miriam

A few people have asked me what the application process is like and whether it’s worth it.  Hence, the coming-to-existence of this blogpost.  There will be a prize in the form of comic at the end for you.

The Process

I’ll be frank.  I don’t think I went through the process in its due form.  So…this section is kind of sketchy, but it’s better than nothing.

1.  Look up the requirements on the Philosophy website.  Complete them to the best of your abilities.

http://www.philosophy.ubc.ca/undergrad/honours.html

When I applied:
I had NOT completed all my Faculty of Arts requirements.
and
I had NOT applied by the end of my second year; I technically applied in mid-May.  Which may have been too late had the spots in the tutorial been filled up.  Now, I hadn’t even really thought of applying until quite late but you are obviously thinking about it right now, at this very moment, so you shouldn’t be late.

2.  E-mail the Honours Advisor with an e-mail or letter of intent, explaining why you’re applying.  My guess is that it should be cover letter style.  Attach your recommendation letter from a Philosophy instructor, or let him know the instructor will be delivering it to him.

Honours Advisor
Chris Stephens
cstephen@mail.ubc.ca 
BUCH E356

I did not do this, I just contacted him directly, asking how I should apply.  These are simply the instructions the Office Staff gave me, after-the-fact.

He may or may not meet with you for an informal interview during the process.  It shouldn’t take long for a final response; mine took a day.  Then again, it was summer.

What It’s Like / Should You Take It?  

Honours is typically recommended for those students going on to graduate school.  It will help prepare you for the style and vigour of graduate work and I believe graduate schools may expect some sort of honours standing.  If you’re not considering graduate school, or any other professional school where you might benefit from having had challenging academic experiences, then don’t automatically assume it will be useful.

I initially applied to challenge myself, to develop some academic skills for either law or graduate school, to make me feel better about choosing a Philosophy major over Political Science, and to encounter brilliant students.

The Honours degree consists of taking a lot of requirements.  So many that you should plan everything out on Degree Navigator beforehand—with a Poli Sci minor and plans to graduate within 4 years, I have no electives.  There is no Honours thesis to write.  The main component of an Honours degree is the required tutorials.  2 courses (PHIL 390, PHIL 490), 6 credits each (weird, eh?), a small number of students (mine’s 10 or 11) split between 3^rd and 4^th year, 3 hours a week.

The topic is at your professor’s discretion (the professor changes each year).  It will most likely be his/her topic of research/interest.  As such, the course has a narrow focus in a specialized area of philosophy.  This can be a good or bad thing.  As for me, I’m not a huge fan of contemporary philosophy and its minutiae and I’m not particularly interested in the subject I’m studying right now, although it can occasionally peak my interest.

It’s not easy.  And I kind of like that.  You will easily find some GENIUS students there, so it’s all catch-up/listening for me. Marks-wise, I’m doing average. I believe we are being penalized somewhat marks-wise in taking this course (seeing as we would be doing much better in other courses), which I always hate to see in Honours courses because you should never be penalized for challenging yourself! Nonetheless, I’m sticking through with it because I am learning.  And it’s not like I’m doing epistemology, ugh.

And now for the fun part:

I came across this face-palm worthy yet true maxim not too long ago, called Godwin’s Law:

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

I couldn’t help but notice something similar.

Note: I stand corrected.  We went over PWs today and no mention whatsoever.  It was kind of refreshing.

A flavour of what I’m formally studying right now:

PHIL 340 (Knowledge and Reality II)

This course is primarily Metaphysics, as the prerequisite was primarily Epistemology.  We’re covering topics like the nature of reality, being, and time.  We ask super bold questions like:

Is reality dependent on our minds?
Do unicorns exist in some non-existent way?
Are there really tables?
What the hell is Quine saying?

I’m taking this course because it’s required for a philosophy degree.  The more of it I do, the more I realize that’s the only reason I’m taking it. It’s true, I cannot help but find pockets of fascinating ideas here and there (Berkeley’s mind-dependent reality, anyone? Love it).  But I’ve come to learn I’m an extremely pragmatic person and if I cannot find a use for it, well, I will whine about in on my blog.  What’s worse, the subject matter is so incredibly abstract—half the time we’re conceiving of conceiving some inadequately explained thing possibly “floating around” out of space and time.  Or maybe I just have to admit that this “abstract” feeling I have is the feeling of not fully understanding metaphysics, haha!

PHIL 310 (The Philosophy of Plato)

First off, an aside.  50% of the reason why I even bother to show up to this class is the professor.  He is so fun to watch, whether he’s gesticulating in sweeping arm movements, being ridiculously eloquent, or reciting Ancient Greek epic poetry (um, please do more of that).  Anyhow, I had to take a historical philosophy class for my degree and of course I was also attracted to Plato’s idea in the Republic that that philosophers should rule the world by A. Whitehead’s quote: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”

No doubt you’re asking: Miriam, now that you have seven whole weeks of Plato class under your belt, is this true!?

I do think it’s true, but we have to acknowledge that a sizeable chunk of those footnotes are responses in disagreement with Plato. Anyhow, it’s a bit of a leisurely class as it is specifically open to non-philosophy majors and there is little reading.  That slices both ways because while it’s relaxing it can occasionally be repetitive.

RUSS 412 (Dostoevsky in Translation)

I need to take a literature class for my Arts degree (see a trend going on here?) and I am lucky enough to have the option to take a course on the writer of my favourite book ever, The Brothers Karamazov.  Dostoesvky was a 19^th century Russian writer whose works, in my opinion, still have so much resonance today.  I love his complexity, his portrayal of inner conflict, and his deeply philosophical themes in the most soap-operatic of stories (because really, what can be more realistic than philosophy in the midst of the crowd?)

Lectures are primarily historical, whether background on Russia or Dostoevsky’s life.  Professor gives lots of leeway in topics and interpretations, which again slices both ways as I would like to have have more guidance in interpretation but it’s also nice to have freedom.  I have a presentation due next week, so that should be fun.

PHIL 390 (Honours 3^rd Year)

Some people have asked about the application process for Philosophy Honours so I’ll cover that, as well as my review of the course in my next post…whenever that is!