POL 3652:  HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT II
Spring 2006

Exam 1

Scores, Answers, Etc.

HOW TO INTERPRET THE SCORES

Each of the 4 questions was worth a maximum of 100 points.  Any score above 80 (= B/C) means a satisfactory answer (to different degrees, obviously), while a score below 80 means an unsatisfactory answer (again, to different degrees).  A score of 55 (= F) means that you misunderstood the question, left it blank, or were out of the ballpark entirely.  The exact grade breakdown for each question is as follows:

Pluses and minuses are marked by my adding or subtracting 3 pts from the question score.

There were thus a total of 400 possible points.

I try to grade the short essay questions blind, that is, without knowing whose exam I'm grading, but in a class this small it is really difficult to claim total anonymity.  Hawever, I can say confidently that I set the curve just looking at the distribution of scores, not who got those scores.

Here are the letter grades corresponding to the various scores:  [Note that there is overlap between the ranges at their ends.  These overlaps represent borderline grades (e.g., 21 = A/B).  There will be no borderline grades for the course grade, naturally.  If your overall weighted average falls exactly on the border, you get the higher grade.]

The numeric score, not the letter grade, will be averaged into the calculation of the overall course grade.  (For those mathematicians among you, this really means the numeric score divided by 28, the number of possible points.)

The median score was xx (B).  One student had a score of xx.

The cryptic marks that appear on your paper can be interpreted through this web page on editorial marks.

ANSWERS

Instructions:

Answer both questions in Part I, plus one of the questions in Part II, plusone of the questions in Part III.  In your answers, please don't quote verbatim from or paraphrase the text or reader. This demonstrates little beyond your secretarial skills and ability to read.  Put things in your own words.  (Which reminds me:  I don't mind you working with each other on the exam, but beware of groupthink.  Also, the answers should be in your own words.)

All questions count the same.  Each answer should be no more than two pages of double-spaced, typed/printed paper.  Longer answers are not necessarily better answers!  You need not repeat the question on your exam paper, but do indicate the number of the question you're answering.

Note that the terms "assess" and "evaluate" do not require you to take a position completely pro or con (although you may choose to do so);  they permit you to take an intermediate or mixed position.

The exam is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, March 1.

PART I

You may recall that at the beginning of the course I said that each of the theorists we study has something to teach us, even if we disagree with h/her overall conclusions.  The following two questions ask you to extract as much value as possible from Rawls and Nozick, the two theorists we started with.

The main problem with this part was that many interpreted this as asking for a description of the theories without any specific discussion of what aspects are new and/or important for other philosophers to address.

  1. What does Rawls teach us, regardless of whether we agree with him?
     
     Here is an answer that received an A+.
     
  2. What does Nozick teach us, regardless of whether we agree with him?

PART II

Answer any one of the following questions. 

  1. Distinguish strict compliance theory from partial compliance theory. Assess the extent to which Rawls's limitation of his theory to strict compliance is fatal to his purpose of giving a real account of justice.
     
  2. Define "basic social institution". Give an example of this concept and explain why it is an example.  Give an example of an institution that would not be considered basic.  Explain why it wouldn't be considered basic.
     
  3. Evaluate the following statement:  "Rawls's argument is deceptive, because his conclusion — the two principles of justice — is in effect built into his formulation of the original position."
     
  4. Evaluate the following statement:  "Rawls's theory of justice is corrupted from the start by his acceptance of classical liberalism's conception of people as 'rational and mutually disinterested'.   In accepting this, he ignores the important consequences of people's inherent empathy with one another and produces what remains an alienated view of political life."

PART III

Answer one of the following questions:

  1. It seems clear that certain people's current situations are greatly influenced by the injustices visited upon their ancestors, Native Americans and Blacks being two obvious examples.  Despite this, Litan still argues that claims to Nozickean "rectification" cannot go back farther than one's own lifetime.  Assess this claim.
     
  2. On pp.40-41 in the text, Farrelly gives three possible lines of objection to Nozick's "Wilt Chamberlain" example.  Which of these three lines is most compelling to you, and why is it more compelling than the other two?  Note that answering this question does not require you to say that one line is good and the other two are bad;  it doesn't even require you to believe any of them at all.  The question merely asks you to pick the best of the three and explain your choice.
Page URL:  http://www.d.umn.edu/~schilton/3652/3652.Exam1.2006.Spring.html
Author:  Stephen Chilton [email]  |  Last Modified:  2006-03-04
Honor Roll  |  UMD  |  Pol Sci Department

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Copyright © 2005-6 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.