnotes (on which see the subsection below) they are not normally numbered. Although no one system is compulsory. we suggest the following author-date system, proposed in The Chicago Manual of Style (see 14th Edition, chapter 16, for more details). Citations are keyed to a list at the end of the paper headed References or Bibliography. Items on this list should appear in alphabetical order by author in the following style: Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. Pantheon. Dennett, D. C. 1987. Mid-term examination. In The Intentional Stance, 339-50. MIT Press.
*
In the case of classic texts (such as works by Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, etc.) there is likely to be a different conventional way of giving references for quotations—for example, by citing the relevant book, chapter, and section of the original work. For guidance on this, follow the practice of the authors of the works that you read when they refer to these classic texts. If in doubt, consult your tutor or module convenor. 19
Dummett, M. 1993. The Seas of Language. Clarendon Press. Gibbard, A. 1981. Two recent theories of conditionals. In Ifs, ed. W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker and G. Pearce, 211-47. Reidel. Heal, J. 1999. Thoughts and holism: reply to Cohen. Analysis 59: 71-78 Heidegger, M. 1959. Introduction to Metaphysics. Trans. K. Manheim. Yale University Press. Quine, W. V. 1976. Carnap and logical truth. In his Ways of Paradox and other essays, Harvard University Press. Smith, P. and O. R. Jones. 1986. The Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press. Notice that titles of books and journals, but not titles of articles or chapters, are in italics. Citations of these works in the body of the text may take the snappy form (Heal 1999: 76), or ‘Heal (1999: 76) has argued that …’, or ‘see Dummett 1993 and Dennett 1987 for more details’. Please note the following conventions: • • •
If it is obvious from the context who the author is, a citation like (1999: 76) suffices. If you want to refer to the paper use ‘Heal 1999' (without brackets): `Heal (1999)’ refers to the philosopher: it means ‘Heal (in her 1999 paper)’. You may omit ‘p.’ or ‘pp.’, using a colon to separate dates from page numbers.
Using footnotes Although it is quite acceptable to use footnotes for the citation of references, it is generally much simpler to give references in the body of the text, especially if you make use of the author-date system explained above. Notes must be numbered consecutively throughout. Using Internet Sources If you want to include internet sources in your bibliography this convention is commonly used: Author’s/Editor’s Surname, Initials, Year. Title [online]. (Edition). Place of publication: Publisher (if ascertainable). Available from: URL [Accessed Date]. Examples: Holland, M., 2004. Guide to citing Internet sources [online]. Poole, Bournemouth University. Available from: http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/library/using/guide_to_citing_internet_sourc.htm l [Accessed 4 August 2011]. User Glossary Working Group, 1986. Internet user’s glossary [online]. Reston, VA: Internet Engineering Task Force. Available from: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1983.txt [Accessed 26 May 2011]. The key to all referencing is to be consistent. If, having read the above you’re still not clear about what is needed, you can always consult the module convenor or your tutor before submitting your work.
20
10. Plagiarism The University defines the academic offence of plagiarism as ‘to present someone else’s work as being one’s own’. The University regards plagiarism as a very serious academic offence, for which severe penalties are imposed. Most cases of plagiarism involve students’ presenting the words of another as if they were their own words. This includes copying material word-for-word without acknowledgement. It also includes paraphrasing material written by someone else without acknowledging that this is what you are doing. We have to be very strict about plagiarism. If we were not, then we would undermine the integrity, and the fairness, of our coursework assessment. Plagiarism is also incompatible with your personal academic development and constitutes a violation of the intellectual property rights of others. Avoiding plagiarism You must take all measures to avoid plagiarism, by ensuring that any sources that you use are properly acknowledged. Note, in particular, that if you quote from, or paraphrase, the writings of another (whether published or unpublished), a mention of the relevant work in your bibliography is not, by itself, sufficient to avoid plagiarism. Any quotation or paraphrase must also be acknowledged as such, as explained below. If you fail to do this, then you are giving to the reader the impression that the words or ideas are your own, when in fact they are copied or derived from another author. Quotations: If you transcribe verbatim into an essay or dissertation a passage from a book, article or other source, including web sources (whether published or unpublished), then (1) you must indicate that this is what you are doing either by the use of quotation marks around the extract, or by indenting the passage in the case of longer quotations (as explained in the section entitled ‘Quotations’ in this handbook) AND (2) you must cite the source from which the quotation is taken either by a reference in the text or by a footnote or endnote. Paraphrase: Any passages paraphrased from books, articles or other sources, including web sources (whether published or unpublished) must be acknowledged as such by a footnote, endnote, or a reference incorporated in the text of the essay. It is also important that you indicate clearly where the paraphrase begins and ends, so that you do not mislead the reader into thinking that you have not relied on the writings of other authors when in fact you have. When taking notes that you may later use in your essay, you should make sure that your notes contain sufficient information to enable you to acknowledge your sources properly. In any case, as explained in the Department’s handbook on essay writing, we strongly recommend that you do not rely heavily on quotation and paraphrase when writing your essays. Instead, try as far as possible to present the material in your own words, using quotation and paraphrase sparingly (and only when there is good reason to do so). Please also note the following:
•
For full details about how to give references adequately and in a standard form, see the section entitled ‘References’ in the Department’s essay-writing handbook.
21
• •
The requirement to acknowledge sources properly applies to the use of handouts or lecture notes provided by your lecturer or seminar leader as well as to any other printed or electronic sources. Finally, if, after reading this information, you are still unsure about what is required in order to avoid plagiarism, please don’t hesitate to consult your module convenor or Philosophy personal tutor/joint honours liaison tutor for advice.
When you submit your Philosophy essays or other Philosophy coursework, you will be required to sign a declaration saying that you have received and understood the information about plagiarism in the student handbooks that you have been given, including the information about what is required to acknowledge your sources properly. Please note that if, having signed such a declaration, you have ignored the information that you have been given, and have committed plagiarism as a result, the University’s rules may allow the case to be treated as intentional plagiarism, whether or not you knew at the time that what you were doing amounted to plagiarism. Cases of plagiarism are extremely easy to detect It has always been easy for us to detect plagiarism. It is even easier now that we have electronic submission of coursework. Most journal articles and books are now published electronically on the internet, and can be located easily. Electronic submission also reveals similarities between the text of essays submitted by different students, including similarities that are the result of copying or illegitimate collusion. Some websites now allow students to share essays for a membership fee. An electronic search will identify the site and we can pay the membership fee to find the particular essay. Some websites offer to write essays to order for a large fee, though implausibly say that the essays are not intended to be used for cheating. Independent investigations have shown that the essays sold in this way are well below the academic standard they purport to be. The site will not provide a refund as you will have violated their rules by submitting the essay. The penalties for plagiarism are severe If evidence of plagiarism is found, the student will be called to an interview with two members of academic staff including either the Academic Offences Officer or the Head of Department. Where students are found guilty of intentional plagiarism, the minimum penalty will normally be a mark of 0 for the entire piece of coursework, unless the amount of plagiarised material is extremely small (in which case the penalty may be a deduction of marks that does not reduce the mark to 0). The University has far greater powers for serious or repeat offences, which are detailed in its Academic Offences Policy and Procedure: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/quality-manual/assessment/offences.htm
22
If you are in difficulties Plagiarism sometimes occurs when students are experiencing difficulties with their work. It is not a solution to those difficulties, however, and will only make matters worse. If you are in difficulty with your work, please consult your personal tutor/joint honours liaison tutor or module convenor for help and advice, rather than attempting to take potentially disastrous short-cuts. 11. Length The Department has agreed that where an essay is significantly over-length, the marker may stop reading and award a mark based on the material that was presented within the assigned length. We consider an essay to be significantly over-length when it exceeds the maximum by more than 10%. For the purpose of applying this rule, the word count should include everything except the bibliography or list of references (that is, footnotes or endnotes are included). One of the things we are looking for in essays is your ability to make points concisely. Please try to stick to the stipulated length for your piece of work, and be aware of the consequences of exceeding it. 12. Formatting When formatting your essay before printing your hard copy for submission, there are some simple rules you should follow that will make it easier for the marker to read and write comments on your essay. These are: (a) Use a typeface that is large enough to be read easily. Although fonts vary, this usually means using at least 10-point or 11-point type. Using a miniscule typeface is irritating to the reader. (And if your essay is too long, the reader will not be fooled by an attempt to conceal this by using tiny print.) (b) Use sufficiently wide margins right and left, and top and bottom, to give the marker sufficient space to write any marginal comments. About 1¼ inches (2.75 cm – 3 cm) is a suitable margin. Less than this is too little. (c) Do not single-space the text of your essay. Use either 1½ line spacing or double-spacing. Single-spaced text can be hard to read, and may leave insufficient room for the marker to write comments. (d) Number the pages of your essay. (If using Word, you should be able to do this by going to the ‘Insert’ tab, and selecting ‘Page numbers’.) Among the advantages of numbering the pages is that it helps the marker to refer to passages of your essay when writing comments. 13. Deadlines and penalties Information on deadlines, penalties, and extensions is included in your Student Handbook (Qualifying Year Handbook, Part 1 Handbook, Part 2 Handbook, Postgraduate Handbook, or Subsidiary Student Handbook). Please read this information carefully and be sure to comply with it, as we enforce deadlines and apply penalties strictly. If you have any questions about deadlines, consult your tutor or enquire in the Departmental Office.
23
14. Submitting essays Please note that essay marking is anonymous. So please include your Student Number but not your name on the pages of your essay. For all modules, you must submit an electronic copy of your essay. For some modules you must submit a hard copy as well. Check the module handbook carefully to see what is required in each case. To avoid lateness penalties you must submit the electronic copy (and hard copy, if required) by noon on the deadline date. Hard copies should be submitted to HUMS A23. To submit the electronic copy of your essay please follow the instructions contained in each module guide. You will need to login to WebCT to do this. If you are in any doubt about deadlines or how to submit the hard or electronic copies of your essay, please consult your tutor or the Departmental Office (HUMS A23) in good time before the deadline. 15. Feedback One of the main ways of improving your ability to write philosophy essays is to reflect on the feedback you have been given. The main way we offer feedback is through comments on the hard copy of the essay you submitted. There will always be general comments on the cover sheet, and usually there will be more detailed comments alongside the text of the essay itself. For every piece of written work we return, we also offer the opportunity to arrange a further feedback session with the marker, where you can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the essay. This is optional: to arrange it, email the marker at the address given at the bottom of the cover sheet. (If you have trouble finding his or her email address, consult the Departmental Office or website.) Note that these meetings are not opportunities for you to try to persuade the marker to raise the mark awarded. They are opportunities to discuss why the mark given was merited, and how to improve in future. Feedback on draft essays and essay plans If you seek advice in advance of submitting a particular Philosophy essay, please bear in mind that (with the exception of work for the Independent Project and Dissertation modules) it is a Departmental rule that tutors, module convenors, and seminar leaders are not permitted to provide comments on drafts of essays. And although we are not prohibited from commenting on essay plans or outlines, please understand that, for practical reasons, we may not always be able to do so, especially if the plan or outline is submitted in the vacation, or close to the essay deadline. In addition, you should bear in mind that some tutors are reluctant to comment on essay plans because of the fact that so much of the quality of the essay depends upon the way in which the plan is filled out. However, don’t forget that, once an essay has been marked, you have the opportunity to arrange a session with the marker for further feedback on the essay in addition to the written comments you have received. And, of course, you
24
are welcome to approach your Philosophy personal tutor or joint honours liaison tutor for general advice about writing Philosophy essays. 16. Writing exam essays Most of the same principles apply to writing essays for exams. For example, you should try to write an answer that is ruthlessly focused on the question at hand, rather than reproducing a memorised answer to a different question in the same vicinity. Being able to answer the exact question shows that you really understand the issues involved, that you are precise, and that you can think on your feet. Also, you should prioritise depth over breadth in your exam answers as in other philosophy essays. Unless the question specifically requires you to focus on a wide range of issues, it is better to focus on just a few and to discuss them at length. As with your coursework essays, cultivate the habit of discussing possible objections to the claims you make, and explaining why you think they do not work. Like your other essays, your exam answers should be argumentative but also balanced. Good answers will always provide an argument for an answer to the question at hand. Those that do so while showing appreciation of opposing views are likely to be even better. But it can be difficult to achieve balance while retaining a strong argument. Here is how not to achieve balance: • • •
Spend the first part of the essay discussing reasons to believe X Spend the second part of the essay discussing reasons to deny X (where these do not engage directly with the claims discussed in the first part) Plump for one side rather than the other in your conclusion.
This is not disastrous: it may show quite a good understanding of some of the issues and views taken about them. But it achieves ‘balance’ at the cost of sacrificing the argument: the opposing claims are discussed in isolation from each other, so no reason is given for agreeing with one side rather than the other in the conclusion. It is far better to do something like this: • • • •
Outline an initial argument in favour of X Explain some ways in which this argument could be resisted, e.g. by denying one or more of its premises Explain why these objections do (or: do not) work, in your view Conclude that the original argument fails (or succeeds)
This way of constructing an essay shows balance whilst also providing reasons for adopting one side rather than another in the argument. (These points about balance and argument apply equally to other essays you may write, such as coursework essays.) One difference between exam essays and coursework essays is that you cannot be guilty of plagiarism in exams, according to the University’s rules. You do not need to give references, though if you do quote someone you should enclose the material in quotation marks. (It is not usually a good idea to learn quotes as part of exam preparation: the exam is not a memory test, and there are better things you could be doing with your limited revision time. But it is fine to include quotes
25
if you happen to remember them and they perform some function in your discussion.) However, despite the non-application of the plagiarism rules to exam answers, you should be aware that reproducing material from a limited range of sources (for example, writing an answer that closely resembles the lecture you received on the topic) may well be penalised, as being ‘derivative’. Remember what we are trying to test when we set exams: we are trying to test your knowledge and understanding of the philosophical material in the module concerned. We are not trying to find the person best able to memorise a lecture (or textbook, or whatever) and then reproduce it. One thing that you should not worry about in preparing for exams is the issue of overlap between essays you have written and any exam answers you might write. There is a rule prohibiting overlap, but it is a rule for us to worry about rather than you. In particular, it is up to us when we set exams to make sure that the questions they contain do not overlap too much with the essay questions you have had the chance to answer. So long as you follow the rubric on the front of the exam paper (for example, with respect to answering questions from different sections) you can answer any of the questions on the paper, no matter what coursework essays you have written. By the same token, it is very dangerous, and certainly not recommended, to try to guess which questions will come up on the exam by looking at which topics have been covered in coursework essays. Students are always tempted to do this, but they regularly come unstuck—usually because their understanding of what would constitute undue overlap does not coincide with staff members’. So: don’t try to question-spot. Instead revise an appropriate number of topics, and try to make sure that you understand the issues sufficiently well to allow you to answer a wide range of possible questions about them. 17. Further resources The Department has set up a 'Learning Resources' section on WebCT. This will be a growing resource (so check it periodically). It currently contains sample Philosophy essays for first, second and final year modules with markers' comments and marks; sample exam answers; and some web links with essay writing and referencing tips. ‘Learning Resources’ is a self-registering module: • To register go to: http://webct.nottingham.ac.uk/webct/entryPageIns.dowebct • Click on 'View Course List'. Next click 'Humanities'. Next find Philosophy. • You will then see 'Learning Resources' and a little man with a plus by his head. Click on this and you will be able to enrol in the module. Your content suggestions for this resource are welcome and should be sent to Dr Andrew Fisher. The University offers a range of academic support services. This includes advice and support for students with dyslexia, dyspraxia, and other specific learning difficulties. See the following website: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/academicsupport/ There are a number of books discussing how to approach writing philosophy essays: • Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The Essential Study Guide, 2004, Routledge. 26
• • • •
A.P. Martinich, Philosophical Writing, 3rd ed. 2005, Blackwell. Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments, 3rd ed. 2000, Hackett. Zachary Seech, Writing Philosophy Papers, 3rd. ed. 2000, Wadsworth. Anne Michaels Edwards, Writing to Learn: An Introduction to Writing Philosophy Essays, 2000, McGraw-Hill Higher Ed.
You might also find the following web links helpful: http://faculty.fordham.edu/bfrances/Essay.pdf www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html http://www.nikkeffingham.com/guidelines.html
27