tl;dr I thought the solution lacked explanatory power, particularly in terms of the sciences where it does not seem possible to collapse the “higher” sciences (biology, psychology) down into the “lower” ones (physics) whilst accurately describing the world.
Did you get a decent grade?
Grading is different in the UK to the US but I got the equivalent of a high B, not enough to get funding for the PhD I wanted to write on thought experiments! (Required an A and I was 4% short.)
The main complaint was that I spent too much time doing an exegesis of what other philosophers thought and not enough time developing my own ideas. To be fair I think that makes for better content for sharing here since what professional philosophers think about this issue is probably more interesting than what this wannabe philosopher thought.
Im actually from the Uk 😅
Overall it would have been a 2:1 in undergrad terms but those don’t apply to masters degrees where you either get a distinction (masters equivalent of a 1st), pass or fail.
Edit: grading is harsher for masters too. Like imagine shifting the marking requirements up by 1/2 a grade or so.
