Originally posted by twiceaknightDepends on the question, and the year. When I examine first years I ask specific questions, where I'm looking for specific answers. If they've read around and can give me more than I lectured to them they get extra marks.
You have to meet the assessment criteria. That is all. Nothing more , nothing less. OK, your ideas can be accepted if you can back them up, but i think this is unlikely to improve your grades unless it in some way demonstrates that you have understood the content of the syllabus. It is this demonstration of understanding that they need to see, so they c ...[text shortened]... idity. I think some people in this thread are confusing "validity" with "credibility."
If it's a higher year I ask more open-ended questions. I leave it more up to their interpretation. Anything is open game, they could claim that the moon is made of green cheese, and IF they could construct an answer, based upon empirical evidence, that the moon is indeed made of green cheese which is significantly better than the evidence that the moon is not made out of green cheese, I'd give them the mark. Of course, if they told me the moon wasn't made of green cheese, and cited a sourse, they'd also get a mark, and for much less work.
PhD students get told to go away and read, then come and tell me what they want to do.
Originally posted by davidtravellingDepends on what topic you're discussing, and whether or not their qualification matches
...to the validity of a person's argument?
I dont believe so, just because someone has academic qualifications does not mean that their point is any more valid than anyone else's. however, it seems that some posters on this sight seem to have a slight hang up over their and other people's qualifications.