Talk:Bachelor of Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Undergraduate B.Phil. at other universities

I changed "At other universities, the term "Bachelor of Philosophy" refers to an undergraduate bachelor's degree in the philosophy of an academic subject" to "At other universities, the term "Bachelor of Philosophy" refers to an undergraduate bachelor's degree". The undergraduate degrees referred to in this section generally aren't philosophy degrees; they're just undergraduate degrees in a particular subject (science, maths, whatever) with a bit of a research focus. 163.1.159.220 14:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full form, etc.

I've no real objection to any of Jacquerie27's edits, though none of them constitutes an improvement, I think, and the insistence on full-form “it is”, etc., is rather antiquated (the Wikipedia style guide thinks that it's part of formal writing style, but academic books and papers have moved on (perhaps they're emulating legal language; I don't know). I've reverted one, though: philosophy isn't a place, so “nowhere else” is a solecism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anne Conway (1631–1679) was an English philosopher in the tradition of the Cambridge Platonists, whose work was an influence on Leibniz. I rest my case. Jacquerie27 23:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er non sequitur, surely. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er tu quoque would be closer. But I'm grateful for learning that philosophy has joined the trahison des clercs. From what I've seen of your prose, I'd advise you to read The Guardian (μη γενοιτο!) less and George Orwell more. "Politics and the English Language" would be a good place to start. Jacquerie27 16:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am a student on this course at Oxford and you do not have to have an undergraduate degree to take the course. I received my offer with no academic conditions before I had completed my degree at Cornell University. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.140.66 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 May 2006.

• This is nonsense, I'm afraid. I find it odd (disturbing) that anyone on the course can have misunderstood the situation in this way. Leaving aside the plain fact that the Oxford B.Phil. is (like any other Oxford M.Phil.) a graduate degree, as is stated unequivocally in the documents linked to, you admit that you started the B.Phil. after completing a first degree... Of course you applied and were accepted while still completing your undergraduate degree — that's common if not universal. Your implication – that you would have been allowed on the course even if you'd failed or not completed your first degree – needs evidence (evidence that won't exist, as the implication is false). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• No it isn't nonsense, the guy who wrote that is in my college and I have seen his acceptance letter, which has no conditions and he received before he had obtained his undergrad degree. Plus there are a number of students, mainly from Germany, who do not currently hold an undergrad degree but are still on the course. Please see the following image for requested evidence: http://www.b4dn.com/offer.jpg

I don't think there is any need to be so flippant when rebutting the edit either. --Ash Rust 21:25, 08 June 2006 (GMT)

• Well, "academic conditions" in that document is ambiguous. For all we know it could just mean that the applicant isn't required to attain any particular *class* of degree (eg. he/she isn't required to get a first). I did the B.Phil, and I don't know of anyone who is doing, or has completed, the B.Phil without already having a university degree. But if you want to insist, fine. (I don't know what you think "graduate degree" means if not a degree taken by gradautes.) --163.1.159.21 00:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links = Redundant Information

Overall, very well-written page! However, the External Links section references information already described and referenced within the article. Therefore I will delete it. However, if anyone believes that a compelling reason exists to re-post it, feel free to do so. 71.234.216.249 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't see the links in the article. The external links section included links that count as sources of what's in the article, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)