How to revise philosophy A level??

Avoid writing in first person, so instead of 'I think...' say 'It could be argued...'

Good advice until you said this. It is standard to write in the first person in philosophy, and it's a bit weird when people don't. Is this actually taught? It'd explain a lot about our first years.

As a general rule, do not say 'it could be argued'. It is the most wishy washy, nothing phrase that often precedes wishy-washy, nothing points. Make the argument solidly, either on your own part or on behalf of someone else

I will argue
I argue
An opponent would argue

NOT

'It could be argued'
'I would argue'

Oh really? Thank you for correcting me!

Yes, this is always what I was taught both at GCSE and A-Level, we were told never to write in first person, not too sure what the teacher's reasoning was behind it.

Absolutely bizarre, I don't know why some of them do this, it's crazy.

You get to university and we go 'why are yous writing in this weird way?' Bonkers!

Oh really? Thank you for correcting me!

Yes, this is always what I was taught both at GCSE and A-Level, we were told never to write in first person, not too sure what the teacher's reasoning was behind it.

We were also always told to write in the passive voice in school...although this continued at uni when I was studying in a STEM subject, in my current humanities module my tutor definitely prefers when I write in the first person.

Good advice until you said this. It is standard to write in the first person in philosophy, and it's a bit weird when people don't. Is this actually taught? It'd explain a lot about our first years.

As a general rule, do not say 'it could be argued'. It is the most wishy washy, nothing phrase that often precedes wishy-washy, nothing points. Make the argument solidly, either on your own part or on behalf of someone else

I will argue
I argue
An opponent would argue

NOT

'It could be argued'
'I would argue'

Some do teach that yes, unfortunately. In their defence, I think they just worry that if students at A level use 'I think' then there is a consequent tendency for them to assert rather than justify their view.

Just displaces the problem rather than addressing it, to my my mind

what exam board do you do?

I did OCR RS so not exactly the same but I had the philosophy part - I did as many essay plans as I could, loads of mind maps and flashcards. Essay plans definitely the most important and if you can, practice writing some essays in exam conditions.

As for structure, you want a strong intro outlining your main points and most importantly what you will be arguing for in your essay. Avoid writing in first person, so instead of 'I think...' say 'It could be argued...' Main body should be two or three paragraphs with points for, with plenty of evidence to back it up, and make sure to reference philosophers, and then a couple of paragraphs with points against, again with evidence and philosophers. Then a conclusion, make sure not to add any new arguments/evidence, should just be a short summary of your arguments and evidence, and reiterate your line of argument.

Good advice until you said this. It is standard to write in the first person in philosophy, and it's a bit weird when people don't. Is this actually taught? It'd explain a lot about our first years.

As a general rule, do not say 'it could be argued'. It is the most wishy washy, nothing phrase that often precedes wishy-washy, nothing points. Make the argument solidly, either on your own part or on behalf of someone else

I will argue
I argue
An opponent would argue

NOT

'It could be argued'
'I would argue'

AQA

Good advice until you said this. It is standard to write in the first person in philosophy, and it's a bit weird when people don't. Is this actually taught? It'd explain a lot about our first years.

As a general rule, do not say 'it could be argued'. It is the most wishy washy, nothing phrase that often precedes wishy-washy, nothing points. Make the argument solidly, either on your own part or on behalf of someone else

I will argue
I argue
An opponent would argue

NOT

'It could be argued'
'I would argue'

Good advice until you said this. It is standard to write in the first person in philosophy, and it's a bit weird when people don't. Is this actually taught? It'd explain a lot about our first years.

As a general rule, do not say 'it could be argued'. It is the most wishy washy, nothing phrase that often precedes wishy-washy, nothing points. Make the argument solidly, either on your own part or on behalf of someone else

I will argue
I argue
An opponent would argue

NOT

'It could be argued'
'I would argue'

TL;Dr: use both

I don't entirely agree with your answer. To it should be added the nuance:

Good, original philosophy uses "I think", "I would argue" etc as you say. But A level isn't quite the same. It requires BOTH displaying understanding of what other people say and analysing and weighing such arguments up. The former involves explaining someone else's position - for which the third person is best. The latter involves weighing in personally I.e. the "I argue" you mention. Even good philosophy sometimes makes use of this former historical explanation. No need to insist on A level students going over their heads and going against the aims of the A level 😅
Clarity is key - if you only use the first person, it will be less clear who is arguing what. The dialectic is much clearer if it reads more like "Kant argued...", "But I think...", "To which Aristotle's objection might be...". Using both first and third person appropriately is much better - follow your instinct.
That said, the slightly archaic obsession with third person and impersonal prose in scholarly literature does not belong to philosophy, as you rightly point out - nor, indeed to A levels.

I also disagree with your suggestion to always say the point solidly and avoid wishy washy talk. The A level promotes students weighing up arguments (and rightly so!), which involves different levels of confidence and belief. Hence, I think it would be useful for more nuance, particularly later in essays and towards the conclusion; e.g. "However, against Kant it might be said that... But this objection fails because..." The use of nuanced language often hints at the direction of your essay (i.e. 'this point is good/bad') which is more likely to be recognised by examiners as sustained argument. Just stating everything solidly is very basic and also a bit arrogant tbh. I see that your point probably comes from a place where you receive many students who lack confidence (or understanding...) or who have been trained in other disciplines with other ideals.
Finally, it's worth adding that just because some people on TSR who are well versed in Philosophy said so, doesn't mean the examiners will agree. For a start, there's no one right answer or method in philosophy. But also, the examiners aren't necessarily as well versed in philosophy, and like all humans (especially those under intense pressure) they are easily influenced by non- philosophical considerations such as the style of writing, grammar, spelling, even handwriting. Use of pronouns, if done absolutely right, will really help. That said, the AQA philosophy examiners are fantastic and very knowledgeable.

And I know all this because my teacher WAS the senior examiner.


P.p.s I imagine with exams cancelled noone cares anymore anyway...

This is interesting! In psychology it's all 'it could be argued' didn't even think that philosophy would be different!

The problem is, especially with inexperienced writees/thinkers, that it has a tendency to bypass context: when? By whom? Why? Under what circumstances? This is why we discourage its use generally (I think the other poster missed the part where I said 'as a general rule' and not 'absolutely, 100% of the time'!), because it's a turn of phrase that often links to these sorts of omissions. Better to rephrase and be more direct where possible.

No first class student ever wrote a paper that relied on 'such and such said, but it could be argued... and it could be argued... but it could also be argued'

Make an argument, dispatch objections. Don't give us a list of half-arsed 'well, someone might say...'