Normative Analysis Comprehensive Exam

For the Normative Exam, you are given two mandatory questions, and then five specialty questions, of which you choose two. Here are the questions I answered:

1.Rawls’s work on justice, from A Theory of Justice to Public Reason Revisited tries to deal with the core concerns of distributive justice, ranging from equality to freedom to democratic law. In it he tries to answer questions such as: equality with regard to what? freedom to do what? freedom from what? and why care about democratic law? Describe Rawls’s answers to those four questions. Then describe the answers of two other authors  you have read who criticize Rawls. They need not criticize Rawls on all four questions, so feel free to focus only on the questions on which they focus. Say who has the better of the debate, in your opinion. And say why. Use examples if it will help to clarify your point, but do not get caught up in lengthy discussion of examples; keep your focus on the theory.

[For this answer, I talked about Rawls two principles: “(1)Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others, and (2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.” Then I explained how Rawls aims to use deliberative democracy as a way of having reasonable debate, given that people have different political conceptions of justice. They can all agree that democratic laws are legitimate, even if they don't agree with the outcome. I talked about the feminist criticism of Rawls provided by Susin Okin - that he should (but doesn't) include the family in the "basic structure" of society, and that his two principles should apply to the family. I also talked about the criticism of Amartya Sen, who argues that Rawls list of "primary goods" are not sufficient, and that we should focus on increasing the "freedoms" of a person to do various things, rather than on the goods that they have.

2.Consider the case of Bob, who has lived like a church mouse for 10 years, working 80 hours a week as a nurse, saving his money to buy his dream car: which, because he is so ecologically oriented, is now a Tesla Roadster (100% electric). He takes it for a spin down by the trolley tracks and parks it on an obviously unused spur. He goes for a walk along the tracks and to his shock and horror he sees a trolley hurtling, clearly out of control, at 5 workmen straight ahead on the tracks. He also sees that a switch lies nearby and he realizes that if he pulls it, the trolley will be diverted on the spur. He immediately sees that this is the only way to save the five, but that doing so will destroy his brand new Tesla, his pride and joy (the people on board the trolley, he reasons, will survive the impact). His insurance company, however, is very unlikely to cover him for the act of turning a trolley onto his car, no matter how altruistic an act that is. So there it is: save five, or lose his beloved car.

May Bob morally (forget the law for the moment) choose not to sacrifice his Tesla for the five workmen? Keep in mind how much he sacrificed—he lived like a church mouse for 10 years—to get the car. How does this compare to our own decisions to live lives of relative luxury—going out to dinner, buying nice clothes, taking nice vacations—when we could choose to live more like church mice and use our extra earnings to save people in poor parts of the world who will otherwise starve to death or die of preventable diseases? Assume that your dollars of aid would be well spent saving lives, i.e. that your sacrifice would be almost as effective (inevitable administrative costs notwithstanding) as would Bob’s sacrifice of his car if he turns the trolley onto it. Consider these questions from a utilitarian, a deontological, and a virtue ethics point of view. Which do you agree with, and why? Finally, what sort of policy—in terms of requiring sacrifice in Bob-type situations, and in terms of taxing and using that money to help others in other countries—would you recommend and why?

[For this question, I basically went through a utilitarian argument and through many deontological arguments to analyze what they might say. I argued that utilitarians would almost surely argue that he could not morally choose not to sacrifice his car. Some of the deontologists however, emphasize distinctions such as "doing vs. allowing" which might say, for example, that since (by not pulling the switch) Bob is simply allowing the workmen to be killed, it's actually ok. Virtue ethics focuses on what actions would be "admirable," so I think it's clear in this case that it wouldn't be considered "admirale" to save the car rather than the workmen. I agreed with the utilitarians and the virtue ethicists. Bob has a moral obligation to save the workmen, regardless of how much he loves (and worked hard for) his car. When applying the issue to giving money to the poor, I drew on Peter Singer (who gives almost this exact scenario in his book, One World), who argues that the this scenario is exactly the same as giving money to charity - it's a very easy way to save people's lives, and by valuing your luxury goods more than saving lives, you're as bad as Bob. I went through the utilitarian, deontological, and virtue ethics arguments for this scenario, and argued again that there is a moral obligation to give to charity, however, the question is to what degree this must be done (i.e. do you give all of your money to charity until you're also in poverty?)]

5.Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
Jada works for a private firm that contracts services to the US Central Intelligence Agency.  Her background is in image analysis, and so she has been assigned to a team that operates armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs, or “drones”) along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.  Jada does not “pull the trigger,” but she is directly involved in targeting decisions by confirming the identity of possible targets.  She knows that, in many cases, confirming that someone seen by a UAV is who the CIA believes he or she is will lead to that person being killed in a missile strike.


Last week, a truck bomb was detonated outside Jada's home in a Northern VA suburb.  She was killed, along with her partner, their children, and fifteen other bystanders.


Though the immediate perpetrators were killed in the attack, US intelligence services have identified a group of Pakistani citizens in the US to whom they can tie to the attack with a high degree of probability. A tape was also released to Al-Jazeera, taking credit for the attacks on behalf of the Pakistani Taliban and further claiming that:

• Jada was an active combatant and a legitimate military target because of her involvement with UAV attacks;
• The harm to noncombatants was regrettable, but justified given the importance of the military end. In particular, the tape favorably compares the deaths to the numbers of noncombatants killed by Israeli operations.
• By not providing Jada and similar employees with military barracks separate from the civilian population, and not  informing civilians that combatants were being housed among them, the US was in violation of its legal (Geneva Convention I, Art. 51) and moral obligation not to use "civilian shields.”
• The message closed with (i) a demand that anyone involved be treated as lawful combatants and given full protection as prisoners of war if captured, and (ii) a promise of future attacks.
• As you discuss the following issues, focus primarily on the moral rather than legal considerations – information on international law is provided only to help define some common categories and to provide guidance where you believe following the law may have inherent moral value.
• How, if at all, should the US act on the intelligence it possesses regarding the bombers' accomplices? In particular, what means may be used to kill, capture, or extract information from them, and what procedural protections (e.g., a trial) should they enjoy? Did they act immorally in plotting with the bombers to kill Jada, and if so, in what way? Under international law, prisoners of war need not be tried, but are to be released at the end of hostilities, and may not be coerced into providing any information; unlawful combatants enjoy some protections under law (notably, a ban on torture) but not such strict ones.
• How, if at all, should the US change its policies in the future about who may be involved in directing drone attacks, and how they should be treated? Consider at least three categories: privately employed individuals, civilians who “pull the trigger” on UAV attacks (e.g., CIA), and uniformed military.

[For this question, I talked about Walzer's Just War Theory. I also drew on David Luban's discussion of how the laws of war and the laws of criminal justice had gotten mixed up in the War on Terror, so that 'enemy combatants' are treated partially as normal criminals, but partially as enemy soldiers (e.g. they can be taken without having actually acted yet like soldiers, but they don't get POW status). I argued that in this case, the men should probably be treated as criminals, rather than enemy soldiers, but that this would mean they should get a trial. I argued that they did act immorally in killing Jada, but that in the future, it is important for countries to make clear who is involved in combat and who isn't. Analyzing UAV or satellite data is not combat (I think), but flying a UAV and carrying out attacks is.]

6.Sen makes the following claim: “Developing and strengthening a democratic system is an essential component of the process of development.” What does Sen mean by “democracy” and by “the process of development” and how do Sen’s conceptions compare with alternative definitions? Clarify and assess the arguments that Sen employs to justify his claim? Now state and evaluate what you take to be the best argument for the conclusion that democracy is at best unnecessary and at worst an obstacle for development? Given this controversy do you think that a development agency, such as USAID or the World Bank, should promote democracy? In what sense and why or why not?

[For this question, I mostly used Sen's book "Development as Freedom." I argued that Sen sees democracy as a set of political and liberal rights for individuals as well as opportunities. I said that he sees the process of development as the increase of freedoms and capabilities for individuals, while others may consider development as simply an increase in GDP or per-capita income. I talked about the "Lee Thesis" that says democracy isn't necessary for development, based on the experience of Korea and China. However, I said that this doesn't prove that democracy isn't helpful. I personally agree with Sen's argument that democracy is both instrumental and intrinsically important to development. Based on this, I said that democracy (civil and political freedoms in particular) should be promoted.]

Political Analysis Comprehensive Exam

So I finally took the exams - almost two weeks ago, now. The Political Analysis exam was from 8am to 5pm on Tuesday, May 25th, and the Normative Analysis (Philosophy) was from 8:30am-5pm on Thursday, May 27th. (The difference in time is based on lunch breaks. Apparently the Politics professors thought we'd need an hour for lunch and the Philosophers only thought we'd need a half-hour.) The exam is an at-home, essay exam. They email it to everyone at the designated start time, you write furiously for 8+ hours, and then you email it back at the deadline. (I think I sent in political at 4:49 and normative at 5:02.) I've been studying for these exams for about 5 months, and it's taken up almost every free moment I had. I read all but one of the 17 assigned political analysis books, almost all of the more than 50 philosophy readings, took notes on them, wrote summaries of most (which you saw on this blog!), had three-hour weekly discussion meetings with Anya and Elnigar, and took an independent study course this semester.

I can't post the answers to my exams, because I wrote about 20-30 pages single-spaced for each of the two exams. However, I thought I'd post the questions to give you an idea of what the exam was like.

On the political analysis exam, you are given four questions, but you only have to answer two. The two I chose were:

QUESTION ONE: Select a policy problem or issue with which you are already well-acquainted that currently confronts any national or sub-national government. Write an essay exploring how any readings you have done about political institutions and systems (that is, readings about: specific institutions and systems; the kinds of challenges institutions and systems face; the successes and failures they experience; and the alternative models or modes of analysis one may apply to them) help you to diagnose: (a) the origins and character of the problem or issue, and (b) the opportunities and constraints that appear relevant to managing the problem or issue.

[To answer this question, I wrote about the issue human spaceflight. There's a lot going on in this area right now with the looming gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability (after the shuttle retires, we'll have to rely on the Russian's for a while, at least), and the new, very different, human spaceflight policy included in the President's budget. I analyzed the issue using Kingdon's "three streams" Model, where he looks at how a problem, policy solution, and political opportunity all come together. Then I used the three models presented by Graham Allison. I also looked at it using a Rational Actor model, which thinks of how you'd solve the problem if the U.S. was just one person, making a strategic decision. I analyzed it using the Organizational Model - looking at Arnold's theory about how Congress thinks about issues - and Wilson's theory about how Bureaucracy works. Finally, I analyzed it using the Government Politics model, which looks at the individuals involved and the decision-making processes to understand why particular decisions were made.]

QUESTION THREE: A simple “civics textbook” portrait might suggest that representative political process moves easily and productively through the following three stages: (1) the generation of interests and beliefs within the mass public; (2) carefully considered legislative policy responses by elected officials; (3) policy implementation by administrative agencies.  Draw on any readings you have done (but without resorting to extensive quotation) to amplify (and, if necessary, to correct) this portrait of representative government.

[For this question, I basically went through each of the books we've read and explained what portion of this they supported, and what was more complicated. I noted that Kingdon argues that the process is not linear (but rather is made up of three simultaneous "streams"). Then I went through each of the three to give examples of what's right and wrong. For example, (1) the generation of interests and beliefs of the mass public is addressed in "Rational Public" which argues that public opinion as a whole is rational, but also that it can be manipulated. Or Shepsle and Mayer, who both talk about the issue of "rational ignorance" - that it may not actually be logical for people to spend time learning all the facts of every issue, given that they can not have that much of an effect on the outcome. This can lead to a reliance on symbolism, or just general ignorance of the issues.]

Lost Finale

Even though it was only two days before my first comprehensive exam, I had to watch the Lost finale. I'm a huge fan - it's the only show that I watch in real time (instead of just DVR). So, for the finale, we got together with some friends and made it into an event. We watched the two hour summary show before the finale, the 2.5 hour finale, and when I got home, I watch the hour of Jimmy Kimmel interviewing the cast.

---Spoiler Alert---

Overall: So, in general, I really did like the finale. It was really sad, and also pretty final. It was character-based, which is what the producers said to expect, and seemed appropriate for the show. If they had chosen to answer all the random technical questions about the island, but not given closer to the characters, that would not have been as good. Everyone was pretty quiet when the show finally ended - definitely a sense of, "Wow... that's it. It's over."

Side Universe: I looooved the side universe. Ever since the Desmond episode this season, the parts of the show taking place in the side universe have been some of my favorite. It's so fun to see everyone find each other, and remember each other - such a cool idea!

What actually happened? Ok, it seems like people have different interpretations of exactly what happened in the show, so here's my take. I think they survived the plane crash, the island was real, and all of the adventure was real. Over the course of their adventure on the island, they all became very close and important to each other. The side universe was purgatory/limbo - and they all went there when they died (which wasn't all at the same time, hence Christian Shepard explaining that 'there's no time here'). In purgatory, they could take their time to find each other and remember everything that had happened to them, and once they had all remembered, then they could all "move on" together.

What about all the unanswered questions? It's true, there are a lot of things we still don't know. (Like who's dropping Dharma supplies on the island, still? And what was the deal with Walt? And why was Libby in the insane asylum in the flashbacks?) But like I said earlier, even if they had spent the finale explaining all these random things, it wouldn't have been very meaningful. Personally, I think they'll put out a book or a show or something that explains the Lost universe. Sort of like some of Tolkein's explanation of the Lord of the Rings world. I think they really do have answers for a lot of the questions that just didn't fit into the show, or weren't important enough to spend screen-time answering.

Awesome Videos: These are pretty much all thanks to Beth, but I'd recommend checking out the videos on this link - Particularly the ultimate list of unanswered questions, and the video showing the first and last 108 minutes of Lost. Incredible how similar they are.

Iron Man 2

Another thing I did during the week between the end of school and my exams was take a break to see Iron Man 2 with my friend, Stephanie. Stephanie works for SpaceX (a commercial rocket launch company), and her CEO was part of the inspiration for the Tony Stark character (as portrayed in the movie - in general, the whole story is based on the comic book). So, he has a cameo in the movie, where he plays himself, and even talks about the Merlin Engines that are used in their rocket. (This happens when Tony Stark is going to his table after he's first gotten to town for the car race.) Also, a bunch of the movie was filmed at SpaceX's facilities in California. When they're in that big, white warehouse owned by the evil guy - that's actually SpaceX! Cool, huh? It was really fun seeing all this SpaceX stuff in the movie, but even outside of that, I did think it was pretty good. Maybe not quite as good as the first movie, but that may just be because expectations were higher.

Working in DC

For my job, I generally do space policy research - this may require reading news articles, reports, testimonies, and all sorts of other materials. But one unique method of info-gathering that I get to do since I'm in DC is head up to Capital Hill and get the latest news from the people making the policy. Pretty cool.

A couple weeks ago, I had one of those days where I essentially spent the whole day "on the Hill." In the morning, I went to a Senate Hearing on Chinese military and civilian aerospace developments. Over lunch, I visited a NASA event on the House side about spin-off technologies. In the afternoon, I went to a round-table in the Senate Side of the Capital Visitor's Center about developing human-ratings for commercial space craft. All pretty interesting meetings, but there's something about having the opportunity to go to the Capitol building for work that is very surreal.

Mom Visits DC

In the week between turning in final papers for classes and taking the comprehensive exams, my mom came to DC for a conference. She was there all week, but stayed outside the city, so I only saw her on Tuesday and Thursday during the week.

On Tuesday, we went for dinner at Chef Geoff's (when I first texted her the name of the restaurant, my mom thought it was a joke and that Jeff was just making dinner). I've been there before, and I think it's good, but a bit overpriced. However, on Tuesdays they have an all-night happy hour with $6 burgers, which is a great deal. But, we found out when we got there that happy hour is in the bar only, and the bar is loud and crowded (like, standing room only). So instead we sat on the patio, which didn't have the great deals, but was really nice anyway. We had a great salad and a really good burger.

On Thursdays, Jeff and I usually get together with friends for a weekly happy hour to explore different places around DC. On May 20th, we decided to have our happy hour at the National's Game. My mom came too, and it was really fun! We bought $10 tickets online and then all met up at the seats. I think 11 of us ended up going, so it was a good-sized group. It was also nice for my mom to see the stadium and to meet some of my friends! Sadly the Nats lost, but that's not so surprising.

[Interesting side-note: When I was buying the tickets online, the website has a place where you can enter a coupon code, so I did a google search for "Nationals Tickets Coupon Code" and found a coupon website that said typing in "Earth" would get me half-off tickets. It turned out to be true, and we ended up sitting in the $18 seats for only $9! Seems like it's a good trick to remember.]

My mom's conference actually ended on Thursday, so after that she came to stay with Jeff and me. We both worked from home on Friday, and I was studying for my upcoming exams. However, we did manage to find time to get my mom caught up on Lost and on Doctor Who for this season, both amazing shows! If you're not already watching Doctor Who, you should be. It's awesome. And even though I thought the new doctor (Matt Smith) couldn't possibly be good, because I was such a big fan of David Tennet, it turns out I really like him!


My mom's visit ended up being pretty laid back and relaxing - which was perfect for me as I prepared for the very stressful exams... Hopefully she'll come back and visit again soon! (And maybe we'll even leave the apartment.)

School's Out!

Just a couple weeks ago I finished my first year as a PhD student at the University of Maryland! This semester I took three courses: Qualitative Methods, Quantitative Methods, and an independent study on Normative Analysis. Everything went well, and all of the courses were fairly interesting. I really enjoyed the quantitative methods course, where each lecture we would learn a quantitative method (agent based modeling, advanced econometrics, etc.) and hear about on-going research using that method. Qualitative methods I generally enjoyed, though lecture could be more hit or miss, and with three hours of lecture on Friday evening, it was hard to be fully engaged. The Normative Analysis course was great - it was designed to help us discuss and go over normative readings, and was really helpful. In mid-May, I turned in final papers for the Qual and Quant classes, which was the very last thing I needed to do for the semester. So that's it for this school year!