Pretty much that, although there were also end-of-term exams, and a couple of the essays in the first year were only 1,500 words if I recall. I had between 6 and 8 hours a week of actual classes, and in my second year this was spread over Monday - Wednesday, giving me a four-day weekend, so there was a lot of "reading" time. And mine was a three year course, not four.

I used a lot of my spare time (while my friends were busy studying real subjects) learning web development, which is what I actually do for a living now, and training in jujutsu.

That's humanities for ya. God I miss it.

I learnt most of my philosophy in the pub...cheers...

What was included in these end of term exams apart from formal logic? Was the whole course hard? Did you struggle anywhere? Where your papers marked with an iron fist?

haha I suppose that is the supreme wellspring from which advanced literacy is born.

The exams were like the essays. I didn't do any formal logic. It was just questions on some notable philosopher or theory. Summarise the views, expound on any criticisms and support, and so on. For the most part I was in the second highest grade range (60-70%) so I wouldn't say I struggled or that they were marked harshly. Heidegger was probably the hardest, but critical thinking was so easy that I finished the 2 hour exam in half an hour and got above the 70% needed for the highest grade.

I see, when you phrase it like that it would seem quite hard to fail as long as you understood what the theory was or had read what the philosopher philosophized about.

I would go so far as to say that even if you didn't study much at all, as long as you still could verbalise ideas very comprehensively and had a strong vocab then you would pass. True?

Yeah, outside of classes I didn't do much work but still managed a 2:1. Maybe my course was easy or maybe I'm just naturally suited to the subject. Or maybe my time on PF debating with clever people payed off

Or maybe my time on PF debating with clever people payed off — Michael

Indubitably kind sir, I concur with your statements and/or sentiments in precise accordance.

I did an undergraduate degree comprising quite a few units of philosophy, on an actual typewriter, using liquid paper for corrections. Seems arcane now, it was late 70's -early 80's, nobody had computers then, let alone the Internet. I still have some of those essays and I learned a lot from the experience. I had some great teachers, and they were very open-minded towards me considering how contrarian I was. But it is at least as difficult as any other liberal arts subject, like history or literature - takes application, reading and work.

Is it anything akin to writing on philosophy forums? — intrapersona

No, you have to follow the direction of the professor. This is why it is better to study philosophy at school rather than simply on your own, you are necessitated to follow the direction which is provided by the institution, not simply your own interests. Your own interests will become stale, and not being exposed to the vast world of interests of others, you will waste too much time, and not proceed toward your full potential. The institution provides you with an array of interests, and requires that you must become proficient in numerous different areas. This is good.

Is it anything akin to writing on philosophy forums? — intrapersona

Not really.

The principle seems the same; read the topic, search related material, find evidence, analyse and finally expound a 2500 word . . .

Well, you'll have to do a lot of reading and writing, where you're reading a lot of specific/required literature. You also have to attend lectures, pay attention and participate in class discussions. And you have to take exams, etc. All of this involves cognizing what you're reading/hearing/etc., and you're required to give direct, supported answers to objections and so on, all of which is unfortunately almost nothing like online forums.

. . . illiterate piece of jargon that doesn't say anything about anything at all really.

That's not going to cut it, of course.

Do that twice per semester

Twice per semester?? It's more like reading hundreds if not thousands of pages every semester, writing papers that will be graded strictly for clarity, logical flow, etc. as well as for basics like grammar, spelling, citation conventions, etc., and that you have to defend against pointed objections about once per week. Tests on stuff you read and covered in class are usually every 2-3 weeks, not including a couple big exams (mid-term and final). Tests are designed to make sure that you paid attention to and understood both the reading you were required to do and the lectures from your professor, per how he/she explained the material. Again, this is nothing like online forums, where people routinely have trouble understanding or don't seem to pay much attention at all to even very simple ideas in simple language. Philosophy is full of complex ideas in complex, often quite idiosyncratic language.

Don't forget that in the U.S., at least, you also have to take a crapload of required and elective courses in other fields--science, mathematics, English, etc. Getting your bachelor's degree in the U.S. is like going to High School II--just a harder, far more work and study-intensive version of high school.

for 4 years and finally you'll get a certificate at the end that doesn't entitle you to diddly squat. Sweet! I'm in!

That part, re a philosophy degree, is basically correct. If you want a philosophy degree to possibly do something specific for you career-wise, you need to do another four (or more) years of it to get a PhD. That's basically the same deal, with the exception that it's less like High School II in terms of the other stuff you're required to study, but the reading and writing requirements are boosted a significant amount, with the assessment of your writing, your verbal defense of your views, etc., being far tougher.

In my experience, by the way, both as a student and as a student teacher when I was in grad school, aside from not realizing the volume of reading and writing requirements in philosophy courses, one of the main things that drives students to drop philosophy courses (including students taking Intro to Philosophy-type courses as an elective--there's typically a belief that it will be an easy, unchallenging course) is that many people are uncomfortable both (a) having to defend cherished beliefs against pointed objections (religious views are a frequent source of grief there), and (b) having to argue for and defend positions that are the opposite of positions that they hold, which is almost always a requirement from any professor in early courses. Part of this is that people are somtimes uncomfortable simply having routinely speak (and defend views) in public (amongst fellow class members).

Also, as Metaphysician Undercover pointed out, what you're reading and writing about isn't usually going to be your own choice, especially as an undergraduate. You might not be very interested in a particular topic, or a particular approach to a particular topic. That won't matter. You'll still have to study that topic as it's presented in class and write and defend papers about it. Plus as I mentioned above, you'll often have to write and defend papers from two opposing sides of a topic. For example, you may be required to write a paper that develops an argument (in the context of what you've studied/been required to read in class) for realism on universals AND a paper that develops an argument for nominalism. And then you might have to read your papers in class and verbally defend both sides from additional objections (additional to the objections you were required to come up with an answer in your papers) posed by both the professor and your fellow students. Your grade will partially depend on how well you do with that. In that situation grades also partially depend on you being able to come up with and present objections to other students' papers they read in class.

This is another thing that's not anything like what we do on forums.

Thanks Terrapin, that outlined it in a lot more detail and gave me some context as to what it will be like.

I have no objections to the descriptions of tasks you listed (i.e. defending the opposite viewpoint I hold and putting down my belief systems for the sake of reason), albeit one... and that is reading thousands of pages per semester. I find prolonged reading very difficult and can only manage to pull through 10-20 pages a day max before my attention span withers and the sentences don't make any sense at all.

Per semester, this equates to 900-1,800 pages if reading 10-20 pages per day. The trouble is I doubt I can read everyday and that is why I wonder (granted I have understood the basic principles of what is being taught) if I could pass without reading much (<500 pages per semester), as long as I can verbalise ideas very comprehensively and with a strong vocab. True? I know from reading some philosophy books that majority of writers tend to just say the same things over and over again in different formulations.

Also, do you get help from others? Say if you struggled to understand some indistinct notion about nominalism, who is there to clarify it with? Fellow students? Professors? Tutorial classes? Did you find you had to do much of this personal clarification? Or did it always just make sense to you the first time you heard it all?

Re help, all three things you mentioned are regularly available--clarification from your professor, either during or after class or during a meeting outside of class time that you set up, help from fellow students--just be friendly with them, and tutoring that your professor might recommend (or that you can often find on your own, too). Further reading will also help clarify things, too, and of course now you have a lot of resources on the Internet. I didn't have that when I was in school. (Well, or the Internet was just starting to become popular around the time that I was finishing up my last grad degree--that was the mid 90s.)

You can get through some things without doing all of the reading or without fully understanding everything, although you shouldn't expect great grades in those areas--but you can do well enough to pass. I always had a lot of trouble (and still do to this day) with continental authors in general. Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, etc. The way I wound up getting through that was primarily repeating, more or less by rote, explanations that professors gave for those folks' work. It's good to rely on a professor's explanation in a case like that, in combination with a few select phrases direct from the source (from Hegel, Heidegger, etc.), because you know he/she agrees with that interpretation. You just need to reword it a bit and try to change it up slightly so that it sounds like your own words instead. I typically didn't get great grades when we were covering continentals, because I'm sure it was clear that I didn't fully understand that stuff, but I went to school in the U.S., at typical schools with a heavy emphasis on the analytic approach, which is what comes naturally to me. So it wasn't a big problem that continental stuff always seemed like a bunch of intentionally obfuscated gobbledygook to me. If I had been a student someplace like UT Austin or NYC's New School for Social Research, that might have been a different issue.

In my experience, many professional philosophers, that most farcical of oxymorons, are gargantuan egotists. Be prepared to not have your emails read, to engage in passive aggressive conversations, and to put up with a host of downright bizarre eccentricities.

Woodwork is a good route, there are many woodworking philosophers.

Personally, I say for financial security study some programming language alongside philosophy. That seems to be where everything is headed monetary wise.

Or if you can play an instrument, join a band. Oh no, you wanted to make an income didn't you...

Yes but learning that language is very difficult. You need to have certain type of mind, perhaps can easily remember insignificant details like doctors can AND a somewhat of a mathematical mind. I don't think I am geared for it, too meaningless.

In my experience, many professional philosophers, that most farcical of oxymorons, are gargantuan egotists. Be prepared to not have your emails read, to engage in passive aggressive conversations, and to put up with a host of downright bizarre eccentricities. — Thorongil

I feared this was so. Passive aggressive is somewhat easy to handle because it usually takes the form of a strawman or an inability to understand what the other party is putting forward.

What bizarre eccentricities are you talking about? Weird clothes and drug use?

So it wasn't a big problem that continental stuff always seemed like a bunch of intentionally obfuscated gobbledygook to me. — Terrapin Station

And it isn't in reality? lol

It's not impossible. I'm learning some Python every day (and struggling to sustain the attention to keep my mind in line with the logical rigor it requires; but, you never know unless you try). It's hard, yes - but eventually, once you get the ball rolling I think it takes care of itself.

I think I'd rather be in something more social and compassionate. It just seems too lifeless... kinda like a monkey pushing buttons... something a robot can do... sorry, dont mean to say you are just a lifeless robot, but... yeah

I agree. I tend to think programming will become an obsolete profession in the not too distant future given the advent of AI. But, just as people need sometimes psychologists or psychiatrists, so will an AI if it decides we aren't a threat to it or if it decides to co-exist with us. I just hope we can emulate emotions in an AI machine...

You can always side major in cognitive science. I've long thought about that; but, that field is increasingly requiring some computational knowledge also if you don't want to flat out go for psychology.

I just hope we can emulate emotions in an AI machine... — Question

I thought that depended on solving the riddle of consciousness first.

You can always side major in cognitive science. I've long thought about that; but, that field is increasingly requiring some computational knowledge also if you don't want to flat out go for psychology. — Question

I was thinking of majoring in cog sci but am declining because it is too statistics based and mostly writing up lab reports on stats. Not rewarding at all and would get more psychology out of a philosophy degree tbh.

I thought that depended on solving the riddle of consciousness first. — intrapersona

That problem can be solved ad hoc by a simulation of the entire workings of the human brain. This will be as close to real AI as one can get.

I was thinking of majoring in cog sci but am declining because it is too statistics based and mostly writing up lab reports on stats. — intrapersona

Yes, there's a bunch of stats and data analysis involved; but, you aren't confined to work in a lab analyzing results on behavioral tests on humans if you don't want to. It's just (and no offence to the psych majors) a more valuable degree than one in psychology alone.

That problem can be solved ad hoc by a simulation of the entire workings of the human brain. This will be as close to real AI as one can get. — Question

Won't solve qualia though which is necessary for proving emotional reception.

Qualia are epiphenomena or emergent properties distinct for every human being; but, shared through language. Nothing private there as long as there is a consensus about what we are talking about, which is always open to revision.

Where does this emergent property exist though? It is running on the brain, but it's existence is not to be found in there. Like a projector projecting on a screen, the content is not the 1s and 0s that trigger photons from the aperture but is the image on the screen and as of yet we can't seem to locate where this screen is yet we exist there all our lives.

Qualia is needed for proof of emotional reception... see this video i uploaded:

Where does this emergent property exist though? — intrapersona

In the brain, where else?

Qualia is needed for proof of emotional reception... — intrapersona

Qualia are what one can describe as phenomenological experience. It is unique for every individual. Even identical twins will experience the color 'red' differently; but, never be able to know the difference between how another person experiences it apart from agreeing on the social convention that the word 'red' entails what they mean. This is different than the fact that 'red' is the color with the wavelength of 650 nm.