Georgia State University

Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report

Unit Name: Philosophy Prepared by: George Rainbolt

Date: June 28, 2005 Academic Year: 2004-2005

I. Assessment Procedures	III. Changes to Procedures or Curriculum Based on Assessment
II. Achievement of Departmental Objectives for Students A. Undergraduate-- B. Graduate	IV. Changes in Department’s Assessment Goals

I. Assessment Procedures

A. Outcomes Assessed

The Department's outcomes are extensive and detailed. They are collected in the Department's Learning Goals and Assessment Policy. It is attached to the end of this document.

B. Elements of Assessment

The elements and methods of assessment are set out in the Learning Goals and Assessment Policy. Note that the Policy below is the current one. It was revised at the end of spring semester of 2005 in light of the assessment experience. In particular, the assessment of the BA in philosophy did not follow the procedure indicated in the revised policy below. It followed the previous procedure. It called for each graduating philosophy major to e-mail the Department a copy of the last paper she wrote in a philosophy class.

C. Data Collected

The data are divided into four sections:

1. Philosophy 1010, Critical Thinking

2. Philosophy 2010, Great Questions of Philosophy

3. Philosophy BA

4. Philosophy MA

The data begins on the page immediately following this one. This data is intended to be read while reviewing the relevant section of the Learning Goals and Assessment Policy.

1. Philosophy 1010, Critical Thinking Data

1	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3	Mean
Writing	2	3	2.67	2.56
Phil Ability	1.67	2	2	1.89
Application	2.33	1.67	2.67	2.22
2	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	3	2.67	3	2.89
Phil Ability	3	3	3	3.00
Application	3	3	3	3.00
3	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	2.33	2.33	2.33	2.33
Phil Ability	2	2	2	2.00
Application	3	2.33	2.33	2.55
5	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	3	2.33	2.67	2.67
Phil Ability	2.67	2.67	2.33	2.56
Application	3	2.67	3	2.89
6	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	1.67	3.33	1.67	2.22
Phil Ability	2	2.67	1.67	2.11
Application	2.67	2.67	2.67	2.67
7	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	2.33	2.67	3	2.67
Phil Ability	3.33	3	3.33	3.22
Application	3.33	3	3	3.11
8	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	2	2	1.67	1.89
Phil Ability	2	1.67	1.67	1.78
Application	2.33	2	2	2.11
9	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	3	2.67	2.67	2.78
Phil Ability	2	2.33	2.33	2.22
Application	3	2.67	3	2.89

10	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	3.33	3.33	3	3.22
Phil Ability	3.33	3.33	3.67	3.44
Application	3.33	3.33	3.33	3.33
11	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	2	1.67	2	1.89
Phil Ability	2	1.67	2	1.89
Application	3	2.33	3	2.78
12	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	3	3	3	3.00
Phil Ability	2.67	2.33	2.33	2.44
Application	3	2.33	3	2.78
13	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	3	3	3	3.00
Phil Ability	1.67	3	2.67	2.45
Application	3	3	3	3.00
14	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	2	1.67	1.67	1.78
Phil Ability	1.67	1.67	1.67	1.67
Application	3	2.67	3	2.89
15	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	2.33	2.33	2	2.22
Phil Ability	1.67	1.67	1.67	1.67
Application	3	2.67	3	2.89
16	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	3	2	3	2.67
Phil Ability	3.33	2	3	2.78
Application	3	2.67	3	2.89
17	Grader 1	Grader 2	Grader 3
Writing	2	2	2	2.00
Phil Ability	1.67	1.67	1.67	1.67
Application	3	2.67	2.67	2.78
Means
Writing				2.49
Phil Ability				2.30
Application				2.80

2. Philosophy 2010, Great Questions of Philosophy Data

Class/Student Content Skills Application

Class 1

Student 1 C C C

Student 2 C C C

Student 3 C+ C C+

Student 4 C+ C+ C+

Class 2

Student 1 B A- B

Student 2 A- A B

Student 3 B+ A- B-

Student 4 Instructor only collected three exams

Class 3

Student 1 B B- B+

Student 2 C C C-

Student 3 C+ C+ B-

Student 4 C B- B-

Class 4

Student 1 B- B- *

Student 2 C B- *

Student 3 C- C *

Student 4 D+ D- *

*Instructor felt that exam did not provide enough information to assess this component.

Class 5

Student 1 C+ C+ C

Student 2 C+ C B-

Student 3 B- C+ B-

Student 4 B- C- C

3. Philosophy BA Data

No data was collected. No majors responded to the request to e-mail their final paper to the Department.

4. Philosophy MA Data

Student 1

Member Content Skills

1, Director A A-

2 A A

3 A A-

Was able to e-mail the thesis successfully.

Student 2

Member Content Skills

1, Director A- A-

2. A- A

3. A- A-

Was able to e-mail the thesis successfully

Student 3

Member Content Skills

1, Director A– A–

2. A- A-

3. A- A-

4. A- A-

Was able to e-mail the thesis successfully

Student 4

Member Content Skills

1, Director A A

2. A+ A+

3. A- A-

Was able to e-mail the thesis successfully

Student 5

Member Content Skills

1, Director B B

2. B+ B

3. B+ B-

Was able to e-mail the thesis successfully

Student 6

Member Content Skills

1, Director A A

2. B+ B+

3. A- A-

Was able to e-mail the thesis successfully

Student 7

Member Content Skills

1, Director A A

2. B- B-

3. B+ B+

Was able to e-mail the thesis successfully

Student 8

Member Content Skills

1, Director A- B

2. A- B

3. A- B

Was able to e-mail the thesis successfully

D. Data Analysis

The Department discussed this data, its assessment procedures, and its learning outcomes at a Department meeting devoted to this purpose. (The meeting was on April 29, 2005.)

1. Phil 1010 Assessment

This assessment is going well. The data is collected appropriately and there is no need for change. The data collected this year show no need for changes in procedures or goals and will serve as a good baseline for subsequent years. However, the new common final exam will allow us to do better assessment more efficiently. In the fall, we will review the results of the first two semesters of a common final with an eye to possibly changing the 1010 assessment procedures.

2. Phil 2010 Assessment

This assessment is going well. The data is collected appropriately and there is no need for change. The data collected this year show no need for changes in procedures or goals and will serve as a good baseline for subsequent years.

3. BA Assessment

This assessment is not going well. We are not getting adequate data. A new assessment procedure was approved. See Section III.A. below.

4. MA assessment

This assessment is going well. The data is collected appropriately and there is no need for change in procedures or goals. The data collected this year show no need for changes and will serve as a good baseline for subsequent years.

II. Achievement of Departmental Objectives for Students

A. Undergraduate

Overall, the Department was satisfied with the performance of students in Phil 1010 and Phil 2010. While there is and always will room for improvement, the Department feels that, in general, the data demonstrates that the students are attaining the learning goals. The randomly collected data show no grades below D-. All the students who turned in materials were performing satisfactorily. With regard to the BA in Philosophy, the Department felt that the assessment procedures were so flawed that no conclusions can be drawn.

B. Graduate

Overall, the Department was very satisfied with the performance of students in the MA program. They showed high abilities in both content and skills. Their abilities to e-mail their theses show that all of them have the technological expertise required by the field.

III. Changes to Procedures or Curriculum Based on Assessment

A. Undergraduate

1. Phil 1010

The Department sees no real flaws in the current assessment procedure or curriculum. The current procedures work satisfactorily but the addition of a common final in Phil 1010 may allow us to do a better assessment more efficiently. The Department will consider this matter in the Fall of 2005 after we have the experience of two semesters with a common final. The curriculum was completely revised in the Fall of 2004 so we need more time to evaluate it.

2. Phil 2010

With respect to Phil 2010, the Department sees no real flaws in the current assessment procedure or curriculum.

3. BA

The Department concluded that the assessment procedure used this past year was fatally flawed. No students submitted the papers as we requested. After much discussion, the Department voted to follow the following procedures in 2005-2006.

All seniors in 4000-level courses will be asked to submit their papers at the end of the semester. Each professor must include on her/his syllabus the requirement that seniors send their paper electronically to the professor. Professors will be responsible to note which students are seniors based on GoSOLAR. The professor will then submit that paper with an assessment form to Claire. This means that there is effectively very little additional work being done by the professor, but that the assessment will be done as required.

B. Graduate

The data indicate that the MA program is very successful. No changes to procedures or curriculum are appropriate at this time.

The Department feels that a tenured or tenure-track faculty member must be given responsibility for coordination of the collecting assessment data. The data collection process this year was not as efficient as it could be. The staff person in charge of data collection did an excellent job given the circumstances but assigning this job to a tenured or tenured-track faculty member is likely to increase the willingness of faculty to cooperate in the data collection process.

IV. Changes in Department’s Assessment Goals

The Department does not feel that the data warrant any change in assessment goals at this time. Changes in the goals will certainly be called for when we have more data. However, at this time, we are collecting baseline data and should avoid changing the goals until we have a solid baseline.

Learning Goals and Assessment Policy

Department of Philosophy

Philosophy Program

Georgia State University

May 2, 2005

Contents:

Introduction Mission Statements for Philosophy and Religious Studies

Section 1 Learning Goals for Phil 1010 and Phil 2010

Section 2 Assessment Plan for Phil 1010 and Phil 2010

Section 3 Learning Goals for the B.A. in Philosophy

Section 4 Assessment Plan for the B.A. in Philosophy

Section 5 Learning Goals for the B.A. in Religious Studies

Section 6 Assessment Plan for the B.A. in Religious Studies

Section 7 Learning Goals for the M.A. in Philosophy

Section 8 Assessment Plan for the M.A. in Philosophy

Appendix 1 Handbook for Teaching Phil 1010 and Phil 2010

Appendix 2 Georgia State University General Education Learning Goals

Appendix 3 M.A. Thesis Assessment Form

Introduction

At the request of the Office of the Provost, The Program in Philosophy has developed this policy to clearly set out its student learning goals and assessment procedures. Over the course of the last three academic years and in conjunction with the Academic Program Review process, the Program as reviewed its entire curriculum and revised it from top to bottom. We have put in place many changes: deleting many courses, adding others, modifying the content of others, renumbering to make the curriculum clearer to students, and adding a comprehensive system of prerequisites. We reviewed the general education learning goals as well as discussing the learning goals for general education, philosophy majors and graduate students. Data was collected in broad and wide-ranging discussions among the faculty. Instructors reflected on what material and methods worked best to reach the learning goals. We also had in-depth discussions regarding assessment methods. This document does not list all the changes but rather is a report of the learning goals of new curriculum and how we plan to assess student progress towards those goals. A particular challenge in the Philosophy Program is insuring quality instruction in our core courses many of which are taught by a constantly changing group of visiting instructors and graduate students. Therefore the Program developed The Handbook for Teachers of Phil 1010, Critical Thinking and Phil 2010, Great Questions of Philosophy. A copy of the Handbook is included as an appendix to this document.

The Mission of the Philosophy Program

Philosophy has traditionally had a central role in the liberal arts. The writings of Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and Kant are among the greatest products of the human mind. They are worth studying for their inherent value as well as for their impact on subsequent intellectual history. Much philosophical work is concerned with abstract and fundamental questions: What is real? Can we know anything about the external world? Are there objective moral truths? Is there a God? Although some of these issues are unlikely to have practical consequences, they are no less important. In fact, it is difficult to conceive of an educated person who has not systematically grappled with these questions.

At the same time, philosophy is deeply involved with practical issues, such as the nature of the good life and what constitutes a just society. In the last two decades there has been an explosion of activity in applied philosophy with the result that philosophers now work in numerous cross-disciplinary fields such as business ethics, medical ethics, philosophy of law, philosophy of science, philosophy of language and philosophy of mind

Despite its wide range of applications, philosophy as currently practiced in this country has one overarching theme: it is fundamentally concerned with good reasoning. Although philosophers by no means have a monopoly on logical argumentation, the systematic study of what distinguishes good arguments from bad is central to the philosophical enterprise. Consequently, those who teach philosophy are as much concerned with fostering reasoning skills as with imparting information.

Both ethics and critical reasoning are stressed in GSU’s strategic plan, which states: “In the twenty-first century, Georgia State University's curricular and co-curricular activities must prepare students who are critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, and responsible citizens who make ethical choices.” Likewise, the strategic plan of the College of Arts and Sciences states: “Central goals in Humanities include enhancing the communication and critical thinking abilities of all Georgia State students . . . .”

The Philosophy Department serves the citizens of Georgia in several complementary ways. In addition to its highly ranked M.A. program, it plays a significant role in undergraduate education. In Critical Thinking (Phil 1010 in Area B) students honing reasoning skills that are applicable to any endeavor. Furthermore, because it is a writing intensive course, each section of Phil 1010 focuses developing the essential skill of writing lucid argumentative essays. In Great Questions of Philosophy (Phil 2010 in Area C) offers students the opportunity to confront big questions and to learn what history’s most original thinkers have said about issues fundamental to existence as a human being.

The Mission of the Religious Studies Program

In the aftermath of September 11^th, the importance of Religious Studies as a discipline has become strikingly evident. Educated students need to learn about religious beliefs, practices, and motivations in a scholarly and dispassionate setting, and they need to gain this knowledge not from those who already are committed to a particular set of beliefs but from scholars who are trained in the histories, languages, and practices of religions. Universities are one of the few venues in which such education about religion (rather than “religious education”) currently takes place. Given this fact, it is perhaps not surprising that Religious Studies has enjoyed incredible national growth since September 11^th. Time magazine (9/11/2002), the Atlanta Journal Constitution (8/6/2002) the Associated Press (9/11/2002), and the London Times (9/6/2002) each recently reported on this phenomenon. But it is important to note that the field has been growing for decades, with new degrees (either graduate or undergraduate) in Religious Studies being established during the last twenty years at such schools (to use the Southeast as an example) as the University of Georgia, Florida State University, Florida International, Duke, and UNC-Greensboro.

Georgia State’s diverse student body and emphasis on international and multi-cultural education makes its Religious Studies Program absolutely essential to its larger projects. When the College of Arts and Sciences organized a lecture series in the aftermath of September 11^th, Religious Studies provided as many speakers as any other program in the University. When CNN broadcast one of its first reports on the brand of Islam that may have inspired the September 11th attacks, it was a Georgia State Religious Studies faculty member who appeared live on prime time to explain the issues. Although it might be an overstatement to say that University projects like the new programs in Middle East Studies, Jewish Studies, and Asian Studies would not exist without Religious Studies participation, it is safe to say that these programs would be far weaker. Religious Studies is an integral part of the intellectual life of this University.

Of course, another way of establishing the need for a program is by examining student demand. From ridiculously high unmet demand for Religious Studies Perspectives 2001 courses to enrollments topping 50 students in 400-level offerings to the doubling of the number of majors during the most recent 12-month period to the huge number of Religious Studies students going on to top graduate schools, Georgia State students have clearly indicated the need for the Program.

Section 1 Learning Goals for Phil 1010 and Phil 2010

A. Phil 1010

A.1. As indicated in the chart below, Phil 1010 aims to contribute significantly to GSU’s Learning Goals for General Education. Thus, the learning goals indicated in the chart below are learning goals for Phil 1010. There are some additional learning goals which the department has adopted as a further clarification, specification and application of GSU’s Learning Goals for General Education to this particular course.

A.2. Phil 1010 is a skills course. There is little emphasis on content knowledge (although the line between skills and content knowledge can be hard to draw.)

Students successfully completing Phil 1010 should be able to:

(i) distinguish arguments from non-arguments,

(ii) identify the premises and conclusion,

(iii) understand the relation between main and subordinate arguments,

(iv) critically evaluate the arguments of others, and

(v) construct their own argumentative essays.

For further details, see the Handbook for Teachers of Phil 1010, Critical Thinking and Phil 2010, Great Questions of Philosophy.

B. Phil 2010

B.1. As indicated in the chart below, Phil 2010 aims to contribute significantly to GSU’s Learning Goals for General Education. Thus, the learning goals indicated in the chart below are learning goals for Phil 2010. There are some additional learning goals which the department has adopted as a further clarification, specification and application of GSU’s Learning Goals for General Education to this particular course. Moreover, Phil 2010 also contributes to the attainment of the learning goals for the B.A. in philosophy. See Section 3 below.

B.2. Phil 2010 addresses problems and proposed solutions through lecture, analysis of arguments, and selected readings of philosophers of historical import, but is neither a history of philosophy course nor one that focuses exclusively on just a few philosophers or just a few topics. It establishes a basic vocabulary of issues, positions, and terms foundational for the course and for further work in philosophy. Finally, it stimulates an interest in the value of philosophy as an integral part of the liberal arts curriculum and as relevant for personal meaning and decision-making.

Students successfully completing Phil 2010 should

(i) have a basic understanding of central problems in metaphysics (What is real?)

(ii) have a basic understanding of central problems in epistemology (What do we know?)

(iii) have a basic understanding of central problems in ethics (What should we do?)

(iv) have a basic understanding of how to apply ethical theory to practical ethical problems.

(v) have a basic familiarity with some classical and some contemporary authors.

(vi) have a basic ability to think and write philosophically.

For further details, see the Handbook for Teachers of Phil 1010, Critical Thinking and Phil 2010, Great Questions of Philosophy.

Alignment of Phil 1010 (Critical Thinking) and Philosophy 2010 (Great Questions of Philosophy) with GSU Learning Goals for General Education

Learning Goal	1010	2010
Goal I. Communication-- Students use writing and speaking effectively for different audiences and purposes.	M	P
Measurable Outcomes:
1. Students develop their ideas in written and oral formats.	M	P
Assessment Elements:
a. Statements of purpose	M	P
b. Integration of ideas into a larger body of knowledge	M	P
c. Clarity of organization	M	P
d. Quality of argument	M	P
2. Students use appropriate writing and speaking conventions and formats.	M	P
Assessment Elements:
a. Selection of mode appropriate for audience	M	P
b. Proper use of documentation	M	P
c. Coherence	M	P
d. Style, syntax, punctuation	M	P
e. Diction, pronunciation
3. Students use writing as a tool for learning.	M	P
Assessment Elements:
a. Writing that leads to and reflects subject mastery	M	P
b. Writing that reflects on the learning process
c. Writing that is formal and/or informal	M	P
4. Students communicate orally one-on-one and in group settings.
Assessment Elements:
a. Classroom presentations and discussions	P	P
b. Internet-based chat rooms and bulletin boards
c. Group work
d. Listening skills	M	M
e. Presentation skills
5. Students demonstrate ability to incorporate written and oral feedback into revised work.	M	P
Assessment Elements:
a. Sequential drafts	P	P
b. Sequence of related, but brief, written assignment	M	P
c. Reflection on the writing process	M	P
d. Revision of work based on feedback	M	P

Goal II. Analysis of Information Students collect, analyze, and interpret data effectively in a variety of settings.	M
Measurable Outcomes:
1.Students collect and weigh evidence.	M
Assessment Elements:
a. Consideration of authority	M
b. Differentiation between primary and secondary and popular and scholarly	M
c. Proper attribution and citation	M
d. Use of appropriate information technology sources	P
2. Students distinguish the relationships among evidence, hypothesis and theory
Assessment Elements:
a. Use of observation and experimentation
b. Testing and application of hypotheses and theories
3. Students draw inferences from written, quantitative, qualitative, mathematical, and sensory data.	M	M
Assessment Elements:
a. Arrangement of data
b. Explication of inference	M	M
c. Consideration of alternative interpretations	M	M
Goal III. Critical Thinking-- Students identify important questions and formulate hypotheses and arguments to answer them effectively.	M	M
Measurable Outcomes:
1. Students identify, select, and analyze questions.	M	M
Assessment Elements:
a. Context for question	M	M
b. Breaking question into parts	M	M
c. Options for answering the question	M	M
2. Students use basic mathematical, statistical, quantitative, qualitative, or logical methods to formulate answers .	M	M
Assessment Elements:
a. Appropriate method selected	M	M
b. Application of method	M	M
c. Appropriate interpretation of the results	M	M
d. Utility of proposed answer
e. Consideration of alternatives	M	M
3.Students use their proposed answer to generate and explore new questions.
Assessment Elements:
a. Examination of proposed answers	M	M
b. Explication of new questions	M	M

Goal IV. Students analyze important contemporary questions effectively	M	M
1. Students analyze contemporary issues within the context of diverse disciplinary perspectives.	M
Assessment Elements:
a. Explication of question	M
b. Context for question	M
c. Awareness of aesthetic dimensions
2. Students analyze contemporary multicultural, global, and international questions.	P
Assessment Elements:
a Explication of question	P
b. Context for question	P

Section 2 Assessment Plan for Phil 1010 and Phil 2010

Phil 1010

Every semester, five sections of Phil 1010 taught by different instructors will be selected at random. Four final papers will be selected at random from each of these five sections. (It will be the papers of first four students on the roll who turn in papers.) A committee of three continuing faculty (tenured, tenure-track or lecturers) will assign each paper a letter grade (A+, A, A-, B+, B, etc.) on each of the follow three criteria:

1. Writing ability

2. Philosophical skills, more particularly, the analysis of information and arguments by

(I) distinguishing arguments from non-arguments,

(ii) identifying the premises and conclusion,

(iii) understanding the relation between main and subordinate arguments,

(iv) critically evaluating the arguments of others, and

(v) constructing their own argumentative essays.

3. Application of this ability and these skills to contemporary problems.

Every fall, the faculty of the philosophy program will meet to discuss how well the students in Phil 1010 are meeting the learning outcomes.

Phil 2010

Every semester, five sections of Phil 2010 will be selected at random. Four final exams will be selected at random from each of these five sections. (It will be the papers of first four students on the roll who turn in papers.) The instructor of the course will assign each exam a letter grade (A+, A, A-, B+, B, etc.) on each of the follow three criteria:

1. Mastery of content knowledge, more particularly

(I) have a basic understanding of central problems in metaphysics.

(ii) have a basic understanding of central problems in epistemology.

(iii) have a basic understanding of central problems in ethics.

(iv) have a basic understanding of how to apply ethical theory to practical ethical problems.

(v) have a basic familiarity with some classical and some contemporary authors.

2. Philosophical skills, i.e, a basic ability to think and write philosophically.

3. Application of this knowledge and these skills to contemporary problems.

Every spring, the faculty of the philosophy program will meet to discuss how well the students in Phil 2010 are meeting the learning outcomes.

Section 3 Learning Goals for the B.A. in Philosophy

A. Content Knowledge

1. General knowledge of a variety of philosophical systems and movements from the different periods in the history of Western philosophy (ancient/medieval and modern) and detailed knowledge of at least one system or movement in each of these two periods.

2. General knowledge of the thought of various major philosophers from the different periods in the history of Western philosophy and detailed knowledge of at least one philosopher from each of the two periods.

3. Familiarity with representative philosophers and movements in contemporary philosophy and in-depth understanding of at least one philosopher in at least two of the movements.

4. Knowledge of the fundamental concepts, principles, and issues found in at least three of the following concentrations: ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, and logic. (These concentrations are to be defined broadly so as to exhaust all fields of philosophy.)

5. Knowledge of the distinctive contributions made by philosophy to intellectual inquiry.

6. Knowledge of the relevance of philosophy to contemporary American culture and life.

B. Philosophical Skills

1. Ability to read critically and with comprehension.

2. Ability to think critically and to write clearly and persuasively.

3. Ability to apply principles and techniques of logic to philosophical discussions.

4. Ability to conduct philosophical research effectively.

Matrix for the Student Learning Goals for the B.A. in Philosophy

	Student Learning Goals
	A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	B1	B2	B3	B4
Course
2010, Great Qs	P	P	P	P	M	M	M	M	M
2410, Critical Th							M	M	M
3000, Moral Qs	P	P	P	P	P	P	M	M	M
3010, History I	M	M			P		M	M	M
3020, History II	M	M			P		M	M	M
3030, History III	M	M			P		M	M	M
3050, Analytic			M	M	P		M	M	M
3060, Existential	M	M			P		M	M	M
3080, His Af-Amer	M	M			P	P	M	M	M
3200, Conscious					P	M	M	M	M
3230, Religion	M	M			P	P	M	M	M
3700, Clas Political	M	M			P		M	M	M
3710, Mod Political	M	M			P		M	M	M
3720, Moral Prob				P	P	M	M	M	M
3730, Business				P	P	M	M	M	M

Continued on the next page

	A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	B1	B2	B3	B4
4010, Plato	M	M			P		M	M	M	M
4020, Aristotle	M	M			P		M	M	M	M
4030, Ancient	M	M			P		M	M	M	M
4040, Augus/Aq	M	M			P		M	M	M	M
4050, Modern	M	M			P		M	M	M	M
4060, Kant	M	M			P		M	M	M	M
4070, Marxism	M	M			P		M	M	M	M
4080, Witt	M	M			P		M	M	M	M
4090, Continental	M	M			P		M	M	M	M
4100, Epistem			M	M	P		M	M	M	M
4130, Science			M	M	P		M	M	M	M
4300, Metaphysics			M	M	P		M	M	M	M
4330, Mind			M	M	P		M	M	M	M
4520, Logic				M	P		M	M	M	M
4530, Language			M	M	P		M	M	M	M
4610, Hinduism							M