Students
CUL 399 – Sex, Death and Politics: The Ethics of Our Lives
2016 – S2 Day
General Information
Download as PDF
| Unit convenor and teaching staff |
Unit convenor and teaching staff
Lecturer
Dr Undine Sellbach
Contact via The quickest way to contact me is via email. My office phone phone is: (02) 9850 2118.
Y3A: room 152.
Wednesdays: 12 - 2pm
Tutor
Dr Dennis Bruining
Contact via Email
|
|---|---|
| Credit points |
Credit points
3
|
| Prerequisites |
Prerequisites
39cp
|
| Corequisites |
Corequisites
|
| Co-badged status |
Co-badged status
|
| Unit description |
Unit description
This unit is about the common (yet often scandalous) dilemmas or big issues we confront or have to ethically decide upon in our everyday lives. For example, why do we, or would we, decide to have an affair or a one night stand, and with who? Why do we decide to have kids, or not? Why do we decide to work, or be educated? Why do we decide it is important to prolong human life, or not (euthanasia)? From health; environment; science, to adultery; marriage; abortion; religion, war; sport, work and education, this unit will draw on a number of theoretical/philosophical and literary writers, as well as ethical and practical approaches, to debate how and why we make the decisions we do; why we think some decisions are more important than others, and how do we find the wisdom to decide that? How are we influenced by media and politicians, religion and society, family and friends? And are these decisions emotionally, instinctively, or rationally made?
|
Important Academic Dates
Information about important academic dates including deadlines for withdrawing from units are available at https://www.mq.edu.au/study/calendar-of-dates
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of this unit, you will be able to:
- 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
- 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
- 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
- 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
- 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.
General Assessment Information
Extensions and Penalties:
You are required to submit all assessment tasks on or before the due date. No extension will be granted unless a formal Disruption to Studies application has been approved. Students who submit late work without an extension will receive a penalty of 10% per day. This penalty does not apply for cases in which an application for Disruption to Studies is made and approved.
The Disruption to Studies procedure can be found at: http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/disruption_studies/procedure.html
The Disruption to Studies Notification must be completed by the student and submitted online through www.ask.mq.edu.au
Assignment Submission:
The Debate Summary(Assessment 1) AND The Final Essay (Assessment 4) should be uploaded through turn-it-in on the i-learn site.
The Team Debates (Assessment 2) take place during the intensive mode during the break.
Participation Collaboration Rubrics (Assessment 3) will be distributed in class during the mid semester intensives, and are to be returned in class in week 8.
Important: Be sure to keep a copy of all your work submitted. Keep copies on disk or USB until the unit is over and you have received your final grade from the University.
Assessment Tasks
| Name | Weighting | Due |
|---|---|---|
| Debate Paper Summary | 20% | Sunday, 18 Sept |
| TEAM DEBATES | 30% | Sept 28-30 (in class) |
| PARTICIPATION-COLLABORATION | 15% | Friday, 7th October |
| FINAL ESSAY | 35% | Sunday, 23rd Oct |
Debate Paper Summary
Due: Sunday, 18 Sept
Weighting: 20%
ASSESSMENT 1: Debate Summary Paper
This paper will constitute the basic research and written arguments you will be making for your oral team debate.
Instructions:
Write 800 words outlining the position you will be taking/making within the context of your team debate. This paper should develop the arguments you will be making for your team (your argument will need to be different from, yet compliment, the arguments made by other members on your team).
In your paper you need to describe your argument, contextualise it in relation to arguments made by your other team members, discuss HOW you are going to argue your position, and WHAT research you will be drawing on to make your argument.
You will need to reference (in-text referencing), and include a Bibliography drawing on all of the essential and some of the further readings.
Further information about this assessment will be discussed in the lectorial, and via the CUL399 iLearn site.
Grading Criteria for this assessment:
You will be graded on the following:
1. The structure of your argument in relation to your team members arguments. For example, you need to develop an argument that is different from your other team members, but that will contribute to your overall team debate, and therefore compliment your team members arguments.
2. The quality of your analysis and argumentation and your fluency on your chosen topic of debate.
3. The use of appropriate evidence and theory to support your claims and arguments, drawn from the unit's required and recommended readings and/or media, and other relevant sources.
4. The structure of your essay: a clear statement of its aims (in the introduction); clear organisation (in a logical order and with a clearly flowing discussion); distinctive and clear argument, and a well-stated conclusion.
5. Use of scholarly referencing and bibliography, as well as the presentation of your paper in terms of format, spelling, syntax, grammar and expression.
On successful completion you will be able to:
- 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
- 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
- 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
- 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
TEAM DEBATES
Due: Sept 28-30 (in class)
Weighting: 30%
ASSESSMENT 2: Team Debates (same topic as the debate summary).
Instructions:
Depending on class numbers, you will form teams of 2, 3 or 4, and in lectorials (and outside class) will spend time with your team working on your arguments around one of the lecture topics from Weeks 1-7.
During the mid-semester break teams will debate each other on a chosen topic. The debate will be formally structured with a designated time keeper and adjudicator, and the team will be given a set time in which to present their arguments.
Your debate summary (assessment 1) will be an opportunity to develop your arguments in preparation for the team debate. Students who submit their debate summaries on time, will receive feedback on their arguments and analysis, before they give their oral debate presentations (assignment 2).
HOWEVER, for the purposes of your oral debate, it will not be adequate to simply read out your debate summary. For a start, you will have no more than 4 mins to make your point (An 800 word debate paper is approximately 8-10 mins read out).
In your debate presentation you are required to engage directly with your audience and the other speakers, to summarise your argument in a way that is clear and effective for your team debate (including expressive eye contact, body language), and convey a depth of understanding of your topic.
PLEASE NOTE: That students only have to attend one of the 3 days allocated for the team debates in the mid-semester break. The particular day of that your team debate takes place will be decided in class during semester. The days allocated are: Weds 28, Thurs 29, and Fri 30 September. Further information about this assessment will be discussed in the lectorial, and via the CUL399 iLearn site.
Grading Criteria for this assessment
You will be graded on the following:
1. The fluency and lucidity in which you speak and present your arguments.
2. Your ability to communicate your understanding (through argument, research and content) of your topic so that you are able to engage your audience.
3. Your ability to be able to use or refer to the other points your team members make in your presentation in order to contextualise or extend your own arguments where appropriate.
4. Your ability to rebut the arguments of the other team (either in person, or in collaboration with your team members).
On successful completion you will be able to:
- 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
- 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
- 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
- 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
- 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.
PARTICIPATION-COLLABORATION
Due: Friday, 7th October
Weighting: 15%
ASSESSMENT 3: Participation Collaboration
This assessment requires you to peer-review and grade the other members of your debate team on how much they collaborated and the quality of their collaboration. You will be provided rubrics to help you grade and you will also need to justify this grade by writing a 1 page report on the contribution of each team member. You are expected to attend lectorials where you will be working in your groups, and therefore will be graded on your participation in lectorials as well.
A detailed description/instruction of this assessment task, the rubric and report, and instructions on how to submit will be discussed in class during semester, and put on ilearn.
Grading Criteria for this assessment
Your participation collaboration will be graded by your peers according to the following criteria:
1. Your contribution to developing the argument towards the team debate.
2. Your contribution of team member to research towards the team debate (finding articles, books, media coverage, etc).
3. The time spent with team members developing the debate in lectorials and outside class (face-to-face and online).
On successful completion you will be able to:
- 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
FINAL ESSAY
Due: Sunday, 23rd Oct
Weighting: 35%
ASSESSMENT 4: Final Essay (2500 words)
The Final Essay will build on, but expand, the arguments you made in your team debate. This Essay is a research-based, analytic, evaluative and critically self-reflective assessment task that requires you to communicate, by academic scholarly means, your ideas via well-reasoned arguments, while taking into consideration various scholarly viewpoints.
In the essay, it is required that you either:
1) build on your debate topic by arguing, analysing and evaluating both sides of the debate. To do so, you should outline a range of for and against positions that are generally taken in relation to the particular topic of your choice, and take a position by arguing which side of the debate you find most convincing and why.
Or
2) write a critically self-reflective essay on the nuances and complications that arose when arguing for only one side of the topic debate before an audience of peers. What problems did you encounter? What were the difficulties of taking a position you might of disagreed with? What did you learn about argumentation? What did you learn about the side you had to argue for? Did you learn to respect the other side of the argument? Or was your own position reinforced further? What did you learn from the experience of presenting an argument as part of a team, before an audience of peers?
Further information about this assessment will be discussed in the lectorial, and via the CUL399 iLearn site.
Grading Criteria for this assessment
Your essay will be graded on the following criteria
1. Your understanding of general ethical concepts and theories explored in the course, in the context of your chosen topic.
2. Your demonstration of reflective, analytic and evaluative skills.
3. The quality of your argumentation and analysis and your fluency on the cultural issue which you have chosen to write.
4. The structure of your essay: a clear statement of its aims (in the introduction); clear organisation (in a logical order and with a clearly flowing discussion); distinctive and clear argument, and a well-stated conclusion.
5. The use of appropriate theory and evidence to support your claims and arguments, drawn from the unit's required and recommended readings and other media, as well as other relevant sources.
6. Use of scholarly referencing and bibliography, as well as the clear presentation of your paper in terms of format, spelling, syntax, grammar and expression.
On successful completion you will be able to:
- 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
- 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
- 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
- 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.
Delivery and Resources
DELIVERY
Lectorial Location: Y3A T1 - Theatre
Day: Fridays (from Weeks 1-8)
Time: 4 -6pm
From Week 1-8, the 2 hour lectorials will comprise of interactive lectures with Q&A, problem and enquiry based group work, debate team work, feedback and assessment guidance.
IMPORTANT (Please Read):
During the second week of the mid-semester break, 3 full days have been put aside for students to present and debate the topic they have chosen.
The days are: Weds 28rd, Thurs 29th and Fri 30th.
These debates will take place in C5C Collaborative Forum.
PLEASE NOTE: Students do not have to attend all 3 days. You will need to attend for one the 3 days and present on your debate topic. The day you attend will be allocated in the lectorials during semester.
I-learn site:
There is a CUL399 i-learn website, which can be accessed at: http://learn.mq.edu.au/
The i-learn site will contain the following, all of which can be downloaded: Unit Outline, Weekly Schedule of Lecture Topics, Assessment details, Essay Writing Tips, Essential and Further Reading Lists.
Also on the i-learn site you will be able to access ECHO360 and Turn-It-In, through which you will submit: Assessment 1 (Debate Summary) AND Assessment 3 (Final Essay).
Attendance:
There are no tutorials for this unit, there is only a 2 hour lectorial once a week. Lectorials are lively and interactive with Q&A and problem solving group work taking place.
Team debate groups will also be formed and practiced during this time. Not attending class will put you at a disadvantage. Therefore it is strongly recommended that students attend the lectorials unless the student has spoken to the convenor beforehand, or has evidence of sickness or unavoidable disruption. Not attending may affect your group 'Participation-Collaboration' and your team debate assessment. There will be a roll taken in lectures.
CUL399 also requires that students follow the unit on iLearn and stay informed of special announcements and additional information posted there, by regularly checking your student emails.
ALL questions and concerns about CUL399 should be emailed to the convenor Dr. Undine Sellbach, whose email can be e found on i-Learn.
Assignment Submission:
The Debate Summary(Assessment 1) AND The Final Essay (Assessment 4) should be uploaded through turn-it-in on the i-learn site.
The Team Debates (Assessment 2) take place during the intensive mode during the break.
Participation Collaboration Rubrics (Assessment 3) will be distributed in class during the mid semester intensives, and are to be returned in class in week 8.
RESOURCES: REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED
IMPORTANT (Please Read):
In preparation for the lectorials you should read (watch or listen to) TWO of the REQUIRED RESOURCES each week.
Depending on the particular debate topic that you choose to explore in detail, you can also draw on the longer list provided under Recommended Resources. Additional resources will also be provided in class.
Chapters and journal articles are available via the unit reading list for CUL399, Macquarie University Library. Links have are provided below to open access media articles and interviews.
‘Thou Shalt Not?’ The Adultery Debate
Required
John Mizzoni, ‘Introduction’ and ‘Relative Ethics or Universal Ethics’, in Ethics: The Basics, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 1 -7, and pp. 8-14.
Angela Willey, “Introduction,” Undoing Monogamy: The Politics of Science and the Possibilities of Biology, Duke University Press, 2016.
Laura Kipnis, ‘A spectre is haunting the nation – the spectre of adultery’, Critical Inquiry 24 (Winter 1998), pp. 289-327.
Lamont, T ‘Life after the Ashley Madison Affair,’ The Guardian, Feb 28, 2016
Recommended
Kanazawa, S and Still, MC. 'Why Monogamy?', in Social Forces, Vol.78, No.1 (Sep., 1999), pp.25-50.
Lawson, A and Samson, C, 1988, ‘Age, Gender and Adultery’, in The British Journal of Sociology, Vol.39, No.3 (Sep., 1988), pp.409-440
Greer, G. ‘Gay or not, nupitals are now divorced from sense.’ Sydney Morning Herald, April 20, 2013
Anderson, Nancy C. ‘Four Slippery Steps to Adultery’, on The Christian Broadcasting Network, 2013.
Siegel, MJ, 1992, 'For Better or For Worse: Adultery, Crime & The Constitution', in Journal of Family Law, Vol.30 [1991-1992], pp.45-95
Gould, E, Moav, O and Simhon, A. 'The Mystery of Monogamy'. London, Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2004.
Lena Williams, ‘A New Level of Tolerance for Adultery’, New York Times, Jan 1996.
‘Rainbow Warriors:’ The Same Sex Marriage Debate
Required
Richardson-Self, L. ‘Coming out and fitting in: Same-Sex marriage and the Politics of Difference’, Journal of Media Culture, Vol 15, no 6, 2012.
‘I do, a panel discussion on Queer Cultural Activism’ Afterimage, Vol 42, no 1. 28 – 36.
Ex-Prime Minister Julia Gillard is not in favour of same sex marriage. To hear her reasons, follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7h15h6P370&feature=related
In contrast, Former High Court Judge Michael Kirby (who was also once Chancellor of Macquarie University) holds opposite views. See them by following this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnob37XBHrQ
Recommended
Michel Foucault, ‘We Other Victorians’ and ‘The Repressive Hypothesis’ in The History of Sexuality Vol 1, pp. 3-13, and 17-35, respectively.
Jagose, A. ‘The trouble with Gay Marriage,’ The Conversation, Nov 7, 2013.
Chait, J. ‘Miss Guided: Carrie Prejean and other anti-gay-marriage intellectuals’, in The New Republic, June 17, 2009.
Craig R. Dean JD, ‘Gay Marriage’, in Journal of Homosexuality 27:3-4, 1994, pp.111-115.
Eckholm, E. ‘One Man Guides the Fight Against Gay Marriage’, in The New York Times, October 9, 2012.
Herdt, G. ‘The Panic and the right’, in Moral Panics, Sex Panics: Fear and Fight over Sexual Rights, Herdt, G (ed), New York University Press (chapter 5 of text), 1999, pp.157-193.
Humphrey, EM. ‘What God Hath Not Joined’, in Christianity Today, September 2004.
Mann, S, 2012, ‘The case against legalizing same-sex marriage’, in The Sydney Morning Herald, July 15, 2012.
Meeks, C and Stein, A. ‘Refiguring the Family – Towards a Post-Queer Politics of Gay and Lesbian Marriage’, in Intersections Between Feminist and Queer Theory, Richardson, D, McLaughlin, J and Casey, ME (eds), Palgrave Macmillan (Chapter 7 of text), 2006, pp. 136-155.
Worth, H, Reid, A and McMillan, K. ‘Somewhere over the rainbow: love, trust and monogamy in gay relationships’, in Journal of Sociology, 2002 38(3), pp.237-253.
Work - a social good and good for you? The Universal Basic Income Debate
Russell, B. ‘In Praise of Idleness’ in In Praise of Idleness and other essays, Allen and Unwin, 1958.
Smith, N. ‘A philosopher’s view: the benefits and dignity of work,’ The Conversation, 2011.
Recommended
Rachels, J. ‘The idea of a social contract’, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, McGraw-Hill, 2003, pp. 141 – 159.
Birnbaum, S. ‘Liberal Egalitarianism and the Study of Social Justice’ Basic Income Reconsidered: Social Justice, Liberalism, and the Demands of Equality, Palgrave, 2012.
Ikebe, S. ‘The wrong kind of UBI’ Jacobin Magazine, Jan 21, 2016.
Gutting, G. What Work is Really For? The New York Times, Sep 8, 2012.
Dean, T. ‘Work less, live more,’ New Philosopher, July 2, 2014.
Attention! Distraction! Brains, new media technologies and ethics debate
Required
Carr, N. ‘The Juggler’s Brain in The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. W. W. Norton and Company, 2010, pp. 115-143.
Rossellini, I and Shapiro, J. Green Porno, Seduce Me and Animals Distract Me, Sundance Channel. (2008-2012). For example, Rossellini acts out the mating behaviour of bees in this you tube clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4tsEnGLKE4
Lehrer, J. ‘Our Cluttered Minds’ The New York Times Sunday Book Review, 2010.
Terranova, T. ‘Attention, Economy and the Brain,’ in Culture Machine, Vol.13 2012, pp. 1-19.
Recommended
Berardi, F (Bifo), The Soul at Work: from Alienation to Autonomy, MIT press, pp. 106-109. (Book Chapter extract)
Cull, L, 2014, ‘On Attention,’ 2014, pp. 1-12 (Public lecture presented at “What Now Festival 2014”). To see a video of Laura Cull’s talk follow this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCFH25JqZhw
Crary, J. 'Suspensions of Perception' Attention, Spectacle and Modern Culture. The MIT Press, 1999.
Crogan, P and Kinsley, S. 'Paying Attention: towards a Critique of the Attention Economy' in Culture Machine, Vol.13 (2012) pp. 1-29.
Rossellini, I. ‘Q & A: Animal distractions’, Nature: international weekly journal of science, Vol. 472, 21 April, 2011, p. 294.
Political Animals: The Animal Rights and Personhood Debates
Required
Matthew Calarco ‘Identity, Difference, Indistinction’ The Centennial Review, Michigan State University Press, Vol. 11, number 2, Fall 2011, pp. 41-60.
Wolfe, C. ‘Introduction,’ Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species and Posthumanist Theory, University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp 1-18.
Recommended
‘Harambe the gorilla’, ABC News, June 1, 2016.
Gary L. Francione and Robert Garner, ‘Introduction: what this book is and is not about,’ The Animal Rights Debate, Columbia University Press, 2010.
Berkoff, M. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empath – and why they matter, New World Library, 2008.
Gerrard, Greg. ‘Animals’ in EcoCriticism, Routledge Press, 2011.
Singer, Peter , ‘Speciesism and Moral Status,’ Metaphilosophy, Vol. 40, nos 3-4, July 2009.
Oliver, K. ‘Introduction,’ Animal Lessons: how they teach us to be human, Columbia University Press, 2009.
Cary Wolfe, Zoontologies: the question of the animal, University of Minnesota Press, 2003.
Insects: friend, foe or food? - The eating insects debate
Required
Dicke, M, ‘Why not eat insects?,’ 2010. To listen to Dicke’s public talk own why we should eat insects follow thislink: http://www.ted.com/talks/marcel_dicke_why_not_eat_insects/transcript?language=en
Grorman, J. ‘Do Honeybees Feel? Scientists are Entertaining the Idea,’ April 18, 2016.
Loo, S and Sellbach, U, (2013), ‘Eating (with) Insect: Insect Gastronomies and an Upside Down Ethics,’ Parallax, vol. 19, no. 1 12-28.
Halpin, T. ‘Can plant based food be better than the real thing?’ ABC news, June 17, 2016.
Recommended
Holt, V. Why not Eat Insects?, 1885.
Amy Wright, ‘I think I’ll go eat a worm’, Gastronomica, 84, Winter 2014.
Francione, G. ‘The Abolition of Animal Exploitation,’ The Animal Rights Debate, Columbia University Press, 2010.
For a summary of some some arguments for and against vegetarians eating insects look at this blog: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/06/should-vegetarians-consider-eating-insects/
Huis, Arnold van, et al. 2013. ‘‘Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security.’’ Report of the Programme Committee, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, March 18–22.
Lin, D. Vegans and Honey,’ about.com, March 26, 2016.
Frame, J. Mona Minim and the Smell of the Sun, Random House Books, 2005.
'To be or not to be?’: The Euthanasia Debate
Required
TV Program Transcript ‘Euthanasia Debate’ at: ABC Lateline broadcast on 30/5/2002.
George Zdenkowski, ‘Human rights and euthanasia’. Paper for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Dec 1996, pp. 1-29.
Wahlquist, C. ‘Victoria under pressure to move on Euthanasia Laws,’ The Guardian: June 9, 2016.
Jecker, NS. 'Ethics and Euthanasia', in Encyclopedia of Gerontology Vol. 1, ed. James E. Birren, (2007) pp.522-525.
Recommended
Broom, A. ‘On Euthanasia, Resistance, and Redemption: The Moralities and Politics of a Hospice’, in Qualitative Health Research, 22(2), (2011) pp.226-237
Brown, GT. ‘Discovery and Revelation: The Consciences of Christians, Public Policy, and Bioethics Debate’, in Christian Bioethics, 18(1), (2012) pp. 41-58
Fernandez-Sola, C et al. ‘New regulation of the right to a dignified dying in Spain: Repercussions for nursing’, in Nursing Ethics, 19(5), (2012) pp.619-628
Kolata, G, 1997, ‘Passive Euthanasia in Hospitals Is The Norm, Doctors Say’, in The New York Times, June 28, 1997.
Shuriye, AO. ‘Ethical and Religious Analysis on Euthanasia’, in IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol.12, No.5, 2011: Special Issue on Science and Ethics in Engineering (2011) pp.209-211.
Stevenson, C and Leaf, D. ‘Activist dead wrong on voluntary euthanasia’, ABC Religion and Ethics, Oct 18, 2011.
Stonington, SD. ‘On ethical locations: The good death in Thailand, where ethics sit in places’, in Social Science and Medicine, 75 (2012) pp.836-844.
Unit Schedule
Please see iLearn for the schedule of weekly topics.
This year topics will include: monogamy, same sex marriage, euthanasia, universal basic income, animals before the law, the effect of technology on thinking and attention, sustainable food and eating insects.
Policies and Procedures
Macquarie University policies and procedures are accessible from Policy Central. Students should be aware of the following policies in particular with regard to Learning and Teaching:
Academic Honesty Policy http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/academic_honesty/policy.html
New Assessment Policy in effect from Session 2 2016 http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/assessment/policy_2016.html. For more information visit http://students.mq.edu.au/events/2016/07/19/new_assessment_policy_in_place_from_session_2/
Assessment Policy prior to Session 2 2016 http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/assessment/policy.html
Grading Policy prior to Session 2 2016 http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/grading/policy.html
Grade Appeal Policy http://mq.edu.au/policy/docs/gradeappeal/policy.html
Complaint Management Procedure for Students and Members of the Public http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/complaint_management/procedure.html
Disruption to Studies Policy http://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/disruption_studies/policy.html The Disruption to Studies Policy is effective from March 3 2014 and replaces the Special Consideration Policy.
In addition, a number of other policies can be found in the Learning and Teaching Category of Policy Central.
Student Code of Conduct
Macquarie University students have a responsibility to be familiar with the Student Code of Conduct: https://students.mq.edu.au/support/student_conduct/
Results
Results shown in iLearn, or released directly by your Unit Convenor, are not confirmed as they are subject to final approval by the University. Once approved, final results will be sent to your student email address and will be made available in eStudent. For more information visit ask.mq.edu.au.
Student Support
Macquarie University provides a range of support services for students. For details, visit http://students.mq.edu.au/support/
Learning Skills
Learning Skills (mq.edu.au/learningskills) provides academic writing resources and study strategies to improve your marks and take control of your study.
Student Services and Support
Students with a disability are encouraged to contact the Disability Service who can provide appropriate help with any issues that arise during their studies.
Student Enquiries
For all student enquiries, visit Student Connect at ask.mq.edu.au
IT Help
For help with University computer systems and technology, visit http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/offices_and_units/information_technology/help/.
When using the University's IT, you must adhere to the Acceptable Use of IT Resources Policy. The policy applies to all who connect to the MQ network including students.
Graduate Capabilities
Capable of Professional and Personal Judgement and Initiative
We want our graduates to have emotional intelligence and sound interpersonal skills and to demonstrate discernment and common sense in their professional and personal judgement. They will exercise initiative as needed. They will be capable of risk assessment, and be able to handle ambiguity and complexity, enabling them to be adaptable in diverse and changing environments.
This graduate capability is supported by:
Learning outcome
- 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.
Assessment tasks
- TEAM DEBATES
- PARTICIPATION-COLLABORATION
Commitment to Continuous Learning
Our graduates will have enquiring minds and a literate curiosity which will lead them to pursue knowledge for its own sake. They will continue to pursue learning in their careers and as they participate in the world. They will be capable of reflecting on their experiences and relationships with others and the environment, learning from them, and growing - personally, professionally and socially.
This graduate capability is supported by:
Assessment task
- FINAL ESSAY
Critical, Analytical and Integrative Thinking
We want our graduates to be capable of reasoning, questioning and analysing, and to integrate and synthesise learning and knowledge from a range of sources and environments; to be able to critique constraints, assumptions and limitations; to be able to think independently and systemically in relation to scholarly activity, in the workplace, and in the world. We want them to have a level of scientific and information technology literacy.
This graduate capability is supported by:
Learning outcomes
- 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
- 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
- 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
- 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
- 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.
Assessment tasks
- Debate Paper Summary
- TEAM DEBATES
- FINAL ESSAY
Problem Solving and Research Capability
Our graduates should be capable of researching; of analysing, and interpreting and assessing data and information in various forms; of drawing connections across fields of knowledge; and they should be able to relate their knowledge to complex situations at work or in the world, in order to diagnose and solve problems. We want them to have the confidence to take the initiative in doing so, within an awareness of their own limitations.
This graduate capability is supported by:
Learning outcomes
- 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
- 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
- 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
- 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.
Assessment tasks
- Debate Paper Summary
- TEAM DEBATES
- FINAL ESSAY
Effective Communication
We want to develop in our students the ability to communicate and convey their views in forms effective with different audiences. We want our graduates to take with them the capability to read, listen, question, gather and evaluate information resources in a variety of formats, assess, write clearly, speak effectively, and to use visual communication and communication technologies as appropriate.
This graduate capability is supported by:
Learning outcomes
- 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
- 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
- 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
Assessment tasks
- Debate Paper Summary
- TEAM DEBATES
- FINAL ESSAY
Engaged and Ethical Local and Global citizens
As local citizens our graduates will be aware of indigenous perspectives and of the nation's historical context. They will be engaged with the challenges of contemporary society and with knowledge and ideas. We want our graduates to have respect for diversity, to be open-minded, sensitive to others and inclusive, and to be open to other cultures and perspectives: they should have a level of cultural literacy. Our graduates should be aware of disadvantage and social justice, and be willing to participate to help create a wiser and better society.
This graduate capability is supported by:
Learning outcomes
- 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
- 2. Evaluate cultural, social, and ethical values, to enable students to emerge as capable of professional and personal judgement in both their working and everyday lives.
- 3. Apply theoretical arguments underpinning contemporary issues and debates to specific ethical decision making in everyday life.
- 4. Apply team and individual problem and enquiry based learning to contemporary social, cultural and ethical issues and debates.
- 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.
Assessment tasks
- Debate Paper Summary
- TEAM DEBATES
- FINAL ESSAY
Socially and Environmentally Active and Responsible
We want our graduates to be aware of and have respect for self and others; to be able to work with others as a leader and a team player; to have a sense of connectedness with others and country; and to have a sense of mutual obligation. Our graduates should be informed and active participants in moving society towards sustainability.
This graduate capability is supported by:
Learning outcomes
- 1. Analyse, identify and communicate broad and specific arguments in contemporary cultural, political and ethical debates.
- 5. Reflect critically the impact and consequence of one's arguments on others, while respecting the difference of counterarguments.
Assessment tasks
- Debate Paper Summary
- TEAM DEBATES
- FINAL ESSAY