Assessment Details
Academic Year: 2021-2022 Level: Graduate
Campus Department: Morrissey College of Arts & Sciences [UG and Grad]
Program Type: Major [UG] / Program [Grad]
Program Name: Philosophy MA
Description of Data Collection:
Achievement of the learning outcomes listed above are assessed in the light of the following data:
I. Outcomes A to G:
i. The usual assessment within a graduate course relies on the writing of one or more research papers.
ii. Observation of and reports on PhD student performance in the doctoral preliminary comprehensive examination, a 75-minute oral examination.
iii. Observation of and reports on the papers presented for the MA qualifying paper and the doctoral comprehensive exam qualifying paper.
iv. Observation of and reports on the articles in the making presented in the writing seminar (MA and PhD students).
v. Observation of and reports on PhD student performance on the doctoral comprehensive examination, the first part of which is the defense of a qualifying, publishable paper written under the direction of a supervisor and examined by a committee on the basis of a reading list. The second part is a two-hour oral defense of the dissertation proposal.
vi. Observation of and reports on doctoral dissertation defenses, and, possibly, on MA theses.
II. Outcomes H and J:
i. Annual review of doctoral students, which includes their participation in professional meetings, presentation of papers at conferences, and publications. These activities also give indirect but global information about outcomes A to G.
ii. Advisers oversee the student’s participation in academic conferences and follow up on their efforts at publication.
iii. Observation of and reports on the papers presented for the MA qualifying paper and the doctoral comprehensive exam qualifying paper.
iv. Report of successful applications of MA students to PhD programs in philosophy and other disciplines, and of PhD students to academic positions. These activities give indirect but global information about outcomes A to G.
III. Outcome I:
i. Observation of and reports on doctoral students’ participation in the department’s Seminar on Teaching Philosophy.
ii. In-class observation, with written report, of doctoral students teaching by faculty members.
iii. Examination of student course evaluations for courses taught by doctoral students.
IV. Outcomes A to I:
i. Records of the placement of MA students in doctoral programs, and of PhD graduates in faculty positions in philosophy or in other fields of their choice. These activities give indirect but global information about all nine outcomes.
Review Process:
The graduate program director, in coordination with the department’s graduate committee, which includes the department chair, the teaching seminar instructor, and the MA coordinator; with additional input from the faculty at large. We also have an annual town hall meeting in which doctoral students offer direct and sometimes helpfully critical feedback on the program and its requirements.
Resulting Program Changes:
A) We have instituted a new grading scale for the MA Qualifying Paper (QP) of pass with distinction, pass, revise and resubmit (minor revisions), revise and resubmit (major revisions), and fail. We made this change because it became clear to us that some students interpret “revise and resubmit” to mean that the paper was not acceptable such that some students thought they should write an entirely different paper whereas the paper only needed—sometimes minor—revision. We are endeavoring to communicate that a mark of “revise and resubmit” does not mean the paper is bad only that it stands in need of improvement. The refined grading standard brings the evaluation process in alignment with typical peer-review processes. Instituting the proposal will have two benefits. First, it will help the student gauge how much revision will be needed to secure a passing grade. Second, it will help us gauge how much additional support a student will need in order to secure a passing grade. Next year, we will be in a better position to evaluate whether this change is helpful.
B) Out of good will and without compensation, Katie Harster ran an MA QP seminar this Fall semester, which was voluntary for the MA students. We found that every student who participated in the QP seminar except for one (six of seven), passed the QP on his or her first attempt. The other student passed the QP on her second attempt. In contrast, of the fourteen students who had not attend the seminar, only six passed the QP on his or her first attempt. Plainly, then, good performance on the QP was strongly correlated with having attended the seminar. We will endeavor to continue to run the QP seminar. Richard Atkins has agreed to run it for the coming year.
C) We instituted a new distribution requirement for our MA students. MA students are now required to take at least one course in each of three historical areas of philosophy (Ancient, Medieval, and Modern). We did not institute a requirement that they take at least once course in contemporary philosophy because a review of transcripts showed that all students did so. MA students were previously required to pass a comprehensive exam in order to receive the MA. This supplied sufficient motivation for them to take courses in the history of philosophy. At the Graduate Retreat on 9/29/2018, however, “It was decided to abolish the MA comps and replace them with a qualifying paper and course distribution requirement, though the specifics of the process of evaluating the paper are still being hammered out” (Dept. Meeting Minutes, 11/2/2018). The qualifying paper requirement was implemented “to give students maximum feedback on what would likely become a sometime ‘writing sample’” (Dept. Meeting Minutes, 12/7/2018). However, the course distribution requirement had not been implemented. Adoption of the course distribution requirement completes the process begun in 2018. Some faculty had expressed concern that students could now complete the MA without acquiring much knowledge of the history of philosophy. Indeed, this was possible. To ascertain whether it is not merely possible but has become a matter of concern, we reviewed transcripts of our recent MA students. We included those students who have taken at least six courses in the MA program. Of thirty-two students, nearly 20% had not taken at least one course in each of these three areas. Moreover, having taken at least one course in each of these areas was positively correlated with admission to PhD programs (though, of course, correlation is not causation).
D) We changed our advising policy for first-year PhD students. In the past, the advisors for first-year PhD students were the professors to whom they were assigned as research assistants (RA). There was no guarantee, however, that the professors to whom one was assigned as an RA worked in the same areas as the PhD student. Accordingly, we are now separating RA assignments from advising assignments. First-year PhD students will be assigned advisors related to that student’s area of interest.
As noted under its description, institution of change (B) resulted in substantial improvement to student’s ability to improve their reading comprehension and writing skills, with six of seven attendees passing the QP on their first attempt in contrast with only six of fourteen who did not attend the seminar passing on their first try. Next semester, we will endeavor to run the seminar in modalities that more clearly communicate the standards of the QP to everyone. This is directly pertinent to outcomes C, D, E, F, and G.
Institution of change (C) will improve our attainment of outcome A. As noted, only 80% of MA students were not on track to gain a comprehensive knowledge of the history of philosophy. The change will ensure that 100% do so.
Date of Most Recent Program Review:
A) We have instituted a new grading scale for the MA Qualifying Paper (QP) of pass with distinction, pass, revise and resubmit (minor revisions), revise and resubmit (major revisions), and fail. We made this change because it became clear to us that some students interpret “revise and resubmit” to mean that the paper was not acceptable such that some students thought they should write an entirely different paper whereas the paper only needed—sometimes minor—revision. We are endeavoring to communicate that a mark of “revise and resubmit” does not mean the paper is bad only that it stands in need of improvement. The refined grading standard brings the evaluation process in alignment with typical peer-review processes. Instituting the proposal will have two benefits. First, it will help the student gauge how much revision will be needed to secure a passing grade. Second, it will help us gauge how much additional support a student will need in order to secure a passing grade. Next year, we will be in a better position to evaluate whether this change is helpful.
B) Out of good will and without compensation, Katie Harster ran an MA QP seminar this Fall semester, which was voluntary for the MA students. We found that every student who participated in the QP seminar except for one (six of seven), passed the QP on his or her first attempt. The other student passed the QP on her second attempt. In contrast, of the fourteen students who had not attend the seminar, only six passed the QP on his or her first attempt. Plainly, then, good performance on the QP was strongly correlated with having attended the seminar. We will endeavor to continue to run the QP seminar. Richard Atkins has agreed to run it for the coming year.
C) We instituted a new distribution requirement for our MA students. MA students are now required to take at least one course in each of three historical areas of philosophy (Ancient, Medieval, and Modern). We did not institute a requirement that they take at least once course in contemporary philosophy because a review of transcripts showed that all students did so. MA students were previously required to pass a comprehensive exam in order to receive the MA. This supplied sufficient motivation for them to take courses in the history of philosophy. At the Graduate Retreat on 9/29/2018, however, “It was decided to abolish the MA comps and replace them with a qualifying paper and course distribution requirement, though the specifics of the process of evaluating the paper are still being hammered out” (Dept. Meeting Minutes, 11/2/2018). The qualifying paper requirement was implemented “to give students maximum feedback on what would likely become a sometime ‘writing sample’” (Dept. Meeting Minutes, 12/7/2018). However, the course distribution requirement had not been implemented. Adoption of the course distribution requirement completes the process begun in 2018. Some faculty had expressed concern that students could now complete the MA without acquiring much knowledge of the history of philosophy. Indeed, this was possible. To ascertain whether it is not merely possible but has become a matter of concern, we reviewed transcripts of our recent MA students. We included those students who have taken at least six courses in the MA program. Of thirty-two students, nearly 20% had not taken at least one course in each of these three areas. Moreover, having taken at least one course in each of these areas was positively correlated with admission to PhD programs (though, of course, correlation is not causation).
D) We changed our advising policy for first-year PhD students. In the past, the advisors for first-year PhD students were the professors to whom they were assigned as research assistants (RA). There was no guarantee, however, that the professors to whom one was assigned as an RA worked in the same areas as the PhD student. Accordingly, we are now separating RA assignments from advising assignments. First-year PhD students will be assigned advisors related to that student’s area of interest.
As noted under its description, institution of change (B) resulted in substantial improvement to student’s ability to improve their reading comprehension and writing skills, with six of seven attendees passing the QP on their first attempt in contrast with only six of fourteen who did not attend the seminar passing on their first try. Next semester, we will endeavor to run the seminar in modalities that more clearly communicate the standards of the QP to everyone. This is directly pertinent to outcomes C, D, E, F, and G.
Institution of change (C) will improve our attainment of outcome A. As noted, only 80% of MA students were not on track to gain a comprehensive knowledge of the history of philosophy. The change will ensure that 100% do so.
Attachments (if available)