Political Philosophy

1. ATTENDING STUDENTS: STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EXAM
For attending students, the exam consists in one single written test, which will be held shortly after the end of the course, during an exam session reserved to attending students.

Please note: There will be only one session dedicated to the exam program for attending students: students who do not sit for the written test on the occasion of such a session will have to take the exam on the program for non-attending students.

The written comprises open questions, which are meant to verify the knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and of the topics addressed during classes and discussions as well as the students' capacity to appropriately frame topics and readings with reference to the various objectives pursued by political philosophy. The written test also aims at ascertaining the students' capacity to answer pertinently to specific questions and to summarize their knowledge in a punctual way and without digressions. Moreover, the questions intend to verify the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments and discussed during classes.

More precisely, students are expected to be able to:
- describe the various aims pursued by political philosophy and the role played by the classification of the forms of government within philosophical reflection;
- illustrate and compare the classifications of the political regimes proposed by the selected authors, specifying the methodological approach and the criteria used to develop them;
- outline the ways in which the selected authors account for despotism, clarifying which distinctive features they highlight and how they place despotism within the classification of political regimes;
- clarify why, depending on the endorsed approach, despotism can be qualified both as an analytical category like the other categories of political regimes and as a reference for identifying political regimes that deserve a negative evaluatio, or as a possible degeneration of desirable forms of government;
- evaluate in a comparative way the different accounts of despotism offered by the selected authors considering their plausibility, their implications and their practical relevance;
- explain why, according to the authors who qualify it negatively, despotism is problematic;
- outline the solutions proposed by the selected authors to avoid despotic forms of government or despotic tendencies and evaluate the plausibility and effectiveness of similar solutions.


2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS: STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EXAM
For non-attending students, the exam consists in a single written test, which comprises open questions meant to verify the students' knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and their capacity to answer pertinently to specific questions and to summarize their knowledge in a punctual way and without digressions. Moreover, the questions intend to verify the students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the various topics addressed in the exam materials, to grasp the implications of
the relevant arguments and to assess, also in a comparative way, the adequacy of the different philosophical approaches illustrated in the reading assignments.

More precisely, students are expected to be able to:
- illustrate and compare the classifications of the political regimes proposed by the selected authors, specifying the methodological approach and the criteria used to develop them;
- outline the ways in which the selected authors account for despotism, clarifying which distinctive features they highlight and how they place despotism within the classification of political regimes;
- clarify why, depending on the endorsed approach, despotism can be qualified both as an analytical category like the other categories of political regimes and as a reference for identifying political regimes that deserve a negative evaluatio, or as a possible degeneration of desirable forms of government;
- evaluate in a comparative way the different accounts of despotism offered by the selected authors considering their plausibility, their implications and their practical relevance;
- explain why, according to the authors who qualify it negatively, despotism is problematic;
- outline the solutions proposed by the selected authors to avoid despotic forms of government or despotic tendencies and evaluate the plausibility and effectiveness of similar solutions.


3. ASSESSMENT
The students' answers to the questions included in the written test are evaluated individually and each of them is attributed a grade out of thirty, based on the pertinence and completeness of the answer and the correctness of its content. Answers are assessed also by considering their expository clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the students' proposed arguments.

More precisely, grades are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies and/or excessive irrelevant remarks or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies and/or few irrelevant remarks or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.

The overall grade for the written test is determined by the mean between the grades attributed to each answer. The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.