AAPT Members

The Columbia Spectatorreports that the Philosophy department will no longer require a Senior thesis to be considered for honors in their program. The reason offered, through a quote from Philip Kitcher is:

“The department has had some terrific undergraduates. But we’ve also had undergraduates, whom I’ve felt, felt they must write a thesis, but there was no particular thesis they wanted to write and wrote something they didn’t believe much in,” Kitcher said.
“It [writing a thesis] wasn’t a good experience for them, and it ended up being, shall we say, mediocre,” he added.

I'm struggling with the load imposed by Senior theses, which isn't helped by the inadequate compensation we receive for supervising such projects (80$ /credit-hour). But that's not the grounds that should decide this question. Surely, the grounds should be the educational value of such a project.  The Columbia Spectator quotes Daniel Garber at Princeton for an opposing view:

At Princeton University, all students irrespective of major are required to write a thesis in order to graduate. The Princeton philosophy department considers the senior thesis, as well as the student’s grade point average and other factors, to determine who receives honors.
"I think every student doing honors should probably do a thesis," Daniel Garber, chair of Princeton's philosophy department said, though he added, "I'm not sure the thesis is the best final capping project for every student."

 I agree - a thesis in Philosophy is not the best final capping project for every student. But how can it not be the best for every philosophy student?

Most of our students won't go to graduate school. Few, if any, will work in a field that resembles Philosophy. But philosophy students tend to be recognized by the business world as critical thinkers, diligent researchers and good writers.  Aren't we betraying the 'brand' if we're graduating students who can't complete a self-directed thesis? 

Philosophy isn't a content-based discipline. When we graduate a major, we're not saying that this person has mastery over a set of facts.  That much is agreed.

I'm worried that if we're also not saying that this person can write, can reason and can work independently, are we saying anything at all?