Sunday, May 4, 2014

APO 2014 Winners Go On To IPO 2014

Congratulations to Daniel Gottlieb and Elizabeth Mordkovich, winning essay writers of the 2014 American Philosophy Olympiad, APO VIII. Lisa and Dan will represent the USA in Vilnius, Lithuania in May 2014 along with students from 42 other countries!
Home
We, the committee members of the APO, want to extend our sincere thanks to all students who have submitted essays in French or Spanish -- there were none in German this year.* Thank you for participating in the 2014 APO H.S. Philosophy Essay Writing Contest. There have been so many interesting essays to read and evaluate this year that it has been a very difficult task for our committee to make our final decision on the top two essays. Nevertheless, we have made our decisions.

The winning APO 2014 essays were written by Elizabeth Mordkovich from NJ who wrote in Spanish and Daniel Gottlieb from NY who wrote in French. Honorable Mention and Participant certificates will be sent to the other young philosophers who have submitted their essays to the APO this year.

The USA participated in the IPO for four non-continuous years between 1999 and 2003. After a hiatus of almost ten years, this is the fourth year of continuous participation. The American Philosophical Association is the sponsor of APO VIII.

For a good idea of what the IPO is and how it works, I offer you two links to search. 

The first link includes the topics from the IPO 2013 in Denmark. This will give you a good idea of the types of questions students will be asked to write about in Vilnius this year. Also, in this website, you can find the winning essays from IPO 2013. Read one of them to see the type of writing that is highly valued in this competition. The second link is for this year's event. Have fun with them and watch for news and photos from Vilnius coming up later this month. 

We look forward to your comments! 

-----oOo-----

*The official languages of the IPO are English, French, German, and Spanish. One may not write an essay in one's own native language at the IPO competition. Therefore, the official languages of the APO are French, German, and Spanish.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

What counts as a philosophical topic?

Someone recently left me a comment with the question that I'm using as a title for this post. People disagree, but I will be very broad with my answer .

Any question that would have to do, at least, with the following branches or areas of inquiry qualifies as a philosophical topic:

Questions of what there is, really.
What's the fundamental nature of the universe? Mind, body, free will, God, causality....

Questions of what to do.
What's moral, aesthetic, ethical value?
Right and wrong, intrinsic good, moral objectivity or subjectivity....

Questions that have to do with knowledge.
What's knowledge?
Certainty, reason, experience, justification....

Questions about correct reasoning.
What is the nature and structure of reasoning?
Formal rules, inferences, arguments, logic....

Does that help?

By the way, the APO essay for 2014 is due on March 15. This is an extended deadline.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Extended Due Date for 2014 APO Essay Contest

D-E Pre-College Philosophy Club 2014

We have extended the due date for the "2014 H.S. Philosophy Essay Writing  Contest" (APO Essay Contest). It is March 15, 2014. Letters of recommendation are also due with the essays. All other information can be found in the previous post in this American Pre-College Philosophy (AP-CP) blog.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

APO H.S. Philosophy Essay Contest

We are announcing the American Philosophy Olympiad's HS Philosophy Essay. Brochures are going out in paper and electronic formats. This short blog post is the first electronic vehicle for it in a PDF format. All the information you will need to get started is here. This is the qualifier for the International Philosophy Olympiad 2014 in Lithuania. Good luck! Click here.

Monday, February 18, 2013

D-E School Qualifies for National HS Ethics Bowl 2012-13!

Some very exciting news for Dwight-Englewood School (www.d-e.org): We have qualified for the National High School Ethics Bowl 2012-13. We'll compete at UNC at Chapel Hill. Follow the link here to read all about it. I'll blog about this in more depth later. http://nhseb.unc.edu/

Congratulations to Jamie, Josh, Matt and Phoebe.



Will You or Your Students Qualify for IPO 2013?


In 2011, the International Philosophy Olympiad was celebrated in Vienna, Austria. It was the first time the USA participated in almost a decade. The USA sent two students. Last year, IPO was celebrated in Oslo, Norway. This year it’s in Odense, Denmark in May. Two American students may qualify. Two is the maximum number of students any country, except for the host country, may send to participate.

In order to participate, an American high school student must study philosophy and be able to write well in French, German, or Spanish. English is the only other official language of the IPO, but a competitor may not write in his or her national language. There is no official language of the USA, but English is the de facto language of this country. In 2011, the two American competitors wrote in Spanish.

The infrastructure of the American Philosophy Olympiad is not yet totally organized as a national competition the way we want it to be, but we are participating and evolving. If you would like to participate in APO 2013 for a chance to qualify for IPO 2013, follow the information in the flyer below. Or, if you are a pre-college philosophy teacher, you may follow the same information to share it with your students. Good luck.



Sunday, December 16, 2012

HS Ethics Bowl at Stevens Institute of Technology

L to R: Josh Davis, Phoebe Mattana, Joe Murphy, Jamie Spingeld, Matt Wang
at Stevens Institute of Technology

The Stevens Institute Ethics Bowl on Saturday 12/15/12 was a great experience for my students. It was Dwight-Englewood School’s first. Now we have one under our belts and will proceed to deepen our knowledge and practice.

I had been skeptical of Ethics Bowl events, competitions. My a priori opinion was that they were competitive events similar to high school competitive debates in which an affirmative or a negative side is defended regardless of one’s own real considered view. One in which a position is defended because it is the one assigned to the speaker or her team.  I imagined them to be more argumentative for the sake of it and positional rather than open, sincerely considered, and reasoned philosophically. I was wrong. Ethics Bowls are competitions, yes, but they are genuine, well reasoned and philosophical. They are competitions in which both competitive sides may actually agree, bow to the other’s greater reasoning or, perhaps, adopt the opponent’s argument and try to further it. Their energy and excitement, even maybe their passion is competitive, but their spirit, their deeper motivation and reasoning is philosophical to the best of their pre-collegiate, adolescent, but intelligent ability.

I am grateful to Roberta Israeloff of the Squire Family Foundation for being persistent with me. She listened to my a priori skepticism about Ethics Bowl competitions and understood and paid attention to some of my concerns. But she was gently tenacious.  After about a year of discussions, Roberta invited me to judge an Ethics Bowl event at Malloy College on Long Island in New York. I did that last year. I came away not only with an understanding of Ethics Bowls, but with enthusiasm for their goals and the process. Also, I can now imagine what the High School Ethics Bowl may become and how it may evolve. I appreciate it now and am committed to its further development.

The week after I returned from Malloy College I spoke to one of my students. Josh Davis had taken my Ethics course that year as a sophomore – it’s a required course for all sophomores at Dwight-Englewood. In a Friday afternoon conversation I briefly explained to Josh what an Ethics Bowl is, as I had come to understand it. I gave him an essay about it and a few websites addresses with videos for him to watch over the weekend. I told him to take a look at the essay or one of the videos. If he found himself becoming intrigued, pursue it, I encouraged him. Then talk to me on Monday if you're interested. When Josh came in to see me on Monday, he asked me how we could form a Ethics Bowl team at our school. He was intrigued and I smiled.

We created an Ethics Bowl Club through the normal channels at school. Josh recruited more than 20 club members. About half of them have become serious members. Since September we've been meeting once or twice a week. The most serious members read two books I recommended (a brief history of philosophy and an introduction to ethics beyond the book we used in our sophomore course). They also watched college and high school videos about Ethics Bowls and some actual events. We talked a lot and eventually started to prepare some cases for the Ethics Bowl at Stevens.

On Saturday, 15 December, there were 18 teams that came together at Stevens to ‘compete’. Each ‘debate’ or formalized dialogue could end in a win, tie, or lose. Beyond that, teams were also assigned points for various aspect of their discussion style and philosophical argumentation. I will quote from the Stevens Institute of Technology HS Ethics Bowl description of How to Debate. This is found on the SIT website. Dr. Michael Steinmann is the director of the Ethics Bowl at Stevens.

“Discussions are not structured as pro/con debates. Therefore, teams do not have to defend one specific position, and they also do not have to disagree. Rather, they have to compete in their analysis of the problem and in bringing about the best answer or solution. A team's performance will be judged according to the following criteria:
·         Clarity of the presentation
·         Awareness of the complexity of ethical problems involved in each case
·         Feasibility of practical solutions
·         Creativity in imagining the different stakeholder concerns related to a case, and in presenting a solution that is both sensitive to these concerns and opens a new way of thinking or acting
·         Capacity to engage in a fruitful and serious discussion with the other team and the judges.”

Of the 18 teams who met at Stevens on this Saturday in 2012, only four had two wins each. D-E was one of them. The 18 teams were divided into two groups, one of eight and the other of ten teams. Group 1 had two teams with two wins each: Middlesex 1 with 92 points and Piscataway 1 with 91 points. Group 2 had two teams with two wins each: Middlesex 2 with 96 points and Dwight-Englewood with 93 points. So, depending on how one looks at this, D-E placed either second – with number of wins and points – or third – because the top team from each group debated in the final. But there were also two schools with one win and one tie each with high point scores, too: Ridge 1 and Ridge 2 with 101 and 97 points respectively. Middlesex 1 and Middlesex 2 did the final debate. Middlesex 1 will go to the National Competition in North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the spring of 2013.



But for us at D-E more important than any of the competition was the actual preparation in ethical thinking and discussion at school and also the consideration we gave to the cases. Finally, the actual formal discussion/dialogue/debate between the two teams at the event deepened our team's thoughts about the ethical problems presented in each of the cases and about the language and concepts we used to address the problems. After the event was over we started to do some self-reflection that took into consideration our own thoughts, feelings, values, language style and conceptual framing of the problems and the event. We'll continue this and deepen it in our Ethics Bowl Club meeting on Monday.