DIRECTIVES FOR THE FINAL EXAMINATIONS

---

SEMESTER EXAMINATIONS

1. The authority and the organization of the Semester Exams are subject to the jurisdiction of the Academic Council headed by the Principal.
2. The principal constitutes the Examination Board comprising of 3 lecturers from the academic staff.
3. The Examination Board will monitor the transparency, examination modality, reporting proformas, administration and applicants.
4. The examinee is allowed to bring to the oral examination (viva) a competent witness (a third party) if so desires.
5. If the chief examiner is incapacitated due to some serious reason, then, the principal will appoint two equal substitute/associate examiners for the particliar exam.
6. The semester examinations will be held only in January and June each year.
7. The examinations are conducted orally (viva) or written only on the date and time indicated by the Academic Council. Any modification by the teacher/student is prohibited and invalidated.
8. Online tutors or examiners are not allowed during the exams.
9. The examinee has all the rights to be informed about the necessary conditions of a particliar exam during the semester: schemes of award, assessment criteria, papers, bibliography, research assessment, summaries, and participatory activities.
10. The Examination Record (SE-FORM-C) of the individual examinee must be dliy filled and signed by the chief examiner. It sholid be submitted to the General Secretariat two days after the exam date.
11. Written examination papers will be disqualified under following circumstances: difficlity of identifying the name/admission number of the examinee; illegible examination scripts; copying among the examinees individually or in group; helping to answer any examinee (individual or group); examinee found in possession of electronic devices; found in possession of answer sheets or similar aid or involving in any particliar behavioural offence during exams.
12. In the circumstances mentioned in no.11 the chief examiner is obliged to produce a Report (FORM-E) to the Academic Council and hand it over personally to the Principal. The report must contain: background of the offence, declaring the names of those who are suspected to be involved in the offence, other categories of offenders or victims, defensive procedures followed during the offence, all the evidence found in the offence, persons involved in investigation of the offence in loco, and the damage caused to property or person.
13. The final investigation regarding nos 11 and 12 above lies only in the authority of the Academic Council headed by the principal. After a complete investigation the Academic Council will communicate in writing to the offender/s the findings, evidence, procedures, code of practices, suffered violations, penalties and the final decisions of the Academic Council. The offender/s lose the right to obtain any academic transcript or certificate from DBCIPH.

THE PROCESSING OF A WRITTEN THESIS FOR DIPLOMA & BPH

1. The authority and the constitution of the final theses are subject to the jurisdiction of the Academic Council headed by the Principal.
2. The processing of a comprehensive-scientific-written-philosophical Thesina/Thesis of a Diploma/BPh should initiate with a synthetic/comprehensive vision focusing on the basic areas of philosophical thought on Man, World and God. It should be at a good level of originality and should examine the problem in depth. It should be written in English. The literary and methodological presentation must meet the bench mark of DBCIPH.
3. It should not be directed to a monograph-analysis of a particular theme/subject. The Thesina for Diploma and the Thesis for BPh should contain 25 and 35 pages respectively excluding the “front and back matters”.
4. For this exercise the principal will appoint a Thesis Committee headed by the Thesis Guide. The candidate is free to choose the Thesis Guide with the understanding of the Principal from the teaching faculty of DBCIPH. This decision must be made on the basis of the content expertise of the Guide. The Principal will appoint two other Assistant Guides for Scientific Methodology and Faculty Standardization. These guides will instruct the candidate in all matters concerning the problem analysis, production, scientific methodology and academic obligations. If any one of the three guides is incapacitated due to some reason, then, the Principal will appoint a substitute.
5. The candidate should engage in active preparation of the research and analysis from the onset of his academic career as an undergraduate. The whole Project Proposal is the candidate’s responsibility. The candidate is responsible for choosing a topic, collecting materials, preparing adequately for meeting the guides, revisions of the written work and scientific methodology, developing communication skills with the guides, and maintaining regularity in communicating with the guides. The candidate must frequently inform the Thesis Committee of the progress obtained and maintain a record of every activity. The candidate must consult the Guide in the event of any significant changes in the research and inform the Thesis Committee members as well. The candidate is expected to maintain a respectful and professional approach at all times with the guides.
6. The Thesis Guide will work closely with the candidate understanding the proposal and advising the candidate for improvement. The candidate must seriously discuss the Thesis Plan with the Guide at least in a minimum of four meetings. The Guide must insist with the candidate sufficient bibliographical expertise, methodology, structure and scholarly participation avoiding minimalism and fragmentation. The Guide’s responsibilities include: familiarity with the current dissertation policies and procedures of the Faculty, study programme, methodology, time frame, content setting, data collection, approval processes, and technical advice. The Guide must determine when the project is mature for the review of the Assistant Guides and their approvals. The Guide must facilitate the candidate to maintain further dialogue with the assistant guides to improve the research quality and updates. The candidate should avoid consulting the full committee for feedback without prior approval of the Thesis Guide. Committee participation from a distance may be facilitated through electronic media as approved.
7. The contribution of the Assistant Guides must ensure that the candidate produces high quality research work according the norms of the DBCIPH and the Faculty of Philosophy of UPS. The Methodologist must be vigilant to observe the Scientific Methodology of the Faculty. The Assistant Guides will be responsible for scrutinizing manuscripts, suggesting substantive editorial changes, correcting methodological errors, providing rationale for their support and critiques. The Assistant Guides who perceive major flaws that are likely to result in a candidate’s unsuccessful proceedings, should discuss the matter with the candidate and the Chair immediately.
8. The Thesina/Thesis is planned within an elaborated Project Proposal indicated by the Faculty Guides. A Project Proposal remains the core of any academic research or elaboration. Due emphasis must be given to the development of a Project Proposal. To this end the candidate should base his work entirely on original and creative investigations permissible to Diploma and BPh. The candidate must demonstrate in the Project Proposal, the research ability and critical judgement as well as familiarity with methods of research and relevant literature on the argument.
9. The applicant must strictly follow instructions given in the “Faculty Guides” in preparation of the Project Proposal and final thesis. They are: Jose M. Prellezo – Jesus M. Garcia, Invito alla Ricerca. LAS, Roma 2007 and Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses and Dissertations. 8th Ed., The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London 2010.
10. All the three members of the Thesis Committee must approve the Project Proposal enclosed with FORM-A and the applicant must present 4 copies of the same to the General Secretariat before the deadline. Failing to submit the Project Proposal in time the candidate must personally approach the Principal and request for an extension period not exceeding more than 10 days.
11. The Project Proposal should contain: the elaborated proposed theme/problem, relevance (status quaestionis), structure, methodology, competency and possible remedies with a consulted bibliography and a realistic time frame. The Project Proposal must adhere to all research criteria and methodology established by the Faculty.
12. After a serious scrutiny the Academic Council will PASS, REFERRED or FAIL the Project Proposal before the end of the semester. The Academic Council will be the sole and independent authority to pass, to refer or to fail any Project Proposal.
13. A Project Proposal will be passed if it is acceptable in its present form or pending minor revisions indicated in the methodology and Faculty Guides. It may not require substantive changes. Some changes may be recommended in correcting typographical and grammatical errors, minor modifications, and editorial revisions. A list of required revisions may be provided by the Academic Council. The candidate will be informed of the result by the Chair of the Academic Council.
14. A Project Proposal will be referred if the present form of research deviates from the established norms and research criteria. It could be acceptable pending major revisions. It may require substantive changes in the structure of the argument, methodology, bibliography, chapters, divisions, data, coherence, integrity in the argument and presentation. The candidate will be informed of the result by the Chair of the Academic Council. The Thesis Guide must reconvene the Thesis Committee and avoid further ambiguity and help the candidate to consult better the Thesis Committee to improve the Proposal.
15. A Project Proposal will be failed if the present form does not adhere to the norms and methodology of the Faculty even with substantial revisions and modifications previously made. The candidate will be informed of the result by the Chair of the Academic Council. Any Project Proposal failed by the Academic Council should not be further exposed to any modification or analysis. It should be considered nullified.
16. After the approval of the Project Proposal the Thesis Committee must follow the candidate closely. The Thesis Committee must strictly adhere to the “Working Time Frame” approved in the Project. The research work must always target at the scope of the Project. The philosophical, methodological, procedural and synthetic outlook of the thesis must be both deeper and broader than that of a term paper in course work. It should bear a closer correspondence to the synthetic vision acquired in the university studies substantiating a specific view. The Thesis Committee should avoid and discourage in all times a monograph or case study.
17. The candidate must report to the Thesis Committee about any delay or crisis affecting the research. The reasons must be mitigating and the Thesis Committee should find a rapid solution; failing to demand attention from the candidate the Thesis Committee must bring the case to the Academic Council.
18. Three members of the Thesis Committee must approve and sign every stage of the thesis enclosed with FORM-C. The Thesis Committee must record in FORM-C the periodic progress, annotations, observations and remarks made to the candidate.
19. The candidate must obtain the authorization of the Thesis Committee enclosed with FORM-D before the final print and submission of the thesis. After having obtained the said authorization the candidate must present 4 copies of the final thesis to the General Secretariat.
20. The Thesis Committee should handover to the Principal the final evaluation under two sections indicated in the Specific Evaluation of the Final Theses (FORM-G).
21. The Specific Evaluation of the Final Theses (FORM-G) will ensure the written works constitute a clear and permanent document and represent a standard of quality appropriate for a Diploma or BPh. The Specific Evaluation of the Final Theses is comprised of Two Sections: Section 1- Overall Procedure and Performance Evaluation by TG; Section 2- Specific Evaluation and Criteria Examining by the R1 & R2.

SECTION 1

OVERALL PROCEDURE AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BY TG

1. Preliminary project proposal of the thesis at the beginning of the work.
2. Collection of the documentation and the critical organization of the material.
3. Scientific Methodology tacitly assumed in the argumentation and analysis.
4. Preliminary bibliographical research level of the theme.
5. Receptiveness to the corrections and observations given during the work.
6. General impression of a team work between student and guides.
7. Actuality and quality of the proposed working time frame of the student.
8. Quality of the introduction, chapters, foot notes, conclusion & bibliography.
9. Quality of the printing and graphical presentation.

SECTION 2

SPECIFIC EVALUATION AND CRITERIA EXAMINING BY THE R1 & R2

Theme

Originality of the theme.

Choice of the theme in the purview of the inter-disciplinary nature of the Curriculum.

Relevance of the theme to contemporary social issues.

Language

General proficiency of English language.

Communicative achievement: formal/informl/just right/bad.

Clarity in conceptual expressions and linguistic mastery.

The quality and the structure of the paragraphs: smallest units of the paper.

The linguistic quality and the structure of the titles and the sub titles: larger units of the paper.

Linguistic appropriateness and the achievement of the message that the writer intends to convey to the reader: the scientific language.

Part(s) of speech (Lexis is often made up of more than one component. Multi-word verbs, for example, may comprise a verb, a preposition and a particle).

Spellings (Note the differences between UK and US spellings).

Punctuations.

Regularity/irregularity of using past tense verbs?

Word order and the structures which follow the transitive verbs, verb plus infinitive or gerund?

Methodology and Structure

1. Quality of the Title Page.
2. Quality of the Table of Contents.
3. Clarity in defining the subject in examination.
4. Level of research mindset, thinking processes and critical questioning.
5. Collection of the documentation/the preliminary bibliographical research level.
6. Quality and standard of the proposed bibliography - general/special.
7. Formatting the pages.
8. Application and evaluation of various themes in discussion.
9. Inductive and deductive reasoning.
10. Quality of footnotes.
11. Level of the comprehensiveness and synthetic vision obliged by a BA Thesis.
12. Effective convergence of major philosophical treatises - Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Anthropology, Religions and History.
13. Competency and knowledge of a sound philosophical reflection.
14. Background of the problem as needed.
15. Main divisions and articulation of the theme discussed.
16. General function of the subdivisions.
17. General organization of the body of the paper.
18. General introductions and transition of the theme continually present.
19. Elements of Salesian, pedagogical and pastoral interests.
20. Quality and suitability of the direct references from various sources.
21. Personalization of the indirect reference from various sources and their application in the work.
22. Quality of the Introduction: claim, relevance (Status Quaestionis), structure, methodology, bibliography and limitations.
23. Quality of the Conclusion: claim, reasons, recapitalization, evidence, alternatives, responses and claim re-stated.
24. Quality of the Bibliography: primary sources (specialized), secondary sources and articles.
25. Printing and graphical standard of the work: standard format.

Plagiarism

26. Intellectual honesty.
27. Clone: copying word-for-word as if it were one's own, with no reference.
28. The text changes key words and phrases but keeps the essential content, without giving reference.
29. The writer paraphrases and copies from different sources, making it all fit together, and still gives no reference.
30. The paper mixes copied material from several sources without proper citation. Furthermore, the mix shows no skills in paraphrasing, synthesizing, or summarizing.
31. Adherence to the methodological guidelines of the Faculty.
32. Risk of potential problems in methodology.

Orthodoxy

33. Adherence to the philosophical vision of the Catholic faith and tradition - Fides et Ratio.
34. Risk of the proposal to be non Catholic/agnostic/atheist and the balance and critical approach towards modernists, empiricists, rationalists and idealists.
35. Defense of Christian Ethics and Theology.
36. Presence of major classical thinkers: Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

FINAL EXAMINATIONS AND LECTIO CORAM

1. The authority and the organization of the Final Examinations and Lectio Coram are subject to the jurisdiction of the Academic Council headed by the Principal.
2. A candidate is eligible for the Final Examinations and Lectio Coram only after having fulfilled the following obligations and practices: Passed in all the Obligatory Fundamental Subjects (OFS); Passed in all the Obligatory Complementary Subjects (OCS); Passed in all the Optional Subjects (OS); and Submitted the Final Written Thesina/Thesis.
3. The Final Examinations are conducted in Two Parts orally (viva): Part-1: The Systematic Philosophy (5 ECTS) & History of Philosophy (4 ECTS); Part-2: The Defence of the Written Thesis in Lectio Coram (5 ECTS).
4. The Final Examinations will assess the candidate on any aspect of the curriculum and will ask to elaborate upon or defend issues arising from the literature review and the research plan contained in the studies.
5. The Faculty will present during the final semester an “Examination Theme Sheet” comprising key areas of philosophical investigations. The choice of questions may include a variety of topics deemed relevant to the socio-political-cultural-religious spectrum of philosophy.
6. The Final Examinations intend to have the candidate demonstrating a solid understanding of those areas relevant to the research, can expand and defend those ideas verbally, and has attained a breadth and depth of intellectual understanding of the subject matter.

PART-1

THE SYSTEMATIC PHILOSOPHY & HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY (9 ECTS)

1. The Principal will convene an Examination Panel for Systematic Philosophy & History of Philosophy comprised of three lecturers.
2. The Systematic part will include all the major philosophical treatises of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Anthropology, Ethics, Philosophy of God, Cosmology, Philosophy of Language, Politics, Psychology and Education. The Examination Panel for Systematic Philosophy will raise 3 basic questions aiming at a broad and comprehensive historical and systematic finding. In the answers the candidate must demonstrate a sound knowledge of a comprehensive outlook of philosophy, familiarising concepts, authors, texts, schools and movements both in analytic and continental philosophy. The finding of the non-philosophical courses must stimulate a broader interest and encourage “interdisciplinarity”.
3. The History of Philosophy will include major periods of history of philosophy of the East and the West. The Panel will raise 3 basic questions expounding on key philosophical themes, concepts and their historical development. The candidate must demonstrate a sound knowledge of comprehensive outlook of the major periods of history. The answers must be well-structured with essential bibliography and advanced studies. The emphasis must be made on the roots of the eminent tradition of the European continental philosophy and that of the East as well. The care should be taken to lay emphasis upon complex relations of philosophy to the development of modern science and technology; the social and political history of the developed and developing countries; religious freedom and gender issues; international peace and economy; ambient and green energy; and man’s attempt to achieve a satisfactory “Weltanshauung” in the annals of history and its evolution.

PART-2

THE DEFENCE OF THE THESIS IN LECTIO CORAM (5 ECTS)

1. During the Final Comprehensive Examination the Written Thesina/Thesis will be taken into examination and discussion. The written work must be defended by the candidate before an Independent Examination Panel in Lectio Coram.
2. The Principal will convene an Independent Examination Panel for Lectio Coram comprised of the President who is also its Moderator, the Thesis Guide, Examiner/Reader 01 and Examiner/Reader 02. All the members will evaluate the thesis according to the Specific Evaluation of the Final Theses (FORM-G) and submit the report to the Principal.
3. During the defence the candidate will elaborate orally/written the problem, background and his own findings. The Examination Panel will evaluate the presentation of the candidate.
4. The Guide will declare his final report and pose 3 questions to the candidate and the candidate will respond to each question. The Examination Panel will evaluate the answers.
5. The Examiner/Reader 01 will be the devil’s advocate. The Examiner/Reader 01 will present the mistakes, errors and inconsistency found on the written text pertaining to the argument, analysis, synthesis and scientific methodology. The Examiner/Reader 01 will also make observations for further improvement of the text. The Examiner/Reader 01 will pose 3 questions and the candidate will respond to each question. The Examination Panel will evaluate the answers.
6. The Examiner/Reader 02 will give a further objective report as a neutral reader. The Reader 02 will focus on prospectus stage of the problem, the present level of the subject matter expertise, defence of other available theses parallel to what is being defended by the candidate, clarifications, resolutions and any other particular expertise in the type of study that the candidate is pursuing. The Reader 02 will pose 3 questions and the candidate will respond to each question. The Examination Panel will evaluate the answers.
7. The Examination Panel will take into account the record obtained by the Candidate from the Cambridge Assessment English FCE B2 before declaring the final results. The candidate must obtain the Cambridge Assessment English FCE B2 in English in order to be eligible for Diploma from UPS and BPh from DBCIPH.

MARKS SCHEME OF THE FINAL EXAMS

---

QUALIFICATION	MARKS
	30	10	100	110	U.S.A.
Probatus	18	6	60	66	D.Pass
	19	6.33	63	69.7	(1 grade points)
	20	6.66	67	73.3
Bene Probatus	21	7	70	77
	22	7.33	73	80.7
	23	7.66	77	84.3	C. Good
Cum Laude	24	8	80	88	(2 grade points)
	25	8.33	83	91.7
	26	8.66	87	95.3
Magna cum Laude	27	9	90	99	B. Very good
	28	9.33	93	102.7	(3 grade points)
	29	9.66	97	106.3
Summa cum Laude	30	10	100	110	A. Excellent
					(4 grade point)