Rationality, Rules and Institutions

Written exam in class.
The exam will assess students' knowledge of the main theories of institutions in philosophy and social xcience. It will also assess students' capacity to illustrate critically and independently their conceptual and empirical limitations.
Criteria of assessment:
- First Class (28-30 cum laude)
Work shows that the student has clearly achieved the objectives of the course. Topic addressed clearly, concisely and with precision. Knowledge of the relevant literature is broad and deep, covering both essential and additional material indicated in the syllabus. The answer goes well beyond the paraphrasing of other authors' ideas. Analysis of concepts, arguments and positions is rigorous and sufficiently thorough. Arguments are given where appropriate, are cogent and properly supported by evidence and reasons.
- Upper Second Class (25-27)
Work shows that the student has worked diligently, has consulted and understood the essential literature, has answered the question directly. The essay or answer is well organised, important concepts and positions presented clearly and analysed sufficiently. Arguments are cogent and properly supported by evidence and reasons. Some attempt at critical reflection, for example ability to compare different viewpoints.
- Lower Second Class (22-24)
Work shows that the student has clearly learnt during the course. Concepts and problems adequately formulated and understood, but not necessarily with great clarity or depth. The essential literature has been consulted and understood to a large degree. Important concepts and positions presented. Fails to meet the criteria for 25+ because of inadequate organisation, some errors of understanding, lack of analysis and critical reflection, or failure to support arguments with evidence and/or reasons.
- Third Class (18-21)
Shows that the student has learnt something about the subject. Some familiarity with the relevant literature but poor grasp of essential concepts. Few references to sources, some errors of fact and interpretation. The question is usually not directly answered, and the answer usually lacks structure and organisation. Claims not supported by evidence and/or arguments.
- Fail (0-17)
No evidence of having benefited from the course, and/or little knowledge of the subject. Very poor understanding or complete misunderstanding of the relevant issues, concepts, and positions. Very limited evidence of reading. Usually contains many serious errors of fact and interpretation and/or fails to address the question. The answer lacks structure, is often confused, and/or the terminology is used inappropriately and imprecisely.