PHD Phil Program 2014
PHD Phil Program 2014
PHD Phil Program 2014
-2students to include graduate level work that displays a reasonable amount of breadth. In particular, the
program must satisfy the following five requirements.
A. Seminar requirement
The program must include at least three 8-level seminars other than Phil 8081 and Phil 8085.
B. Value theory requirement
The program must include at least two courses, one of which must be from the following list:
Phil 4310W: History of Moral Theories
Phil 4321W: Theories of Justice
Phil 4330: Contemporary Moral Theories
Phil 4414: Political Philosophy
Phil 4501: Principles of Aesthetics
Phil 5415: Philosophy of Law
and the other of which must be another course from the above list or one of the following:
Phil 4320W: Intensive Study of an Historical Moral Theory
Phil 4510: Philosophy of the Individual Arts
Phil 8310: Seminar: Moral Theory
Phil 8320: Seminar on Medical Ethics
Phil 8410: Seminar: Philosophy of Law
Phil 8420: Seminar: Political Philosophy
Phil 8510: Seminar: Aesthetics Studies.
4-level courses must include its paired 8-level workshop. Students desiring one of our seminars
in values are strongly advised to have taken the 4- or 5-level course most clearly relevant to it.
C. ELMS 1 requirement
The program must include at least two courses in the ELMS area on topics that represent
different areas of philosophy (i.e., the two courses must be thematically distinct). The eligible
courses include:
Phil 4101: Metaphysics
Phil 4105W: Epistemology
Phil 4231: Philosophy of Language
Phil 4607: Philosophy of the Biological Sciences
Phil 4611: Philosophy of the Social Sciences
Phil 4614: Philosophy of Psychology
Phil 4615: Minds, Bodies, and Machines
Phil 5221: Philosophy of Logic
Phil 5222: Philosophy of Mathematics
Phil 5601: History of the Philosophy of Science
1
ELMS is an acronym for epistemology, philosophy of language, metaphysics, and philosophy of science.
-5III. Language.
The Department of Philosophy does not formally require demonstration of proficiency in a second
language for the doctoral degree. It is the Department's judgment, nevertheless, that an ability to read
one or more language in addition to English is an extremely useful accompaniment to a program of
scholarly research in philosophy. There are also areas of philosophy in which other kinds of knowledge
or skills will be useful or indispensable, e.g., methods of statistical analysis in some branches of social
philosophy and techniques of manuscript or archival research in some areas of the history of philosophy.
The Department relies upon advisers to point out to their advisees the importance of languages or other
instruments of research in particular areas.
IV. End-of-First-Year Review.
Members of the Department's faculty are required to provide students with information about how their
performances in philosophy are viewed by writing evaluations of their work in all of the courses that
they complete and by placing these evaluations in their files. The Director of Graduate Studies is
responsible for providing the faculty with forms for this purpose and for seeing to it that the evaluations
get written and properly placed. Students' files are open to them to peruse at their leisure.
At the end of each semester, members of the Department meet to assess the performances of students
who have been active in the Ph.D. program for two semesters. The work of each student is considered
separately and, on the basis of records of course work, written evaluations, and general information, the
faculty reaches one of three decisions:
(1) to encourage the student to continue in the program;
(2) to allow the student to continue in the program, but inform him or her of specific concerns the
faculty has concerning performance or progress;
(3) not to permit the student to continue in the program.
Two or more courses with incompletes is viewed as a matter of concern. Decisions of the faculty are
communicated to the student by letter immediately following the meeting.
V. Degree Programs.
During their third semesters in the program, Ph.D. students are required to submit degree programs.
Each student is required to submit the documents specified below to the Director of Graduate Studies a
reasonable amount of time before the Department meeting at which degree programs are reviewed.
(1) Degree program: work to satisfy the Department's major and the Graduate Schools minor or
supporting program requirements,
(2) Courses to satisfy the Departments history and logic requirements,
(3) Courses to satisfy the seminar requirement,
-6(4) Courses to satisfy the value theory requirement and the ELMS requirement,
(5) Titles and brief descriptions of three papers to be submitted for Stage One of the third-year
review and the preliminary oral examination,
(6) Names of more than four faculty members, including at least one outside faculty member
(typically a department faculty member who holds a graduate appointment outside the
department), from which the Director of Graduate Studies will choose the four members of the
Stage One and preliminary oral examination committee.
Any substitutions for the three papers or changes to the Stage One and preliminary oral examination
committee made after the Department has reviewed a degree program must be approved by the DGS and
the students adviser.
Registering for thesis credits: doctoral (Phil 8888). In addition to the work to satisfy the Departments
major and the Graduate Schools minor or supporting program requirements, a Ph. D. degree program
must include 24 doctoral thesis credits. The tuition benefit that the department provides to students in
good standing covers the cost of up to 14 credits per semester. We encourage you to use your tuition
benefit to begin registering for the doctoral thesis credits as soon as your degree program has received
departmental approval.
VI. End-of-Second-Year Review and Preliminary Written Examination.
At the end of each semester, members of the Department meet to assess the performances of students
who have been active in the Ph.D. program for the equivalent of four semesters. Passing this review will
also constitute satisfying the Graduate School's preliminary written examination requirement. (The
Graduate School requires students pursuing a Ph.D. to pass preliminary written examinations in their
major fields of study, and to file a form in the Graduate School showing this, before they may schedule
preliminary oral examinations.) The work of each student is considered separately on the basis of
records of course work, written evaluations, and general information. In order for a student's work to
constitute satisfying the Graduate School's preliminary written examination, a student must have
satisfied either the history of philosophy requirement or the logic requirement, taken at least two courses
from the lists of courses that satisfy the value theory and ELMS requirements, and taken five philosophy
courses in which the student has satisfactorily completed written papers. When completing this review,
the faculty will reach one of three decisions:
(1) to encourage the student to continue in the program;
(2) to allow the student to continue in the program, but inform him or her of specific concerns the
faculty has concerning performance or progress;
(3) not to permit the student to continue in the program.
Either decision (1) or decision (2) will constitute satisfying the preliminary written examination
requirement. On rare occasions the end-of-second-year review and the satisfaction of the preliminary
written examination requirement may be postponed for up to one semester for review of further written
-7work. Decisions of the faculty concerning the end-of-second-year review and the preliminary written
examination requirement are communicated to the student by letter immediately following the meeting.
VII. Third-Year Review and Preliminary Oral Examination.
The Graduate School requires all Ph.D. students to pass a preliminary oral examination. For philosophy
graduate students, passing the preliminary oral examination requires passing Stage One and Stage Two
of the departments third-year review, described below. The preliminary oral exam committee consists
of the four faculty members chosen in accord with the procedures listed in Section V above. One
committee member is the outside member, and if the outside member is not a department member, he or
she should be informed in advance that the examination may require more than one sitting. Since the
examination requires both Stage One and Stage Two of the departments third-year review, the exam
should not officially be scheduled with the Graduate School until the date for Stage Two has been
determined: consult with the Assistant to the DGS about officially scheduling the exam. Once the
committee chair receives the examination form, the committee members will sign the form to record
their votes.
The Department's third-year review has two stages. The preliminary oral examination committee
conducts the first stage of the review and reports its findings to the Department. The Department as a
whole conducts the second stage in light of the preliminary oral examination committee's report and the
entire record of the student's work and decides whether the student's work is of sufficiently high quality
to satisfy its standards for this evaluation.
Stage One
It is the responsibility of each student to set the dates of the oral examination of three papers that
will constitute Stage One of his or her preliminary oral examination, having reached agreement
on this matter with the members of his or her committee. The first meeting of this examination
must occur on or before the last day of the first month of the semester following the semester in
which the student will have been active in the program for four semesters. The date of the
second meeting, if there is to be one, is to be agreed upon at the time of the first meeting and
must occur by the end of the first week of classes of the semester immediately following the first
sitting. In no case can the third session of the evaluation take place later than the last day of the
month preceding the last month of the student's sixth semester in the program. The student
should notify the Assistant to the DGS of the date of each session of this oral examination.
The basis of the committee's part of the third-year review is three papers that a student will have
presented to it and the oral defense he or she makes of them in discussion with the committee
members. The titles and the brief descriptions of the papers that a given committee will
consider will have been agreed upon at the Department meeting mentioned in section V above.
The papers must be on topics at least two of which represent different areas of philosophy. No
single paper may exceed twenty-five pages in length without the unanimous consent of the
committee. Students may, but are not required to, submit papers that have been written for
courses taken during their four semesters in the program. Students are expected to consult with
their advisers, and with the instructors for whom given papers were written, before submitting
papers to their committees' members. Papers must be submitted to a committee a considerate
-8amount of time before the scheduled date of a session of the examination (two weeks is usually
considered considerate in this context).2
After its members have read the papers, a committee meets on the dates for which given
sessions of its evaluation have been scheduled to assess its student's papers and to discuss them
with the student. A committee is not empowered to make a completely positive or a completely
negative report to the Department (see (a) and (d) below) unless its student has defended his or
her papers orally at the meeting on the basis of which this report is made. After each session of
the examination a committee makes one of four reports to the Department, which it presents in
writing to the Assistant to the DGS.
(a) In the Committees judgment the papers and oral defense are of a quality that meets the
Department's standards for the purpose of this evaluation.
(b) In the Committees judgment not all of the papers, perhaps none of them, meet the
Department's standard of quality, but the student should be given the opportunity to rewrite
and resubmit the deficient papers for further evaluation by either the full committee at a
subsequent meeting or a subcommittee of one or more members if agreed to unanimously by
the full committee (no departmental action is required in the case of this report, but the
report must specify which papers are to be rewritten and who will evaluate them).
In case a subcommittee is formed, a date will be set by the full committee by which either
the subcommittee will have approved the revised paper or informed the student as to what
further revisions are required and that the full committee will need to convene for the next
session. Note that subcommittee evaluation counts as a continuation of the meeting in
session, and it can be followed only at the first or second session.
(c) In the Committees judgment not all of the papers, perhaps none of them, meet the
Department's standard of quality, but the student should be given the opportunity to make up
the deficiencies, at least partly by replacing deficient papers with other work (this report
requires departmental action, and it must specify the new work to be evaluated).
(d) In the Committees judgment the papers and oral defense are not of a quality that meets the
Department's standards and the student should not be permitted to continue further with this
part of the evaluation.
Committees meeting for a third time must make reports of the first or last type.
Stage Two
The Department meets in a timely manner to receive and act upon reports of Stage One
examination committees and, where appropriate, to conduct its stage of the third-year review.
Prior to any such meeting the Director of Graduate Studies will check a student's record to see
whether he or she has satisfied the history and logic requirements. A student is not considered to
2
The Philosophy Department Council has approved a statement that explains the criteria that evaluation committees employ
during the first stage of the third-year review. This statement appears as Appendix C of this document.
-9be making satisfactory progress in the program if he or she fails to complete the Department's
history of philosophy and logic requirements by the end of his or her sixth semester. Upon
receiving reports of the first and fourth type, the faculty of the Department considers separately
the whole record of each evaluated student and reaches one of three decisions:
(1) the student's work to date is of sufficiently high quality to satisfy the criteria of the
Department's third-year review;
(2) the student's work to date is not of sufficiently high quality to satisfy the criteria of the
Department's third-year review, but the student should be given further opportunity to
improve it (detailed specifications of additional work, and time limits for the completion of
it, are given to the student in this case);
(3) the student's work to date is not of sufficiently high quality to satisfy the criteria of the
Department's third-year review and the student will not be given the opportunity to proceed
further with the evaluation.
Decisions of the faculty concerning the third-year review are communicated to the student by
letter immediately following the meeting. In the circumstance that the third decision above is
reached, the Director of Graduate Studies sends a letter to the Graduate School terminating the
student from the Department's Ph.D. program.
-11examination to be held. The Assistant to the DGS should be notified of the date of the final oral
examination.
XII. Final Oral Examination.
The Philosophy Department holds its final oral examinations in locations on campus suitable to the
occasion of the examination. In compliance with the policy of the Graduate School, all Ph.D. final oral
examinations will be open to the public, and if attended by the public will have the format specified by
the Graduate School. Notification of the place and time of an examination will be posted on the
Departments bulletin board and on the graduate student bulletin board, and the examination will be
publicized more broadly if the student so wishes. At a final oral examination a degree candidate defends
his or her thesis in light of criticisms raised by the four or five members of the examining committee.
Candidates must receive favorable votes from all committee members but one to pass the examination.
The members of the committee of a successful candidate recommend their candidate to the University
for the conferring of the doctoral degree.
XIII. General Remarks.
The faculty believes that graduate education does not end in the classroom or in the fulfilling of
requirements or passing of examinations. Informal discussions with faculty and students, and active
participation in the Department's colloquium program, are perhaps as valuable as the activities described
in this document. We are here to learn from one another and to avail ourselves of the resources of our
community. Don't hesitate to meet and discuss your interests and work with your fellow students, your
adviser, other members of the faculty, staff, and the public at large.
-12Appendix A
Ph.D. student progress:
schedule of departmental and graduate school actions
This schedule defines satisfactory progress in the Philosophys Ph.D. program. Students may seek to
arrange extensions in the schedule by consulting with their adviser, the DGS, and the department.
Year in program
Step
Timing
1st
end-of-first-year review
May
2nd
December
2nd
May
3rd
3rd
by September 30
by end of 1st week
of classes in Jan.
by April 30
December or May 3
4th
end-of-fourth-year review
May 5
5th
end-of-fifth-year review
May 6
5th
by May 7
3rd/4th
Students whose work is not judged to be satisfactory in the departments third-year review by the latter date are considered
to be making unsatisfactory progress.
Students who have passed the thesis proposal defense are eligible to apply for the Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship (DDF).
Students who wish to apply must inform the department by December. The department reviews DDF applications in
February and applications are due in March.
Students who have not completed the seminar, value theory, and ELMS requirements by the end of their 4th year are
considered to be making unsatisfactory progress.
6
Students who have not completed their thesis proposal defense by December of their 5th year are considered to be making
unsatisfactory progress.
7
Students may extend their dissertation work into the 6th year without prejudice to their progress.
-13-
Appendix B
Graduate student credit and non-credit course work under semesters
Individual student programs may vary from these patterns in some respects with the consent of the
students adviser, the DGS, or the department. Faculty who teach philosophy graduate students should
view the graduate student as taking three courses per semester and arrange the workload for their
courses accordingly.
# of courses
A. Courses for credit
Required areas: 8
ELMS (epistemology, language, metaphysics, science)
history
logic
non-philosophy (courses with non-philosophy designators) 9
value theory
2
2
2
2
2
Elective courses: 10
3
_________
17
Schedule of courses:
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
6
6
5
_________
17
These courses and two philosophy courses from the required areas or elective courses constitute the supporting program;
students may choose a supporting program in an area of specialization or an area of competence. Two or more additional
non-philosophy courses may be required of students with a minor (as contrasted with a supporting program).
10
-14Appendix C
Stage One of the Departments third-year review is the occasion on which a graduate student
demonstrates his or her ability to do the kind of written work demanded in a Ph.D. dissertation.
Except in unusual circumstances, a paper that receives an A in a course is not of sufficient
quality for purposes of this evaluation, but is a paper that, with revisions and polishing, will
become such a paper. It is expected that in the three papers submitted the student will exhibit the
first three of the following abilities; it is to be hoped that he or she will exhibit the fourth. (Of
course, all of these abilities need not be exhibited in every one of the three papers, but each
ability should be exhibited in at least one paper.)
(1) The ability to give a clear, coherent, and intelligible exposition of a complex
philosophical position or argument.
(2) The ability to survey the relevant literature on a given topic, showing an awareness of
what the important rival positions are.
(3) The ability to present intelligent and plausible criticism of a philosophical position.
(4) The ability to do the kind of original work looked for in a Ph.D. dissertation.
There may be some overlap in the cases of (3) and (4), for a student could display some of the
originality looked for in a Ph.D. dissertation in the kind of critical assessment he or she makes of
a philosophical position. Nevertheless, (4) may be taken to be desirable for but not essential to
meeting the Department's standards for this evaluation. On the other hand, some sort of
originality in one's critical work will be expected, not in the sense that one will have come up
with a criticism that no one else has come up with, but in the sense that one will have come up
with a criticism of one's own, i.e., independently of having first read it in someone else's work, or
will have developed a criticism in one's own way.
Given the above considerations, it will be the normal course of events for an evaluation to be
recessed after its first meeting and for one or more papers to be rewritten. It is expected that
during a session of the evaluation, and afterwards in consultation with individual evaluators, the
student will be given suggestions as to what needs revision and indications of the directions in
which to make needed changes. Even in cases where it is clear to the evaluating committee
before meeting with the student that the evaluation will have to be recessed, the evaluation will
be held for the purpose of providing direction concerning revisions. In cases where the student is
reluctant to submit a paper for evaluation, believing quite strongly that it is not without defects
and preferring to receive a negative report on that round of the evaluation, he or she should
nevertheless submit it to get suggestions for improvement.