Final Exam

Please note that that academic-honesty requirements apply, as per syllabus. I.e., kindly do not cheat. Also, please use pen.

When, Where

Thursday, 11-May, 12:50-2:50pm, CW (Classroom Wing) 326.

What (coverage)

Material studied, discussed, etc. 17-Jan (introduction to course) through 4-May (final summing up). It will be closed-book; students will need to all that relates academic honesty

  • The final will target material covered in lectures, journals (with my comments), class discussions, and assigned images and readings, though not pages not read from those readings.
  • I won't ask for specific dates, but a broader sense of chronology is essential, themes, connections
  • Perhaps obviously, you won't be examined on progumnasmata composed and presented by students

Critical Thinking

Students sometimes think that parroting the instructor will get them the desired result on a graded exercise. Often, though, I've had to give poor grades for just that sort of parroting. Often, too, I've awarded high marks to cogently argued essays supporting theses that may not appeal to me. The first ignores critical thinking; the second embraces it.

What is critical thinking? Critical Thinking involves two basic components:

  1. Critique.
  2. Thinking.

Critique calls on us to ask probing questions. It does not stand quietly by when a claim is made. It demands, "Where is your evidence?" No one gets let off the hook, not even the one demanding answers. Self-critique is where it all starts. If you're shooting from the hip, i.e., stating your convictions yet ignoring facts, step back and ask yourself, "Where is your evidence?" Being right is no substitute for arguing cogently.

Part of self-critique is understanding the limits of your evidence. Sweeping generalizations, unwarranted assumptions based on too little evidence — they're the bane of scholarly, and of student, writing. One letter of Alciphron proves nothing, or nearly nothing, about Alciphron's time and place. Maybe, though, that letter combined with other evidence begins to tell us something.

As for thinking, it's more than just coming up with ideas. There's a name for that; it's "brainstorming," and it's fine as a starting point. But not all ideas are created equal. Self-critique helps eliminate the bad ones. The better ones usually result from reflection and a willingness to consider multiple possibilities and perspectives, to embrace complexity.

Your Preparation

Review. . .

Shape of Test

It will be in three parts:

  • Short answer, with a focus on material studied 23-Feb through 4-May
  • Shorter essay, likewise with a focus on material studied 23-Feb through 4-May
  • Longer, synthetic essay focused on material studied since the beginning of the semester

For the short answer section, I'll be giving you a list of terms, from which you'll select a specified number to address. Write two to three sentences indicating what each refers to and how each relates to issues, concepts, and/or texts addressed by the course. For this section, maybe figure on fifteen minutes.

Here follows the full set of terms, from which I'll be selecting some (so learn them all!); you can study them via the terms page:

  • amulet
  • apotropaic
  • baskania
  • bucolic
  • ekphrasis
  • enargeia
  • encomium
  • epideictic
  • erōs
  • mosaic
  • novel
  • parasite
  • physiognomy
  • skhēma
  • stibadium
  • symposium
  • triclinium
  • villa
  • zero-sum

For the shorter essay (maybe twenty-five minutes, maybe three pages single spaced), I will give you a choice of probably two essay prompts, from which you will choose one as the basis for your essay. It will focus on material studied 23-Feb through 4-May.

For the longer essay (maybe fifty minutes, maybe seven pages single spaced), please respond to the essay prompt that follows. Introduce an adequate number of texts and course-related issues and concepts to make your point. Make sure you draw on, and cite, multiple texts from each of both parts of the semester: 17-Jan through 23-Feb, 28-Feb through 4-May. As to precise number, use your judgment.

For much of the course, we've been viewing things through a kind of "race for glory" lens, one that focuses on how the impulse to stand out, to win, shaped Eastern Imperial cultural production (writings, art, etc.). But does such a lens bring everything into focus? What insights become possible when we switch out the lens for something else?

ascholtz@binghamton.edu
© Andrew Scholtz | Last modified 7 May, 2023