Comments on: It’s tough (reprise)

By: Peter Smith

Peter Smith — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:31:24 +0000

RY misreads me, I think. I was saying that the first/uppersecond divide used to (try) to divide the really outstanding from the rest. That divide nowadays is placed rather lower down the slope. So you now have outstanding and also not-so-outstanding-but-very-good students on one side, and not-so-outstanding-but-very-good students appearing too on the other side. My thought, right or wrong, was that the divide now seems to fall in a more arbitrary place, with students who, through the year, seem much of a muchness, scattered either side perhaps a bit too randomly for comfort.

I'm certainly not saying that the very best students, those who'd have got firsts under the old regime too, are mediocre! Very very far from it. But my sense is that we demand a lot more from them.

By: Johnny Logic

Johnny Logic — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:27:59 +0000

RYviewpoint,

It is perfectly compatible to state that it is both harder to distinguish yourself as a student of philosophy, and it is easier to get good grades. They even enhance one-another, as grades may no longer act as a faithful guide to distinguishing students.

This is how I read the posts, anyway.

Regards,
John

By: RYviewpoint

RYviewpoint — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:12:30 +0000

I find it hard to find a sensible common ground between this post and your previous post entitled "Thank heavens that's over".

In the previous post you said: "Now, with grade inflation, that first/upper second divide tends to fall bang in the middle of a bunch of really pretty good if not quite outstanding students, some of whom were just that bit luckier with the way the exams went for them than the others." As I read this, you are nostalgic for the good old days when there were outstanding students who would clearly rise up to meet the stern demands of a philosophical education and distinguish themselves.

But in this post you say: "Now we read the same script and think, yeah, fine, a competent rehearsal of X's treatment -- so nothing outstanding. So how is the poor student to really impress? It gets harder." As I read this, you acknowledge that being outstanding is getting harder to achieve because the field is some much more complex and the resources at hand so extensive.

I know you are a first rate logician, but how do you square these two comments. Are the best students truly only mediocre nowadays? Or do they only appear mediocre because the field is so much more difficult and extensive?