Sociology 303
Sociological Theory
Spring 2003
Dr. Scott SchafferFirst Oral Examination – Thurs Feb 20/2003, 1130am to 1245pm, 230pm to 345pm, Susquehanna House 105 (Schaffer’s office)
Guidelines: The five questions below are the questions on which you’ll be examined. In groups of three, you’ll come in, and I will ask each person one question at random. That person will have four (4) minutes to provide me with an argument-based response to that question; the other two people will take notes on the speaker’s response. Those people will then provide commentary or ask questions of the speaker’s response, who will then respond to the commentary or question. The process will then be repeated for the other two people.
You will be allowed one (1) 4” x 6” note card for each question (so five in total), and can write anything you like on them; these will be collected after the exam. In developing your response, be sure that you utilize evidence provided in the Weber and Warburton books including page and paragraph numbers for the evidence you use.
Your responses will be evaluated on the basis of the following elements: the strength and clarity of the response to the question; the use of evidence in supporting that response and the explanation of how that evidence supports your response; and the accuracy of your reading of the evidence. The ability to respond to commentary and/or questions will also be evaluated in terms of its accuracy, clarity, and the directness of the response. People’s commentary and questions will also be evaluated in terms of how germane and insightful they are to the response. The reverse side of this sheet includes the evaluation form I will use to compute your oral exam grade.
The questions: Be sure to develop clear and direct responses to each of these questions, including evidence taken directly from the Weber and Warburton texts. Also, be sure to evaluate your responses for potential comments, criticisms or questions.
1. What would Weber look at in observing a social situation? What kinds of processes would be observed? How would they fit together? And what other kinds of social phenomena could you use Weber's theoretical perspective to understand?
2. To what extent do you see either or both of Berlin’s conceptions of freedom working in the development of the Protestant ethic? Be sure to fully develop the criteria by which you’re evaluating something as “positive freedom” or “negative liberty.”
3. To what extent do you see either or both of Berlin’s conceptions of freedom working in Weber’s discussion of the “iron cage” of modern capitalism?
4. How does Weber explain the relationship between the development of the Protestant ethic and the creation of the spirit of capitalism? To what extent do you see this argument as plausible, and why?
5. Given Weber’s overall argument, do you think he would say that American society is “free” or not (and on what basis)?
First Oral Examination – Evaluation Sheet
Name
Question #:
Each of the grades on these eight criteria will count equally in the computation of your exam grade.
Strength and clarity of response to question. How directly did the speaker respond to the question? How well-argued was their response? Did the logic make sense? Did the speaker seem sure about what they were saying?
A B C D F
Use of evidence in support of response. How well did the speaker use evidence from the readings in developing their response?
A B C D F
Explanation of how evidence supports response. How well did the speaker show why their evidence supported what they were saying?
A B C D F
Development of criteria for recognizing concepts. How clearly did the speaker define their concepts and show how they would recognize them?
A B C D F
Accuracy of reading of evidence. How close to commonly accepted readings was the speaker’s interpretation of the texts?
A B C D F
Response to comments, criticism or questions. How clearly and directly did the speaker address comments, criticisms, and questions posed?
A B C D F
Germaneness and insightfulness of questions posed to other respondents. How thoughtful were the questions posed to other speakers?
A B C D F
Other “intangibles” (timing of response, clarity of speech, engagement with other speakers, etc.).
A B C D F
Exam Grade:
A = very well done and thoughtful
B = fairly well done, but somewhat “book report”
C = mostly “book report”
D = poorly prepared and mostly lecture note-based
F = very poorly prepared and incorrect