The extent to which grades on particular written assignments count toward a student's final grade is detailed on the course syllabus. Students sometimes ask whether I grade on a curve, or whether grading essay exams and papers on philosophic topics isn't necessarily "subjective." As I'll try to explain, the answer to both questions is "yes and no."

See my guidelines on the sample exam and for writing term papers, for an account of what's expected in philosophy assignments: adequate explanations and careful arguments. Though there are widely shared standards among professional philosophers for judging work on that basis, these can't be captured in a simple formula. Instead of curving grades in the strict sense, which involves putting limits on the number of high grades, I work from a rough idea of how the grades should work out at the end of the course to ensure enough high grades and to limit the number of low grades. I'd be surprised, for instance, if there weren't a substantial number of A's among final grades in a given course; if taking averages of grades on the various assignments produces too few A's, I raise some of the higher B's -- in the thought that I must have asked too hard a question on the final or the like. The grade of A indicates an excellent performance, but the standards are adjusted in light of what's reasonable to expect of a class at the relevant level.

Unfortunately, there usually seem to be a few students whose work in a given course can't be graded higher than D or even F, typically because of explanations that are incoherent or fail to stick to the point or to give any relevant details -- or sometimes because of unexcused failure to turn in a number of the assignments. By contrast, B's or C's indicate coherent and relevant explanations that are in some way significantly flawed; the difference between them is a matter of degree. I expect most students in a given course to get B's -- or, if things go well enough, A's. On specific assignments I sometimes use combinations of grades (e.g. A-/B+ for a low A that's sliding down into the B-range, or B+/A- for a high B that's edging up into the A-range), but I assign numerical scores to these marginal grades (e.g. 3.6 for A-/B+, 3.4 for B+/A-) in determining final grades. If the average is right on the borderline (e.g. 3.5), I round up.

Midterm grades function in part as a way of conveying information to students about how to approach future assignments. Sometimes there are students who seem to be very involved in the class and who make good contributions in class discussion but don't yet know how to write the sort of careful argument that's required in philosophy. Getting feedback on an initial attempt is sometimes the best or even the only way to find out what's required. So I tend not to mince words in my criticisms, and I don't adjust grades upward at that stage to reflect overall performance. Some of the reasons for this are explained more fully in my statement of pedagogical aims.

At the end of a course, however, I do attempt to take in "the whole picture," by adjusting grades (virtually always in an upward direction) to reflect class participation and other factors described under attendance and class participation. Though there are limits to the adjustments I honorably make, I raise some grades about a notch (usually into the B range) for students whose writing doesn't seem to reflect their demonstrated intellectual abilities and their engagement in the subject as indicated by oral criteria.

I also encourage students to come to my office to review their midterm exams. A review needn't indicate a dispute over the grade, as students often suppose. But please return the exam to me a few days before the appointment so I can refresh my memory of your exam in particular.

If you do have a dispute about your grade, even after reviewing the assignment with me, or after final grades are in, you should contact the Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Philosophy Department to arrange for a second opinion. Though the grade is based on judgment, in ways I've tried to indicate, it's supposed to be based on trained judgment that's shared by others with similar training. Philosophers (and others) refer to this is "intersubjective" -- rather than simply "subjective."

Please note that I cannot honorably raise a grade just because a student needs a better one for some extrinsic purpose such as retaining a scholarship or getting into a certain professional school. Nor is it appropriate to bring up those needs with the person who has to grade you (as opposed to an advisor), since it seems to propose a compromise of integrity.

By University ruling I don't post grades, and my own policy is not to give them out by email, in person, or by phone to individuals. I do not give specific grades on class participation and similar factors or even figure out what difference they'll make to a student's final grade till I add up grades on written assignments at the end of a course, so at best I could give just a rough idea of how much they're likely to improve a student's grade if consulted before then. Final grades for a given course will be made available through MARS, but in order to receive notification of grades on final assignments -- along with any comments I've been able to write on them -- please also hand in a stamped, self-addressed envelope at the end of the term.