On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 20:07, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2020-05-24 23:46, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:50 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 2020-05-24 15:44, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> An Associate of Nomic degree SHOULD be awarded for a thesis that > >>> adds > >>> appreciably to Agoran culture, but fails to qualify for another > >>> degree. > >>> Baccalaureate level degrees (which include the J.N) SHOULD be > >>> awarded when > >>> the thesis demonstrates a substantial contribution, Magisteriate > >>> degrees > >>> for a remarkable contribution, and Doctorate degrees for an > >>> exceptional > >>> contribution. Any degree at the Doctorate level SHOULD take into > >>> account > >>> the awardee's academic history and participation in Agora over > >>> time. > >> > >> I'm not sure the majority of this paragraph is really necessary. This > >> doesn't really add any more specificity to the system we already use. If > >> you're intent on keeping it, though, maybe describe to what exactly the > >> "contribution" should go. As it stands right now, though, I think it's > >> unnecessary. The last sentence is good though; it gives more meaning to > >> the Doctorate level and its standards. > > > > It may not be necessary, but I want there to be text somewhere that > > explains the standard. What's the difference? It isn't written down > > anywhere. I'd prefer for the rule to be as specific as I can make it, > > given our admittedly vague standards. At least this way there are a > > set of recommendations. > > I guess I didn't explain myself very well. My point is that I don't > think we need to codify this in a separate paragraph. The hierarchy of > degrees should imply on its own that each level is a greater > contribution, and the paragraph that defines it in the rule is no more > clear than the list itself. Besides, I think that some things in Agora, > for instance the understanding of what merits which degree, *should* be > completely informal. Maybe this is not a valid point because the > proposal doesn't actually limit anything. I just still feel like it's a > bit unnecessary. > > -- > Trigon
Could someone comment on how well the proposed text matches how degrees have been awarded in the past? It seems reasonable to gradually codify more details of a tradition as the decades pass, but probably only if the text describes the tradition accurately. - Falsifian
