I’ve been roasting this old chestnut a few times over the past three months, here’s where i’m up to. Replies welcome.
I will argue here for what is essentially a form of compatibilism. I say essentially, because strictly ‘compatibilism’ means ‘the compatibility of determinism and free will’, and what I want to establish is that the truth or falsity of determinism isn’t of essential importance – what matters far more is the human attitude to determinism. So an advance warning; as ever when I do philosophy, things are going to get very Humean.
It is inevitable in any worthwhile discussion of free will that we will come to ask whether the thesis of determinism is true. Luckily for us it will prove helpful if we address that question first. Determinism is the thesis that everything that happens – indeed, anything that has happened or could happen – is caused, and hence is determined by everything else that has already happened. That is, given facts X and Y about the world, it would have been impossible for Z not to occur; that Z occured was determined by X and Y.
Is this thesis true? I think the answer to that question is that we cannot know. To say that determinism is true is to assert that human beings have knowledge about the necessity of causation – that is, that there are such things as ’causes’ that regulate the universe and indeed provide a ’straitjacket’ (BLACKBURN) that ensure the universe keeps ticking over in a reliable, predictable and stable way. I believe a correct reading of Hume on causation (see the Enquiry II-VII and the Treatise Book I, pt III), helpfully elucidated by Blackburn’s excellent article, Hume and Thick Connexions, shows that the only position that can be sustained on causation is (what Blackburn dubs) the ‘anti-realist’ position. That is, when the chips are down, we have to be agnostic about whether there really are causes ‘out there’, no matter how much we instinctively think that there are and must be.
So given that we cannot know anything about causation beyond regularity and an association in the mind, we cannot ‘know’ whether determinism is true – or whether it is false. That is the crux of the anti-realist position. One is agnostic.
But what we can talk about is how we feel about determinism. Now it is important at this stage for me to detach talk of determinism from talk of free will. The latter can come back into play in a moment, let’s first ask whether we are inclined to believe in determinism, and forget about what that entails. Again, i’m with Hume. Determinism is simply the thesis that everything has a cause, and hence is determined by what preceded it. If anyone wishes to deny that they instinctively plumb for determinism, I would ask them to present me with an example of an uncaused event. In fact, i’d ask for a bit more. I’d ask to be shown that it is even possible for a human mind to conceive an event which lacks a cause. Go on, take the challenge. If anyone manages to meet it, i will be impressed beyond measure.
We think that for a thing to exist (leaving that term nice and vague for purposes of brevity and laziness) it must have had some cause – and that is something we simply cannot help but think. So we are all determinists at heart. The trouble tends to come in when the issue of free will is introduced. There is a common reaction which runs something as follows; ‘but if determinism is true, then everything i do is determined, and so how can my actions really be free?’. At this point there are three available courses. The first two are common, and in my opinion mistaken. The third is less common, but I think right.
The first is characteristic of a common fallacy exhibited across philosophical disciplines. It is to decide that because one wants to have ‘free will’, but this appears to be incompatible with determinism, then we must reject determinism – or else we will not have ‘free will’, and that would be horrible. Ergo determinism is false. The problem with this reasoning is quite simply that just because something is horrible, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. If determinism does rule-out free will, then this may simply be a fact about the world, and facts are facts no matter how much we wish they weren’t.
The second response can arise independently or grow out of the first response. It is to conclude the opposite; that determinism rules out free will, and hence we lack anything we could meaningfully call ‘free will’. (This is the position varyingly referred to as ‘hard determinism’ as well as ‘incompatibilism’). Of course, a problem for this conclusion (and the one above, incidentally) is that we don’t know whether determinism is really true. All we can say is that if it were true, we wouldn’t have free will. But really we are still none the wiser.
I think this second response is misguided, and this comes through if we step back and consider what we mean by ‘free will’. Here i am again with Hume (see Enquiry VIII) in insisting that in fact all we could ever want from the concept of ‘free will’ is in fact supplied by determinism. Very roughly and very quickly, we want the following things from a concept of ‘free will’. That our actions are ones that we bring about intentionally, and further, that they are rooted in our characters; that they relate to the dispositions, feelings, desires, inclinations etc etc that we already have, at the time of acting. We do not want our actions to be random, nor do we want (through our actions) to be slaves to random chance. And it seems to me that only determinism can give us these things. For if everything is caused, then we can have all of the above. If some things are not caused, then the above look increasingly unattainable. For sure, what you or I do will in fact be ‘determined’ – but what does it matter? We will do what we want, in reflection of our existing characters (which are themselves the products of traceable causes). Our actions will not be random, and we will not be slaves to chance as in an indeterministic universe. What more could one want? Sure, one could try walking around thinking “yes, but my actions aren’t really mine because they are determined”. But try going to the pub, or the cinema, or being in love, and sustaining that attitude.
That is why my position is broadly ’compatibalist’. But ”Aha!” I hear you cry, “surely all you have said is superflous – for the compatibility of free will and determinism must surely be beside the point, for you have already conceded that we cannot know the truth – or falisty – of determinism”. But if we look closely we see the strength (and unity) of the Humean position. For it matters in the end rather little if determinism is true or false.
We have already established that human beings are all determinists at heart – even though that is just an instinctual reaction to the external world, not one we have good reason to belive, grounded in some faculty named reason. Let us grant what we cannot know, that determinism is true. In this case, the argument goes through as above. What if we go the opposite way and grant – again what we cannot know – that determinism is not true? Well, does it really make much difference? We all instinctively plumb for determinism, and act accordingly. We think (at a very deep, instinctual level) determinism is the case, and as I have argued, free will on the understanding i have presented (which is the only understanding i can personally make sense of) is compatible with what we think to be the case. So what we think is the case might not be. But we have no way of knowing. So we continue to live as we always have – thinking things are caused and that they must be. And free will in the meaningful sense is compatible with this. So we are left with a sort of compatibilism; free will is compatible with how human beings feel the universe to be, and that’s all we have, and all we could (and should) ever want.
So let’s return to the great man himself, one more time:
That, if I be not much mistaken, we shall find, that all mankind, both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject, and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy. I own that this dispute has been so much canvassed on all hands, and has led philosophers into such a labyrinth of obscure sophistry, that it is no wonder, if a sensible reader indulge his ease so far as to turn a deaf ear to the proposal of such a question, from which he can expect neither instruction or entertainment. But the state of the argument here proposed may, perhaps, serve to renew his attention; as it has more novelty, promises at least some decision of the controversy, and will not much disturb his ease by any intricate or obscure reasoning.
The British Examination System Saturday, Sep 22 2007
Current Affairs and Politics and Sagar's Social Commentaries Paul Sagar 10:24 am
So the latest furore concerns claims that new ‘On-line’ marking of examination papers leads to inaccurate or unfair results.
This is just the latest in a long list of problems with the British (which i think mostly means English and Welsh, due to the Northern Irish and Scottish exams boards having slightly more autonomy) examination system of 16 and 18 year olds (our GCSE and A-Level qualifications, to those not in the know).
Now, anybody with any experience in modern education will tell you that standards are dropping and have been for some time. Some examples.
My father taught French at GCSE and A-Level for 27 years. He was explaining to me how what was in the past taught in Year 10 (first year of GCSE) is now left until the second year of A-level study (the so-called ‘A2′) if it is taught at all. What, pray, might this include? Well according to him, basic grammar. That’s right. It is now possible to achieve a GCSE, an AS Level, and if you are on the right exam board, a full blown A-Level in French with virtually no knowledge of French grammar. Which it goes without saying makes things considerably easier.
Now some personal experience. When revising for my economics A2 exams, my teacher (one of those good, old fashioned types who believed in, you know, hard work and pushing people) would set me the old full-blown A-Level papers to practice from. The difference was staggering. Most notably, the scope of essay question on the old papers was far wider. On the papers I sat, you were basically told what to write, and then simply had to regurgitate your notes in the approved order. The old papers by contrast demanded that you manipulate material so as to address a specific question asked from a specific angle. That required knowing your material, as well as actually understanding it and what it’s implications were. On the new system, (to a certain extent) simply being able to regurgitate notes will secure you anything from a C to an A grade, depending on how badly or well your peers perform (or how good or bad your examiner is).
Further, you know the system is not working on results day. In the A-Level system 80% is considered an A Grade. On the UMS that works out as scoring over 480 out of 600. So let us consider two candidates. One scores (over three subjects) 481, 490, 487. The other scores 570, 589, 590. Both leave with 3 A grades. Are we supposed to believe that both or of the same ability? This hardly seems correct. And believe me, that sort of thing happens a lot. And the situation is made worse when you consider the simple fact that all A-levels (and i expect GCSEs, though it’s harder for me to remember) are not equal. The simple fact is that subjects like Media, Sociology, Film Studies etc are just not as rigorous and demanding as say History, English Literature, Economics etc. Now i won’t simply list my subjective interpretation as to why (though I do think that would be pretty convincing). Instead here’s a real-life example. My old history teacher was explaining to me about a problem she once had. A particularly poor student of her’s in Modern History was not only doing badly, he wasn’t making any effort either. As a result, on his end of term report she awarded him an E grade. The next thing she knew, the boy’s parents came rushing into see her, outraged at the injustice. Why the injustice, i hear you ask? Why, because this same boy had been awarded an A grade in Film Studies – therefore the E in History was clear proof of persecution by the teacher. My teacher attempted to explain to the irate parents that, she was sorry, but unfortunately History and Film Studies don’t expect quite the same standards. Or as she put it to me in private, “this idiot couldn’t even put a sentence of sensible English together, let alone a paragraph or heaven-forbid, an essay”. Now when somebody who has been teaching and marking A levels for over 35-years tells you that there is a significant disparity, I think you should listen to them.
But enough of such examples, I suspect I’m already preaching to the converted. Let’s have some attempt at explanation.
The reason standards have been consistently falling – that is, why I believe exam papers have become easier and easier subjects have been introduced – can be attributed to two factors working in tandem: the use of league-tables, and the introduction of separate exam boards working in competition with each other.
Firstly, league tables put pressure on schools. Poor performances will lead in most cases to increased attention from OfSted, which can in turn lead to further pressure on teachers, and in some cases redundancies. Rather perversely, poor results in the league tables is likely to mean that (unless you do really badly and come in at the very bottom and need immediate rescue) you miss out on funding opportunities. That’s right, the money goes to the schools who are already doing well, as a kind of reward. I’m sure I don’t need to point out the ironic problems that generates. Further, league tables create a vicious circle. Score badly for a year or two, and watch as all parents of the bright children in your area quickly ship their kids off to the school 3 miles down the road which scored 100 places higher. The result? Your next in-take of students is increasingly likely to be those with lesser abilities, and in many cases whose parents are not particularly enthused by education – not exactly a winning combination if you aim to score well in exams, and move up the tables. And so on.
So what are schools to do? They simply must score well in league tables – everything depends on that (forget any antiquated notion of education being important for it’s own sake, you silly old fools!). Well firstly it will help if students take fewer exams (in the case of GCSEs where as 11 or 12 used to be stock, increasingly students will take only 9), that way they can spend more time focusing and revising on a narrower field of subjets. Secondly, it will help if students do easier subjects. An A at GCSE or A-Level is worth the same in a league table whether it is in History or Film Studies. So naturally schools encourage students to take subjects which are less rigorous and at the end of the day, easier to score well in.
Finally, schools will choose exam boards that score highly. For those not familiar with the (rather insane) British exam boards system, let me explain. In the UK all students taking their GCSEs or A-Levels in one year are not marked by the same exam board – in fact, they don’t even sit the same paper. Under the previous Tory administration, and continued under the present ‘Labour’ one, a system of competitive exam boards was introduced. The system works thus. Different exam boards set different exams, and mark them independently of each other. The boards then relay results back to schools. Schools have the freedom to choose which exam boards will examine their student’s papers. Thus competition is created between exam boards. I think that originally this was thought to promote efficiency. But of course, this isn’t a consumer-based free-market, and so free-market deregulation isn’t going to work. Rather, all that happens is that schools under pressure of scoring well in exams gravitate to those boards who score candidates more highly. Thus the boards are in competition with each other. If, say, AQA wants to retain its standards and keep marking at a certain level, then OCR can undercut it by marking more softly, thus attracting more ‘buyers’ in the form of schools. Thus if AQA wants to remain in the ‘market’ – that is, remain in existence – AQA will be forced to follow suit, and drop it’s standard too, thus remaining ‘competitive’. The result? Standard fall continuously as exam boards compete with each other. The process is inevitable, and I’ve seen it happen: I sat my GCSE Geography exam with the Welsh exam board WJEC. When asking my teacher why we say with a Welsh board, she said, in no uncertain terms, ‘because the papers are easier’. That’s the market applied to a non-suitable environment in action.
So there, I give you empirical evidence as well as causal explanation as to not if, but why, the British Examination System is a mess.
What I haven’t touched on is why successive governments have not only failed to stop the rot, but positively encouraged it, or what on earth can in fact be done about it. Any suggestions? Answers in comments, please. You have 1 hour, turn over your papers….now.
9 Responses »