New APPS

Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science. Mostly Philosophy.

recent posts

about

    Individualized grading, combative philosophy, and neoliberal subjects

    Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber responds to Jonathan Wolff and to Brian Leiter on the question of the combative style in philosophical discussion. Bertram: 

    Sometimes combat might be the right stance, but seeing that as the default mode for philosophical discussion leads far too often to destructive Q&A sessions that aim at destroying the opponent and bolstering the amour propre of the aggressor. Where the aim is victory, then all kinds of rhetorical moves can prove effective: there’s no reason to think that truth will emerge as a by-product.

    For my part, regarding blood-on-the-floor seminar rooms, I wonder to what extent the practice of awarding individual grades creates the impression among students of a zero-sum game in grades (whether or not a true zero-sum game is in operation*), exacerbating the combativeness aspect: “if I tear down Jones, that’s one less person in the top grade cohort I have to worry about.”

    Perhaps more of a reach — but that's supposed to exceed one's grasp, isn't it? — is the connection of individualized grades with the neoliberal self-entrepreneur, which Jon discusses below, in relation to Mike Konczal's review of Mirowski.


    (The worry about what sort of subject is formed in professional networking and the self-brand management that academic self-entrepreneuralism requires is found in Helen's discussion I think.)

    But let's think about it for a minute: in seeing co-operation as "cheating" aren't we creating the conditions for artificial and fragile competition? Recall Hayek's worry (as parsed by Daniel Klein):

    that the social-democratic ethos is an atavistic reassertion of the ethos and mentality of the primordial paleolithic band, a mentality resistant to ideas of spontaneous order and disjointed knowledge

    Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that Klein expresses a (type of) neoliberal understanding of anthropology (okay, I can't resist: "hélas."). So we see that from this perspective, a teacher's job is to prevent cooperation (= social-democratic ethos = "cheating") and to establish the conditions for competition in awarding individual grades. That is, to contribute in some degree to the constitution of the atomized, competitive, self-entrepreneurial … "neoliberal subject."

    —-

    * The question of grade inflation can be put here, as one way of defeating zero-sum games in grades.

    Posted in ,

    13 responses to “Individualized grading, combative philosophy, and neoliberal subjects”

    1. Enzo Rossi Avatar
      Enzo Rossi

      Could and/or should we give marks that don’t track the learners’ projected ability to thrive in the neoliberal marketplace? For instance, should we promote cooperation over individual preeminence? It seems to me that the very value system of academia (the canon etc.) is itself slanted in an individualist direction.
      Hmm, this seems a rehearsal of pedagogical radicalism from the Sixties, and I’m not sure whether I should be happy about that.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Sara L. Uckelman Avatar
      Sara L. Uckelman

      I had one philosophy class as an undergrad (Frege, Russell, & Wittgenstein), where there were three papers: The first two we were grouped into groups of three by the professor and told to write jointly (the paper topics were pretty clearly defined). For the last, we had the option of writing on our own or forming a group of up to three people. I think most people did the latter, because of our positive experiences with the first two. The same grades were given to all participants in a group, and the fact that you weren’t always working with the same people, and you gave a few-line private feedback on the others in your group to the professor, helped prevent any freeloading. (It also helped that this was an elective, so only those of us who wanted to be there were).

      Like

      Reply
    3. Howard Frant Avatar
      Howard Frant

      I’m really tired of the left mindlessly parroting the right’s ridiculous caricature of Hayek. Here are some things Hayek was not against: a guaranteed annual income, strict regulation of financial institutions, occupational safety and health regulation. He would not have regarded Food Stamps as a step on the road to serfdom, as the Paul Ryans and Rush Limbaughs do today. What he was against was a centrally planned economy, which a lot of people advocated back then though practically no one does today.His supposed anthropology is one sentence in a paragraph making the following point: Many people today work in large organizations. Those people never get to observe up close how a decentralized decision-making mechanism works, and so they tend to see it as chaotic. Is that an unreasonable point?

      Like

      Reply
    4. Anonimal Avatar
      Anonimal

      I wonder to what extent the practice of awarding individual grades creates the impression among students of a zero-sum game in grades (whether or not a true zero-sum game is in operation*), exacerbating the combativeness aspect: “if I tear down Jones, that’s one less person in the top grade cohort I have to worry about.”

      For what it’s worth, my sense of the problem is a wee bit different: I doubt any of the combativeness we see has anything to do with reported grades (upper year undergraduates and certain grad students are much savvier than that) and everything to do with the intangible evaluations that go into writing letters of reference, where professors find ourselves urged (not) to rank our students along a zero-sum model (e.g. ‘of the 2,000 students I have taught, so-and-so has the best analytical mind….’) and that students (grad and undergrad) perceive as silver bullets for their various applications. And, of course, one of the ways for a student to demonstrate these kinds of intangibles that we like to comment on in letters of reference is to exercise her analytical and critical abilities on the on the fly.
      Just a thought.

      Like

      Reply
    5. Robert Avatar
      Robert

      Well, I think it’s really up to the philosophical culture' you were raised in. I think the argument thatphilosophy is about truth after all, so we better take it seriously.’ is really not a good one. I am coming from continental Europe and there the climatecan be really different; rather no open hack and slay but, depending on the country and school, even over-politeness (which I think is counterproductive too). There the people would say oh, after all it's about truth so we better join our forces.' which too gets superficial sometimes.
      Regarding the Gender issue, I really don't know… shouldn't Gender theorists despise the theory that there is a      male type of argument’ vs a `female type of argument’?

      Like

      Reply
    6. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      Hi Howard, is this some sort of test to see if I will respond combatively?
      {Closes eyes, takes two deep breaths, thinks calming thoughts, opens eyes, begins typing}
      If I were presenting a complete picture of Hayek’s thought (and the complex relation it has with some American politicians), then your comment would be on point.
      As it is, however, I think your complaint is best directed to Buturovic and Klein, whose formulation of “Hayek’s theory” I cite, and who give the following references to Hayek:
      Hayek, Friedrich A . 1978. The Atavism of Social Justice. In New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, 57-68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Hayek, Friedrich A. 1979. The Three Sources of Human Values. In Law, Legislation and Liberty: Volume 3, The Political Order of a Free People, 153-176. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
      Hayek, Friedrich A. 1988. The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

      Like

      Reply
    7. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      Hello Anonimal, yes, that’s a good thought and I think you’re right that letters of recommendation are a powerful factor.
      I’m not sure why you have a “not” here though: “where professors find ourselves urged (not) to rank our students along a zero-sum model.”
      Not only are we often urged to do these sorts of rankings, in some cases we’re required to do so, on those awful automated checklist thingies before you upload your letter. You know, the percentage ones: “top 1%, top 5%, …” or the qualification ones “exceptional, above average …” But there’s no enforcement of a zero-sum there and hence there’s praise-inflation.
      There is a check on grade-inflation when a Chair or Dean yells at you for giving too many As, but there isn’t (yet, thankfully) such a thing on grad school application forms.
      “We’re sorry, Professor Protevi, but over the last 5 years you have ranked all your students as ‘exceptional.’ You can’t do that again until your rank at least 10 students as merely ‘above average.’ “

      Like

      Reply
    8. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      Hello Robert, about your last point only, you have to distinguish bio-essentialist claims about “male” arguments from conventionalist claims about “masculine” styles of comportment.
      The problem is usually put forth like this: despite widespread feminizing socialization (which may or may not have been addressed to the woman in question in her personal life), many women can adopt conventionalized “masculine” styles (because they are conventional and not bio-essentialist), but then they risk being called, er, well, let’s say “rhymes with witch.” Whereas if they don’t adopt such styles, they are derided as, er, well, “lacking the small round objects used in many games.”
      So it’s the double-bind that women face relative to the combative style that is the problem.

      Like

      Reply
    9. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      Further to Robert. This comment from Zoe Drayson at Crooked Timber is right on:
      “Citing combative style as a reason for some of the problems women encounter in philosophy does not entail that women are less capable of this form of engagement. The issue here is one of stereotype threat: data from social psychology shows that black students underperform on intelligence tests only when told they are being tested against white students, and women underperform on maths exams only when required to state their gender on the exam paper. In order for combative style in philosophy to hamper the progress of women, it need only be the case that combativeness increases the salience of stereotypically male traits. We can allow that women can participate combatively and even that they enjoy or excel at it, while agreeing that the combative style in philosophy hinders women’s progress. More on stereotype threat here: http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/“

      Like

      Reply
    10. Robert Avatar
      Robert

      Thanks for the pointer, John!

      Like

      Reply
    11. Howard Frant Avatar
      Howard Frant

      Sorry– “mindless parroting” may have been a little over the top. Or maybe not. You critique Hayek based on a one-sentence summary of his thought in a really bad paper in a really obscure journal that, I imagine, you don’t even believe. I don’t think you can then say, “Hey, not my fault! They cited three sources for that one sentence!” (In general, the more unnumbered pages someone cites as a source, the less credible it is. My source for that is the MLA Style Manual. Also the Encyclopedia Britannica.)
      You also, in the earlier post you cite, quote Hayek yourself, which I critiqued as follows: “His supposed anthropology is one sentence in a paragraph making the following point: Many people today work in large organizations. Those people never get to observe up close how a decentralized decision-making mechanism works, and so they tend to see it as chaotic. Is that an unreasonable point?”
      Here’s why I get grouchy on this whole subject. The problem is not Zombie Hayek but Body Snatcher Hayek, who looks like him but is not him. Real Hayek had a very smart critique of centralized economic planning, at a time when that was what the European left believed in. The modern right takes that critique of “socialism” and pretends that it’s a critique of modern progressivism, which it’s not. In fact, it’s sort of a critique of modern Republicanism: Hayek was pro-market and pro-competition, not pro-business. He probably would’ve been anti-union and pro-NAFTA, but also pro-Dodd-Frank, pro Food Stamps, pro-Obamacare, and pro-cap-and-trade/carbon-tax. The left should be using real Hayek to make its points.

      Like

      Reply
    12. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      Howard, I’ll tell you what: the next time I write a critique of modern Republicanism, I’ll include Hayek as a positive source.

      Like

      Reply
    13. Howard Frant Avatar
      Howard Frant

      OK, I take the point that this is a bit OT. Forgive my jabbbering; I just get irritated when serious writers get reduced to catch-phrases, whether I’m a fan or not. You might have a similar reaction to a person who blamed Derrida for, say, Obamacare, based on what someone else said about Derrida somewhere.

      Like

      Reply

    Leave a comment