Course Guide Mind, Matter and Language 2014/15 Course Organiser: Dr Anders J. Schoubye ([email protected]) Course Secretary: Ms Stephanie Fong ([email protected]) Contents 1. (Course) Aims and Objectives 2. Intended Learning Outcomes 3. Seminar Times and Locations 4. Seminar Content 5. PPLS Undergraduate Student Handbook 6. Readings 7. Assessment Information 8. Learn 9. Useful Information 10. Common Marking Scheme 11. Careers Services 2014/15 12. Feedback 13. Students on a Tier 4 visa Department of Philosophy School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences Page 1 of 19 University of Edinburgh 1. Course Aims and Objectives The course is an introduction to the Philosophy of Mind and Language. The objectives are: To introduce students to some of the problems and concepts in philosophy of language and philosophy of mind that are central to philosophy. To develop students’ abilities to understand and be critical of philosophical argument, by examining in detail some of the key arguments and texts in philosophy of language and mind. To inculcate in students taking this as their only philosophy course an understanding of the nature of philosophy and an appreciation of the value of philosophical ways of thinking. To provide for students, who will take further philosophy courses, a solid understanding of these central topics, thereby providing a firm basis for the development of their philosophical knowledge and understanding. To introduce students to characteristically philosophical ways of thinking, including: the idea of an argument and some of the ways an argument may be evaluated and analysed; the sorts of evidence that philosophical arguments use, and the differences between philosophical and empirical ways of thinking; the analysis and investigation of concepts. To enable students to express philosophical ideas and arguments both orally and in writing, with particular regard to the following qualities: clarity, precision, and concision; structure in essay organization; structure in argument (written and oral); the ability to argue effectively in a debate, including showing respect for other participants. To promote the acquisition of generic analytical and critical thinking skills, including: the ability to identify the argument in a piece of prose; the ability to approach ideas with an open mind. To encourage other transferable skills, including the ability to work to deadlines; use of computers for word-processing and the retrieval of information from the World Wide Web. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes Familiarity with the central concepts in the theory of meaning such as truth conditions, propositions, and compositionality. Ability to explain and provide cogent arguments for a distinction between the sense and reference of a linguistic expression. Understanding the difference between locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts. Understanding the standard distinction between semantics and pragmatics. Understanding the key concepts in the theory of assertion. Understanding the philosophical positions of dualism, behaviourism, identity theory, intentional realism, instrumentalism and eliminativism. Page 2 of 19 Understanding the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness and be able to critically examine the crucial thought experiments designed to support the claims regarding its existence. Understanding the nature of the debate concerning folk psychology and our grip on other agents' mental states. 3. Seminar Times and Locations Semester 1 Monday Lecture Theatre 4 Appleton Tower 13:10 - 14:00 Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Lecture Theatre G.03 50 George Square 09:00 - 09:50 4. Seminar Content PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE Week 1: Introduction to Philosophy of Language Dr. Anders J. Schoubye (15.9, 18.9, 19.9) Week 2: Sense, Reference, and Rigidity Dr. Anders J. Schoubye (22.9, 25.9, 26.9) Week 3: Speech Acts Dr. Anders J. Schoubye (29.9, 2.10, 3.10) Week 4: Grice on Meaning Prof. Aidan McGlynn (6.10, 9.10, 10.10) Week 5: Grice on Implicatures Prof. Aidan McGlynn (13.10, 16.10, 17.10) PHILOSOPHY OF MIND Week 6: Functionalism I Dr. Dave Ward (20.10, 23.10, 24.10) Week 7: Functionalism (cont.), Eliminativism and the Intentional Stance Dr. Dave Ward (27.10, 30.10) Dr. Tillmann Vierkant (31.10) Week 8: Eliminativism and the Intentional Stance (cont.) Dr. Tillmann Vierkant (3.11) Andrea Polonioli (6.11, 7.11) Week 9: Extended Mind Theory Andrea Polonioli (10.11, 13.11, 14.11) Page 3 of 19 Friday Lecture Theatre G.03 50 George Square 09:00 - 09:50 Week 10: Higher Order Theories of Consciousness Mark Sprevak (17.11, 20.11, 21.11) Week 11: Revision Week Dr. Anders J. Schoubye (24.11) Dr. Dave Ward (27.11) Dr. Tilmann Vierkant (28.11) 5. PPLS Undergraduate Student Handbook The PPLS Undergraduate Student Handbook has more information on Student Support and academic guidance; late coursework and plagiarism; illness and disability adjustments, and useful sources of advice. The Handbook can be found here: http://www.ppls.ed.ac.uk/students/undergraduate/documents/PPLS_Student_Handbook -Master_Copy.pdf 6. Readings Week 1 Required Readings: Gotlobb Frege (1892), “On Sense and Reference” Reprinted in The Frege Reader (1997) 151-172, ed. Michael Beaney, Blackwell Publishing Optional Readings: Marga Reimer (2009), “Reference” Stanford Encyclopedia Article, Section 2, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/ Barbara Abbott (2010), Reference Oxford University Press, 1-25 Week 2 Required Readings: Saul Kripke (1980), Naming and Necessity Harvard University Press, 22-104 (Lecture I,II) John L. Austin (1962), How to Do Things with Words Oxford University Press, 1-11, 25-39, 94-108 (Lecture I,III, VIII) Page 4 of 19 Optional Readings: Barbara Abbott (2010), Reference Oxford University Press, 99-122 Week 3 Required Readings: John Searle (1975), “Indirect Speech Acts” In Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, ed. P. Cole & J. L. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press. John Searle (1978), “Literal Meaning” Erkenntniss, 13:1, 207-224 Optional Readings William Lycan (2000), Philosophy of Language Routledge, 144-155 Week 4 Required Readings: Paul H. Grice (1957) “Meaning”, Philosophical Review, 66:377-388 Optional Readings William Lycan (2000) “Philosophy of Language” Chapter 7, Routledge Week 5 Required Readings: Paul H. Grice (1989) “Logic and Conversation” in Studies in the Ways of Words, 22-41, Harvard University Press Optional Readings Wayne Davis (2014) “Implicature” Stanford Encyclopedia Article, sections 1-9 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/ Week 6 Required Readings: Kim, J. (2010) “Mind as Immaterial Substance: Descartes’ Dualism” Chapter 2 in Philosophy of Mind (3rd Edition), Westview. Optional Readings: Kim, J. (2010) “Mind as Behaviour: Behaviourism” Chapter 3 in Philosophy of Mind (3rd Edition), Westview. Page 5 of 19 Week 7-8 Required Readings: Kim, J. (2010) “Mind as Brain: The Psychoneural Identical Theory” Chapter 4 in Philosophy of Mind (3rd Edition), Westview. Kim, J. (2010) “Mind as a Causal System: Causal-theoretical Functionalism” Chapter 6 in Philosophy of Mind (3rd Edition), Westview. Churchland, Paul (2003) “Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes” in Philosophy of Mind, Contemporary Readings (2003). Timothy O’Connor (eds.) Routledge “The Propositional Attitudes” in Philosophy of Mind, Contemporary Readings (2003), p. 263-268, Timothy O’Connor (eds.). Routledge Dennett, Daniel (1987) “True believers. The intentional stance and why it works” In Dennett, Daniel. The intentional stance. Also in Philosophy of Mind, Contemporary Readings (2003). Timothy O’Connor (eds.) Routledge Dennett, Daniel (1989) “The Intentional Stance”, Cambridge, MIT Press, chapter 8 Optional Readings: Stanford entry on Eliminative Materialism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/#SpeProFolPsy Gopnik, A. and Wellman, H. (1992) “Why the Child's Theory of Mind Really Is a Theory”, Mind and Language 7: 145-171. Gordon, R. (1986). “Folk psychology as Simulation”, Mind and Language 1: 158-171. Reppert, V. (1992). “Eliminative Materialism, Cognitive Suicide, and Begging the Question”, Metaphilosophy 23: 378-92. Dan Dennett: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19179/ Stich, S. (1991). “Do True Believers Exist?”, Aristotelian Society Supplement 65: 22944. Week 9 Required Readings: Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. J. (1998) “The extended mind” Analysis, 58:7–19. Sprevak, M. (2009) “Extended cognition and functionalism” The Journal of Philosophy, 106:503-527. Chalmers, D. J. (1995) “Facing up to the problem of consciousness” Journal of consciousness studies, 2(3), 200-219. Page 6 of 19 Optional Readings: Adams, F. and Aizawa, K. (2001) “The bounds of cognition” Philosophical Psychology, 14:43– 64. Shapiro, L. (2010) “James Bond and the barking dog: evolution and extended cognition” Philosophy of Science, 77(3), 400-418. Sprevak, M. (2010). “Inference to the hypothesis of extended cognition” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 41: 353-362. Fodor, J. (2009). “Where is my mind?” London Review of Books 31 (3). Block, N. (1995) “On a confusion about a function of consciousness” Brain and Behavioral Sciences 18 (2):227-247. Chalmers, D. (2008). “Foreword to Andy Clark’s Supersizing the Mind” In A. Clark, Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Week 10 Required Readings: Armstrong, D. M. (1980) “What is consciousness?” In The Nature of Mind and Other Essays. Harvester Press, Sussex. Kim, J. (2006). Philosophy of Mind. Westview Press, Cambridge, MA, 2nd edition. (pp. 216-220) Rosenthal, D. M. (2002) “Explaining consciousness” In Chalmers, D. J., editor, Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings, pages 406–421. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Dennett, D. C. (2002) “Quining qualia” In Chalmers, D. J., editor, Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings, chapter 26. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Optional Readings Lycan, W. G. (1996) “Consciousness and Experience” MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. (Chapter 2) Carruthers, Peter (2011), “Higher order approaches to consciousness” (Stanford Enyclopedia Article) Carruthers, P. (2005) “Consciousness: Essays from a Higher-Order Perspective” Oxford University Press, Oxford. Block, N. (2009) “Comparing the major theories of consciousness” Page 7 of 19 In Gazzaniga, M. S. (ed), The Cognitive Neurosciences, IV, p.1111–1112. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Cohen, M. A. and Dennett, D. C. (2011) “Consciousness cannot be separated from function” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, pp. 358-364. Frankish, K. (forthcoming). “Quining diet qualia. Consciousness and Cognition” [available from http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2061862/Frankish_Quining diet qualia_eprint.pdf] Week 11 No readings, revision week 7. Tutorials In addition to three course lectures per week, you must attend weekly tutorials. Tutorials give you a chance to discuss further topics and issues in the course and its lectures. Tutorials will take place, at times and places to be arranged, during weeks 2 through 11 of the semester. Attendance at tutorials is compulsory for all students on this course. To be clear, you must attend these tutorials. The class tutor will maintain a register of attendance. Unexplained absences will be brought to the attention of your Personal Tutor. You must sign yourself up for a tutorial group during the first week of the semester. This is done via Learn. If you find that none of the available groups meet at a time which is compatible with your timetable, please inform Stephanie Fong, in the Teaching Office immediately. (Undergraduate Teaching Office G.06 is based in Dugald Stewart Building on Charles Street, off Bristo Square.) Any student who has not signed her/himself up for tutorials by the due date of the midterm coursework essay will be deemed to have withdrawn from the course. Students who miss tutorials may be required to do additional written work. Further information concerning tutorials will be available on Learn. 8. Assessment Information This course will be examined on the basis of two pieces of assessed work. These pieces are as follows: The Mid-Term Coursework Essay This counts for 25% of the overall assessment mark. The End of Semester Degree Examination This counts for 75% of the overall assessment mark. 8.1 Coursework Essay Page 8 of 19 The coursework essay is a single 1500 word essay answering a question from an agreed list of questions. The coursework essay is due on Wednesday 29th October 2014, by 12 noon. You should upload your essay electronically to Learn, (use .rls or .doc). Further instructions will be given on Learn. Please contact Stephanie Fong in the Teaching Office, if you are having problems uploading your essay. 8.2 Word Policy The word count of your essay, including footnotes but excluding bibliography, must not exceed the specified word limit. The precise word count must be written on the coversheet. Overlong essays will be penalised according to the following rule: 5% of the maximum obtainable mark will be deducted for every 100 words, or part thereof, over the word limit. So, exceeding the word limit by 1-100 words incurs a deduction of 5%; exceeding by 101-200 words incurs a deduction of 10%; and so on. 8.3 Degree Examination The degree examination is a two-hour examination given under exam conditions at a date, time and place to be announced later in the term. Detailed information concerning essay titles, readings, submission procedures and the Degree Examination will be available on Learn. 8.4 Visiting Undergraduates The assessment arrangements for visiting undergraduates are the same as for all other students. 8.5 Re-sit exams For those failing or missing the exam, a resit examination is held in late August. It is the student's responsibility to check the resit timetable on the Registry's website http://www.registry.ed.ac.uk, find the time and location of the resit exam and ensure they are present for that resit. No formal registration is necessary and students will not be individually notified of the resit date and location of resit exams. 8.6 Progression to Honours Progression to Philosophy Honours requires (1) an *average* of 50% across both the mandatory Philosophy courses standardly taken in the second year, Mind, Matter and Language (MML) and Knowledge and Reality (K&R) achieved at the first sitting and (2) a minimum of 40% in each course (MML and K&R) achieved at the first sitting. 9. Learn This year the majority of courses will use electronic submissions for Honours coursework. For essay submission instructions please see the instructions on LEARN. Please note you should not include your name or matriculation number on coursework, only your exam number. Page 9 of 19 Exemplar essays Anonymised exemplar essays for this course have been posted on Learn. These are essays written by past students that they have kindly agreed us to use. We hope that they are useful to you. We encourage you to read these essays in conjunction with the Philosophy-specific marking guidelines. We suggest that you discuss the exemplar essays with your tutor, think about what works and what doesn't in the essays, why the essays fell into their grade-band, and how the essays could be improved. It is important to emphasise that there are many ways for an essay to fall into a particular grade-band. The Philosophy-specific marking guidelines provide explanation of the many and diverse ways in which an essay can be a 1st, 2.i, 2.ii, and so on; the guidelines also make clear that what determines a grade-band is a cluster of properties rather than necessary and sufficient conditions. The exemplar essays only show one way to achieve a certain grade; it is not the only way. Note that if you attempt to copy text or content from the exemplar essays in your own work this would be treated as a case of serious academic misconduct and would have serious repercussions. 10. Useful Information 10.1 Contact If you have a query regarding lecture content you should contact the lecturer directly by email or by visiting during their office hours. Your tutor is also likely to be able to clarify philosophical/course issues for you or direct you to the appropriate person. For other specifically academic matters you can contact Dr. Anders J. Schoubye who is the course organiser. Dr. Schoubye’s office hours and contact details are given below: Office: Telephone: E-mail: Office-hours (Term-time): Room 4.05, Dugald Stewart Building (0131) 650 3958 [email protected] Thursdays, 10.00-12.00 If you have questions not specifically about lecture content, you should speak to the Course Secretary, Stephanie Fong whose office-hours and other contact details are as below: Office: Telephone: E-mail: Office-hours: G.06 Dugald Stewart Building (0131) 650 3628 [email protected] 9.30am to 4.30pm, Monday to Wednesday 10.2 Prizes Students who perform with excellence in Mind Matter and Language are eligible for the James Hutchinson Prize. 10.3 Innovative Learning Week (for information only) Page 10 of 19 In academic year 2013-14 the University is having an extra week of teaching in Semester 2: Innovative Learning Week, 16-20 February 2015. Normal teaching slots will be suspended and in their place will be a range of other activities such as master classes, a research day, a science fair, a Gaelic festival and guest lectures. More information click on the below links: http://www.ed.ac.uk/staff-students/students/studies/innovative-learning http://www.ed.ac.uk/staff-students/students/studies/innovative-learning/calendar Page 11 of 19 11. Common Marking Scheme http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/registry/exams/regulations/common-markingscheme A1 90-100 A2 80-89 A3 70-79 B 60-69 C 50-59 D 40-49 E 30-39 F 20-29 G 10-19 H 0-9 Excellent Outstanding in every respect, the work is well beyond the level expected of a competent student at their level of study. Excellent Outstanding in some respects, the work is often beyond what is expected of a competent student at their level of study. Excellent Very good or excellent in most respects, the work is what might be expected of a very competent student. Very Good Good or very good in most respects, the work displays thorough mastery of the relevant learning outcomes. Good The work clearly meets requirements for demonstrating the relevant learning outcomes. Pass The work meets minimum requirements for demonstrating the relevant learning outcomes. Marginal fail The work fails to meet minimum requirements for demonstrating the relevant learning outcomes. Clear fail The work is very weak or shows a decided lack of effort. Bad fail The work is extremely weak. Bad fail The work is of very little consequence, if any, to the area in question. Page 12 of 19 Grade-related Marking Guidelines Explaining the function of these guidelines: (1) These are only guidelines; marking still requires discretion and judgment. (2) The guidelines are “bottom up” — each band presupposes that the student has at least satisfied the criteria laid down under the lower bands. So to get a first, it is assumed that you at least satisfy all the criteria for a 2-1, etc. (3) Each set of guidelines should be understood not as providing necessary and sufficient conditions for a mark in the band specified. Rather, the guidelines under each band provide a kind of “cluster” which defines a paradigm of a piece of work falling within the band in question. A piece of work might deviate from the paradigm in certain respects but still fall within the band. It might help to explain the idea of a paradigm being invoked here. By way of comparison, an ornamental chair (as one might find in a museum, and that is not fit for sitting on) is a less paradigmatic instance of a piece of furniture than an ordinary sofa, but plausibly an ornamental chair still counts as a piece of furniture all the same. This is because it satisfies enough of the criteria in the cluster of concepts associated with being a piece of furniture, though it satisfies fewer of those criteria than an ordinary sofa. Similarly, a piece of work might be a less than fully paradigmatic instance of a 2-1 but still count as a 2-1 all the same. (4) Although they are written in a way that might naturally suggest a binary reading, the guidelines are generally scalar – satisfying each of them comes in degrees, and is not all or nothing. This is important, and relevant to the “paradigm” point above, in that doing better with respect to one criteria under a given band could offset doing slightly less well with regards to another. Also, precisely where within the band a piece of work is assessed will typically reflect how well the work does in terms of each of these criteria. (5) The guidelines apply most clearly for essays. In the case of exam questions, part of the exercise will be for the student to work out the extent to which the question calls for something going beyond pure exegesis. (6) For history of philosophy classes, where the instructor explicitly indicates this is the case, the contrast between exegesis and original argument may be less clear. In these cases, the original argumentation may be an original argument for an interpretation or reading of a text, for example. Individual instructors have some discretion in explaining how the specific details of their course mean these guidelines should be interpreted. As mere guidelines, they provide only a sort of “default setting” rather than a one size fits all set of prescriptions, amenable to only one canonical interpretation. Page 13 of 19 General Guidelines Clarity: o Is the writing clear? o Is the grammar and spelling correct? o Is the language used appropriate? Structure: o Is a clear thesis or position stated? o Is an argument, or arguments, offered in support of the thesis? o Does each part of the essay/exam have a clearly indicated purpose? Understanding: o Is a sound understanding of relevant issues demonstrated? o Is the exposition of others’ views accurate? o Are technical terms adequately defined? Originality: o Is there evidence of independent thought? o Is there critical engagement with the material? Argument: o Is the argument convincing? o Are the inferences valid? o Are obvious objections anticipated? Page 14 of 19 Grade Bands Fail (less than 40) Third Class (40–49): Writing is generally unclear. Frequent spelling or grammar mistakes, incorrect language, and/or excessively convoluted sentence structure. Neglects clearly to state a thesis or position and/or fails to support this with arguments. Contains irrelevant material, or material whose relevance is not adequately explained. Demonstrates a barely adequate understanding of central issues. Contains several errors in exposition or in explanation of concepts. No evidence of independent thought or critical engagement. Merely rehashes arguments from readings or lectures. Where arguments are given, these are weak, depend on invalid inferences or implausible premises. Fails to anticipate obvious objections. Lower Second Class (50–59): Writing is generally clear, but there are occasional spelling/grammar infelicities and/or poorly constructed sentences. A thesis/position is indicated but not clearly defined. Some arguments given, but their structure often unclear. Demonstrates a basic grasp of key concepts, but occasional inaccuracies in exposition/explanation. Little evidence of independent thought. Some suggestion of original ideas, but these are under-developed and/or expressed unclearly. Arguments generally weak or unconvincing. Upper Second Class (60–69): Writing is generally clear, marred only by the rare spelling/grammar infelicity or poorly constructed sentence. A thesis/position is indicated and clearly defined. Arguments are given with relatively clear structure. It is generally clear what is going on in each section, why one section follows on from the previous one, and how the essay as a whole hangs together. Demonstrates a solid understanding of the key concepts, and the exposition is generally accurate and thorough. Substantial evidence of original thought – either an original argument of some kind for a familiar position or an original argument for a novel position. In either case, the argument should be reasonably well developed. The author’s original arguments are interesting and promising, but fairly central or glaring problems with the argument are not discussed or addressed in any way, or are given only a highly cursory treatment. Low First Class (70–79): Page 15 of 19 Writing is very clear and engaging throughout. Where examples are used they are both relevant and memorable. The writing will also be concise. The essay’s structure is not only clear and well defined; it also provides a satisfying narrative arc. Demonstrates a deep understanding of the key concepts. Explains other philosopher’s ideas in the author’s own terms, clearly presenting those ideas in a way that indicates that the author has “made them his/her own.” Where technical terms are used they are always carefully defined. Highly original thought, with well developed arguments. The exegesis will generally be sufficiently concise as to allow the author to develop his or her own arguments in considerable detail. The author very carefully considers the most central and obvious problems with his/her original argument(s) and has interesting things to say about them. Mid-First Class (80–89): Writing is crystal clear and highly engaging throughout. Memorable examples are used to underscore key points. The writing is concise without coming across as terse or stilted. The essay’s structure is clear and well defined, with a highly satisfying narrative arc. Demonstrates a deep understanding of key concepts. Not only explains the ideas of other philosophers in a way that shows he/she has “made them his/her own,” but that actually casts new light on how we might charitably understand the ideas of those philosophers. Very original thought, above and beyond what we would normally expect from an undergraduate. These original ideas will be developed in great detail. The author very carefully considers the most central and obvious problems with his/her original argument(s) and has prima facie convincing rejoinders. Author may also consider more subtle objections to his/her argument(s)/view(s). High First Class (90–100): Writing is extremely clear, concise, and engaging — of a publishable quality. The essay’s structure is extremely clear and well-defined, with a highly satisfying narrative arc. Demonstrates a deep understanding of key concepts. Not only explains the ideas of other philosophers in a way that shows he/she has “made them his/her own,” but that actually casts new light on how we might charitably understand the ideas of those philosophers. A highly original and well developed line of argument and/or novel view, such that the essay is publishable, at least in an undergraduate or postgraduate journal, perhaps bordering on being publishable in a mainstream professional journal. The author considers the most important objections to his/her arguments/views. The replies are generally convincing and subtle. If space allows, less obvious objections may also be discussed in interesting ways. Page 16 of 19 11. Making the most of University Support from your University Careers Service Your University Careers Service is here to support you from Day 1, not just your final year. We can assist you in finding semester-time, vacation and volunteering work to help you finance and add value to your university experience, alongside your studies. And we are happy to help you explore your future direction, whatever year you’re in. Whilst studying to gain the best degree you can is your priority, it’s also a good idea to take advantage of the wide range of opportunities open to you as an undergraduate. These include, volunteering, mentoring, taking on a role with a student society or club, study abroad, group projects, part time work, summer jobs, delivering presentations, work shadowing, to name but a few. Getting involved with activities outwith your studies has many advantages. You can: - Develop and demonstrate skills and attributes, such as teamwork, communication, time-management, customer service etc. Future employers will be looking for evidence of relevant skills from all areas of your life, not just your studies. - Broaden your horizons – new experiences can change your perspective, provide new insights, alter your outlook, encourage you to consider different opportunities and directions. - Discover your strengths – what you’re good at, what you enjoy, how you can use these strengths to your advantage in the workplace Careers Service support includes: - Part time and vacation opportunities via our SAGE (Student and Graduate Employment) database. - Support with applications and interviews for part-time and vacation work - Volunteering opportunities nationwide and abroad - Talking through your immediate and future plans with a Careers Adviser. - Information specifically for early-years students http://tinyurl.com/lrv7an9 Browse our website www.ed.ac.uk/careers for further information on all the above, or call in and see us on the 3rd floor of the Main Library Building. And specifically for Philosophy students: - Your own careers blog http://pplscareersblog.wordpress.com/ - regular postings relevant to PPLS students, to inform and inspire. - regular drop-in sessions for quick career queries in DSB/7 George Sq, - look out for the emails advertising these sessions - dedicated Philosophy careers pages www.ppls.ed.ac.uk > philosophy > undergraduate. Be inspired by: - case studies of recent philosophy graduates, - the Employability Guide for Philosophy students, - your Options with a Philosophy degree …. and more. We look forward to working with you during your time at Edinburgh. Page 17 of 19 12. Feedback You will get many feedback or feedforward opportunities in your courses. Feedback could be in the form of an essay, a draft write-up, self-generated or peer feedback, small group discussions or quizzes within lectures etc. Feedforward might include a discussion of how to write an essay, or prepare for an exam. Feedback is essential to learning and it takes many forms. We strongly encourage you to use all forms of feedback, including: Asking and answering questions in lectures or classes Asking questions of your Course Organiser or lecturer in their office hours Discussing your work with lecturers and examiners on Philosophy's dedicated Feedback Days (Honours students) Actively participating in your tutorials (pre-Honours students) Actively participating in Autonomous Learning Groups (Honours students) Talking about your ideas outside class with fellow Philosophy students Taking your essay to PhilSoc essay surgeries Participating in PhilSoc discussion groups and study-skills events Participating in PhilSoc debates and talks: http://euphilsoc.weebly.com/ Participating in the British Undergraduate Philosophy Society, including undergraduate conferences: http://www.bups.org If you have any suggestions on how to improve feedback further, please contact either: Your Tutor (pre-Honours students) Your Course Organiser Your Personal Tutor Sarah Nicol or Mhari Davidson, the PPLS Student Support Officers ([email protected] or [email protected]) Dr Mark Sprevak, Director of Undergraduate Teaching ([email protected]) Page 18 of 19 13. Students on a Tier 4 visa As a Tier 4 student, the University of Edinburgh is the sponsor of your UK visa. The University has a number of legal responsibilities, including monitoring your attendance on your programme and reporting to the Home Office where: you suspend your studies, transfer or withdraw from a course, or complete your studies significantly early; you fail to register/enrol at the start of your course or at the two additional registration sessions each year and there is no explanation; you are repeatedly absent or are absent for an extended period and are excluded from the programme due to non-attendance. This includes missing Tier 4 census points without due reason. The University must maintain a record of your attendance and the Home Office can ask to see this or request information about it at any time; As a student with a Tier 4 visa sponsored by the University of Edinburgh, the terms of your visa require you to, (amongst others): Ensure you have a correct and valid visa for studying at the University of Edinburgh, which, if a Tier 4 visa, requires that it is a visa sponsored by the University of Edinburgh; Attend all of your University classes, lectures, tutorials, etc where required. This includes participating in the requirements of your course including submitting assignments, attending meetings with tutors and attending examinations . If you cannot attend due to illness, for example, you must inform your School. This includes attending Tier 4 Census sessions when required throughout the academic session. Make sure that your contact details, including your address and contact numbers are up to date in your student record. Make satisfactory progress on your chosen programme of studies. Observe the general conditions of a Tier 4 General student visa in the UK, including studying on the programme for which your visa was issued, not overstaying the validity of your visa and complying with the work restrictions of the visa. Please note that any email relating to your Tier 4 sponsorship, including census dates and times will be sent to your University email address - you should therefore check this regularly. Further details on the terms and conditions of your Tier 4 visa can be found in the “Downloads” section at www.ed.ac.uk/immigration Information or advice about your Tier 4 immigration status can be obtained by contacting the International Student Advisory Service, located at the International Office, 33 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9JS Email: [email protected] Page 19 of 19
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
