Talk:Philosophy, politics and economics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Canadian offerings

Wilfrid Laurier University now offers an honours BA in PPE, based on the Oxford model. I've added it to the list in the text, after South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenking (talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Duke and Carolina

Duke and University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill do not award degrees in PPE. At Duke it is a certificate program and a minor only at UNC – Chapel Hill. They should not be included in the list for American universities. --StevyeG 01:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Schools with PPE classes

I removed the following...

The degree is currently offered by universities in the United Kingdom (such as Oxford, York, Durham, Warwick, Kent, UEA, Manchester, Lancaster, Essex, Hull and Open), in the United States (such as Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Wesleyan, Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Eastern Oregon and The King's College), in South Africa (at Stellenbosch and Cape Town), in Canada (at Wilfrid Laurier, University of Western Ontario - King's College, and University of British Columbia), in New Zealand (at Otago), and in Israel (at the Hebrew University). Harvard University's PPE program is termed "Social Studies."

While perhaps of interest to some, I don't see that articles about subjects should list all the schools teaching it. Seems redundant to me. But someone (anonymous editor) did go to quite a bit of effort adding this info, so putting it here at least saves it from oblivion.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As it is a relatively rare major, the schools that offer it are of interest to anyone interested in pursuing a PPE degree. I appreciate that you did "save it from oblivion," but perhaps it should be available to everyone who reads the article, not simply to those burrowing through the discussion, as I did, hoping to find such a list.

Academic decathlete 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Academic decathlete

At the recommendation of User:24.141.164.241, I have created a separate page for a list of schools offering the degree. This is, I'm sure, a compromise to which we can all agree. The information is available to those who would like it, but it is not cluttering the main article.

Academic decathlete 03:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Academic decathlete

I have NO problems with this. I suspect it'll be a victim of early deletion, but not through any agency of mine. My objections to including lists of schools offering the subject in the main article are that [a] it isn't all that rare (there's 25 you know about and added to the list); and [b] it sets a precedent that articles about subjects can become articles advertising schools teaching that subject. Listing the first school to teach the course, and perhaps the first school to teach it outside that first country, is encyclopaedic and valuable. But after the first couple of schools, what do the rest add? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Structure

At the moment this article is dominated by a list of people who hold the degree rather than concentrating on the subject matter (i.e. the degree) itself. I've tagged the list of people accordingly, and have also restructured the page giving priority to the actual subject content sections (history et al.) rather than the list of names which should go at the end. Coldmachine^Talk 11:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the list of examples is fine. It doesn't need a change. If you want proportionality, expand the main part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.168.152 (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-jigging

Removed the External Links section: we don't need to link to every university with the course. Pointless. (See WP:EL). Also removed the internal listing of universities with the class; again, adds nothing and smacks of spam. I think it's enough to say what countries (alphabetised, of course) have the class. Otherwise, would be list universities that teach Zoology or Medicine in the Wikipedia articles about Zoology and Medicine? I think not.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the edit (brevity is good), but the rationale offered by Mr. Monks makes little sense: PPE is a well-known and well-established program that really isn't offered as a dedicated course of study by very many schools. Given that fact, the idea that listing particular PPE programs is on a par with listing every zoology or medicine department in the relevant Wikipedia pages is just silly. Nor is such a list obviously spam, even on an expensive definition of the term. The reference to the Wikipedia external links policy does not support the offered charge of pointlessness, at least not without considerable interpretive gymnastics. Again, I'm fine with the edit for brevity, but I'd appreciate if people either provide plausible rationales for their edits, or at least make their true motivations rather more clear. User:24.141.164.241 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, A, WP:EL. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to list things. If someone wants to find a PPE course in their home country, then Yahoo or Google will do the job fine. Also B, it attracts spam. People inevitably add their links where they see rivals doing the same thing. Do we want every single school in the world teaching this course adding their name to the article? If yes, they how do you decide which other subjects are "special" enough to deserve such treatment? OK, you say zoology isn't special enough. Justify that. What about less common varieties of the subject like marine zoology? Or applied marine zoology? Where do you draw the line? Finally, C, how many schools deserve to be listed? The first five to offer the course? One in each country? All of them? Inevitably this becomes subjective. I submit that saying where the class started is justified in terms of history, but listing every school with the class simply becomes subjective and pointless. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But, such as they are, these are the sources for the article; even if they can be replaced with a survey of the field, that will date; these should not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oxford comma: not appropriate (Requested Move)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I strongly urge this page to be moved to Philosophy, Politics and Economics (ie without the second comma), and this page become the redirect, rather than the other way round?

I am fully aware that I'm stepping into a trans-Atlantic minefield here. But bear me out. Despite the name, the Oxford comma reads oddly to anyone British in simple lists - although I appreciate the reverse is true for the American reader. That argument will never be resolved for all Wikipedia. But for this article it should be clear that we should follow the usage of the University of Oxford, which is to only have one comma in the name of the course. They invented the course, and most of the article relates to the Oxford version.

Does anyone agree? I'd shift the page myself, but fear messing it up. In the meantime I've cut the offensive comma from the first par. ¶ 02:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree - The page title is a effectively a proper noun, so it should be quoted exactly from the original (i.e. Oxford). The Psychology, Philosophy and Physiology degree sets a precedent. (P.S. how do I indent?) MickO'Bants 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Please check WP:MOS and WP:NAME. If these support the change then, whatever, I don't care... Mikker ^(...) 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote from WP:MOS: "If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used." WP:NAME is less specific, though it does say "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" and FWIW WP:NCA makes reference to "the preferred usage" as the guideline in the case of use of full stops. Looks like this vaguely supports what we're suggesting. ¶ 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Mick - start with a colon. ¶ 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone else objects, I really don't mind making the change. Honestly, I doubt most people would even notice. Mikker ^(...) 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, I've put in the request. What'll happen now? How exciting! ¶ 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: pointless move to more ambiguous title. Bubba ditto 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to best close this. As I see it, there's neither consensus to move, nor a policy imperative either way. So leave as is I guess. I've removed it from WP:RM on that basis. Andrewa 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No consensus, but a 3-1 majority in favour, at any rate, which is a start (especially considering it's a pretty arcane issue)... Bubba, I disagree that it's pointless, because the aim is to be more accurate in reflecting the original name of the course. And I dispute that it is more ambiguous. The lack of a serial comma can become ambiguous ("I would like to thank my parents, President Bush and Mariah Carey" being the example) but in this case it isn't. You could possibly say that without the comma the list refers to a) Philosophy and b) Politics and Economics; but this would require the comma to indicate that the list has only two items (as in eg the headline "Bush requests lower tariffs, taxes") and that isn't proper British English as lists in British English as a rule never have just two items separated by a comma. ¶ 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously... there are more important things in life. It has been closed so... let it be :). Mikker ^(...) 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support:clearly the subject orifjinated in the uk, as such its original name should be used, which does not include the second commaGeorgeryall 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why this wasn't moved in the first instance, there seems to be a consensus in favour and the extra comma sticks out like a sore thumb. PPE is the title of a degree program not just a list of subjects. re-requesting move. Billsmith453 (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I note the instance of Oxford's usage above, but am not convinced either that this is official, nor that we should necessarily follow Oxford's official usage. The home page of the program would be more convincing. (I see that the Open University page linked to says If you’re awarded a BA (Hons) Politics Philosophy and Economics you will have developed a set of quantitative and conceptual skills which enable you to understand and analyse complex information. with no commas at all, even the one setting off the conditional clause.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Joe Roff

I have left him in, but according to his article he only matriculated in 2006. It seems unlikely that he already has his degree. Perhaps we should have a separate para for people reading PPE? More seriously, perhaps we should rename the existing section e.g. "People reading or who have read PPE at Oxford". Or perhaps we should just wait until next summer to add him, when presumably he will have got his degree. Rachel Pearce (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he probably has finished - Oxford is a weird place. According to his article, he's already studied at the University of Southern Queensland, so he'd be eligible for Senior Status, which allows you to complete a degree in only two years. According to this interview he started with "two years at Iffley Road" (penultimate para.), and it would make sense to quit rugby in Dec. 2007 before finals this June. I'd suggest we leave him in, and the section title alone. Matt's talk 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

List of PPE graduates

There's a related discussion about this at the cfd of 2008 November 17 (which suggests a self-standing list). In connection with this I have used AWB to produce a list of probable PPE graduates who are perhaps missing from the present list - see Talk:Philosophy, Politics and Economics/list. Occuli (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists

There seem to be two rather unwieldy lists developing on this page, one of places that offer PPE and the other of people that did it. Neither are referenced. I'm going to, for now, relegate the places that offer PPE to a proper list instead of that huge paragraph (I think it's useful info so worth keeping), as well as performing a cull of things that aren't PPE(Philosophy of Political Economy isn't the same) I'm going to try and make a seperate list of people who've done PPE page. Let me know any sensible objections :) Billsmith453 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

oh yeah and both lists could do with proper referencing Billsmith453 (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Exeter) The course PPE (Philosophy and Political Economy) that you are referring to is from Exeter University. This course is based on the Oxford (PPE) and is weighted equally between Politics, Philosophy and Economics. If you look at the course structure here: economics is a larger part of the first year, but less of the other remaining years. Politics and Philosophy are equally between 2nd and 3rd years. The slight difference in name is irrelevant. I studied this course at exeter, and there is minimal difference covered between exeter and oxford. One minor difference is that many people don't realise Exeter offers PPE (before applying I was also unaware until quite late in the process) because there are only about 10 students of PPE per year, much less than Oxford's 250 or so per year.

http://huss.exeter.ac.uk/politics/undergrad/progspec.php?psp_prgc=UFA3HPSHPS14 Also, look at a discussion of people applying to study PPE: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=199348 (Richardcoward (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)) In order to help applicants for PPE it is important to list a fair representative of the universities with those courses offered.

On another note, I don't think it is a good idea to list all of the universities with each particular course. Just because PPE is a rare course it should not follow that it should have in depth details on all universities that offer it. Rather, it would be better to create a new section/guide with the universities and the courses offered. (A Kind of guide for prospective undergraduates would be really useful - like www.wikijob.co.uk)

Would anyone be interested in creating a www.wikiuniversity.com?) I am arguing that if a list of universities does exist, it is fair to give a justified representation of this. Exeter University does offer PPE.(Richardcoward (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

List of universities that offer PPE

There seems to be a bit of a fight about which universities that offer PPE to include in the lead. Maybe we should create an article List of universities that offer the PPE degree and move all of them there? Mikker ^... 12:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Added Exeter University for reasons in 13 (Lists) (Richardcoward (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Career Opportunities or Practical Applications

Does anyone think that it would be relevant to include a section on the practical uses of the major, due to its relatively broad nature? I say this because I am a PPEL major at the University of Richmond, and I came to this page hoping to find some information on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.133.44 (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC) by practical applications I mean career opportunities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.132.233 (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

PPE Schools

Hi there, Im thinking of adding informations of how it is teached at various schools. For example, PPE (called PEP here: political and economic philosophy) at the university of Bern, where i study, is available only as a so-called non-consecutive master programm (in switzerland: 2-year graduate programm which leads to the master degree, PhD programms can follow, but are separated) for students with a bachelor degree in politology, economy or philosophy. its "role model" was the oxford and cambridge PPE studies. a separate PhD PEP programm does not exist and needs to be done as a normal PhD in Philosophy. As my English is quite bad, as you see, maybe one of you could think of adding informations alike? 84.74.145.251 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Planetism

In light of the economic woes befalling the Western World and the shift of economic strength to the Far East, coupled with the alarming effect mankind is having on this beautiful planet leeds me to promote a radical shift in human behaviour - worldwide.

Just because you CAN (do this or that / buy this thing / go to this place, etc.) does not mean it is RIGHT (for our Planet) - A Planetism Cry.

Each and every action we take must move us closer to our Planets needs and balance and not our own. Planetism promotes a monetary system tied directly to our planet elements, which in turn makes the individual responsible and responsive to their Planet. We have not much time left and Planet Earth is on a course to nil support for humans if we ignore the drastic effects we are wrecking upon this globe - at our own peril. The oil is fast running out and we sit around and just cannot see the overall picture of devastation this single commodity loss will bring. Planetism requires United Nations support, is not akin to any political bent, does not require guns to enforce it, but promotes common sense from all to ensure the natural balance is kept that way for us and for all future generations of mankind and the Planet its very self.____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.163.100 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever people may think of this sentiment, is this comment relevant here? Ollie Cromwell (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

How sure we Bill Clinton didn't get PPE degree? I've read several sources that he did graduate (well, if my memory serves me correctly...). I'll check later in "My Life" but perhaps someone can provide refs? Mikkerpikker 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he was a Rhodes Scholar, which usually means one year at Oxford (Clinton extended, some say to avoid the Vietnam draft), as part of a course based in the US - so he did much of the PPE syllabus, but didn't take finals to be awarded a degree in PPE at Oxford. But this version of events should really be checked by reference to his autobiography Ollie Cromwell (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Details of random PPE programs...

I've just reverted edits by User:Aliwalla on PPE at UCT because I just don't think it is notable enough. (For the record, I did PPE at UCT). What this article shouldn't become is a long list of random material on what the various PPE programs are like at various universities. I think including the Oxford PPE makes sense (because it emerged there) but I think all the other detail about PPE programs should go. Mikker ^(...) 02:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

—UCT is one of the top 250 universities in this world, and the premier tertiary institute in Africa. To not describe it an only describe the Oxford degree smacks of HUGE elitism and goes into much deeper issues. My opinion is either describe them all and their nuances or describe none. Remember this is supposed to be global encyclopedia. Also, the course is described at LSE, York and Jerusalem, why not Cape Town? I wont rerevert until i hear your response. --Aliwalla 10:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're perfectly correct, if the LSE, York & Jerusalem details can stay, so should UCT's. But what I'm saying in my post is that none of them should be in this article. Wikipedia is not a list of random material like details on course structures. It seems clear to me that Wikipedia's notability guidelines rule out inclusion of detailed information of this type. On the Oxford PPE: perhaps you're right - maybe what we need is a history of PPE (including bits about PPE structure at Oxford) and then a general discussion of PPE course structures. What I want to avoid, you see, is this article becoming 'At York PPE works like this, at UCT like that, at the University of Australia it is done in another way, Jerusalem prefers yonder structure...'. And the reason I think we should avoid this is that PPE (or programs called PPE - there is a difference) are offered in hundreds of universities around the world, and there seems no obvious stopping point to adding content if you let any of it in. Mikker ^(...) 01:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

agreed and adjusted, by the way, isn't the course offered at Rhodes as well? --Aliwalla 16:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm... I have no idea. Back in the day when I applied to college & researched a bunch of unis, UCT was the only one offering PPE. It may well have, so too has Wits (or whatever it's called now) I think. Mikker ^(...) 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Do people here think there is a case for a separate page on PPE at Oxford University?Ollie Cromwell (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Latin

I'll need to check, but when did Oxford stop requiring Latin 'O'-level for admission (to any course)? Is it, in other words, tryue that the introduction of PPE meant that people could read philosophy without having to learn Latin? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The requirement was dropped in 1960, but it was a requirement to have either a Latin or a Greek 'O'-level, thus the introduction of PPE did result in people no longer having to learn Latin, as they could do Greek instead. --User:Antoniosteve (User talk:Antoniosteve) 13:42, 17 May 2006 (GMT+1)

It may have been dropped for the Faculty of Science in 1960 but Latin O-level was required by other faculties until a later date. There was still a requirement to understand Latin for some entrance examinations in the mid 1960s and probably much later. Perhaps candidates who had failed Latin O-level could still be admitted?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Article title

Why is this article not called 'Philosophy, Politics and Economics'? It's not about philosophy, politics, and economics. It's about a specific course with a specific proper noun. Not only is the lower case incorrect, but the serial comma is definitely wrong. I understand this has previously been addressed, with the consensus in favour of removing it. In support of removing it is the fact that every single British university (where it is was established and is still best known) does not have the comma.

Evidence here: http://www.york.ac.uk/pep/undergraduate/degree-programmes/philosophy-politics-economics/ http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/courses/philosophy_politics_and_economics/philosophy_politics.html http://www.dur.ac.uk/ppe/ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/depta2z/philosophy/lv00/ http://www.uea.ac.uk/eco/masters_degrees/masters_courses/ppe http://www.manchester.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/search2013/bysubject/course/?code=00154 http://www.lancs.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/philosophy-politics-and-economics-ba-hons-l0v0/ http://www.essex.ac.uk/coursefinder/course_details.aspx?course=BA++L0V0 http://www2.hull.ac.uk/ug/next_1/a-z_course_list/view_courses_beginning_with_p.aspx http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/qualification/q45.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.21.157 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, indisputable sources anyway. Moving. - blake- 09:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This page has recently been moved contrary to the reasoning above and the hidden comment «The name of the program always takes initial caps. The caps use is backed up by like all the sources. DO NOT REMOVE THE CAPS. Also see talk page section "Article title"» "Philosophy, Politics and Economics" is a brief way of referring to a university course which would be capitalised in the documents about it issued by each university.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Philosophy, Politics and Economics" is a brief way of referring to a university course which would be capitalised in the documents about it issued by each university. How is that not engaging in the specialized-style fallacy? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)