Advice:  Pick a criticism that you can discuss in some detail.  The point of the exercise is to demonstrate that you understand Sperber, and one of the critical discussions of his argument that you have read.

Standards on which the paper will be evaluated:  (1)  clarity and presentation of your argument, (2)  understanding of Sperber, (3) understanding of McCauley-Lawson's or Toren's argument, (4)  ability to synthesize issues we have been discussing during the semester, and incorporate them when appropriate into your argument.  Since this is your first paper, this is the order of priority that I will use in grading.  Later in the term, understanding the big issues of the course will be the most important issue; but for now, the most important thing is that you are clear in what you do say, and that you make an attempt to make your paper relevant to the big issues.  Of course, the ideal is to do well on all four aspects of the paper, but you can earn an honors grade on the first paper as long as you perform well on standard (1) and appear to be making a good attempt at (2) - (4).

Length:  I don't really care how long the paper is.   I am saying 4-5 pages (assuming default settings for most word processor programs, 10-12 point, space-and-a-half line spacing, etc.) because this will be a meaningful expression of how much detail I want for people who have already written a lot of papers in college.  Be concise, but clear:  If you only need 3 pages to say what you need to say, then don't give me a page or two to fill the paper out.
 

(1)  Does Boyer tell us more about religion or about the mind?  Clearly, he seeks to explain how the mind represents religious notions, so one answer to this question would be that he does both.  But that is not what I am looking for.  Rather, the question has to do with how Boyer constructs his understanding of religion and mental structure.  Implicit in his theory is a theory of what religion is, and a theory of how the mind represents a variety of objects.  This question asks you to consider not the theory itself, but rather the utility of the theory.  Thus the question could be rephrased:  What is Boyer's theory better in helping us to understand:  the object of religious representations or the mode of their representation?

(2)  Summarize the argument Boyer presents regarding one of the following:  natural ontologies, causal judgments, social categories, or rituals.  Also, explain how the repertoire you choose interacts in the mind with the other repertoires.  This does not require you to take a stand on the value of Boyer's arguments, but it does require you do synthesize arguments from throughout the book.

(3)  Pick one of Boyer's theses, and support or defend it.  This requires you not only to summarize Boyer's position, but also to present arguments of your own for or against what Boyer presents.  Pick any thesis you like, but remember that part of the assignment is to pick a thesis that is suitable for the question (can be addressed in the number of pages required, gives some insight into the value of Boyer's project, does not require extensive support from evidence outside Boyer's book, etc.). 

Standards on which the paper will be evaluated:  to the extent that you choose your topic, you set the standards on which your paper will be evaluated.  Clearly state what you plan to do in the paper, and then do that.  Remember, however, that the paper is intended to show off your understanding of a wide cross-section of what we have discussed in the last month; in other words, this is an opportunity to show off what you know, and you should define your thesis, within the bounds of one of the three choices above, with this in mind.  Also, make sure you have a topic that can reasonably be covered in 4-5 pages, and which requires 4-5 pages to cover.  Contact me with any questions: carlas@ccat.sas.upenn.edu.

Length:  I don't really care how long the paper is.   I am saying 4-5 pages (assuming default settings for most word processor programs, 10-12 point, space-and-a-half line spacing, etc.) because this will be a meaningful expression of how much detail I want for people who have already written a lot of papers in college.  But I am less interested in length than in the quality of what you say.  Be concise, but clear.

You could support the position of one author against others, or claim that none of the authors provides a satisfactory treatment of the problem in question.  You can also argue for a position that combines moves made by different authors, focusing more on the problem you address and using examples from our readings.  Other approaches are no doubt also possible.

Standards for Evaluation:  I would like to see you do four things in the paper: 
(1)  Make sure you treat a topic that relates to the topic of the course (cognitive approaches to religion), (2) take a stand on the value of the contributions of at least two works we have read, including H-L, (3) provide arguments not found in anything we have read, in other words provide your own contribution, and (4) write a clear, coherent, and concise paper.  Grades will be based on these criteria, and on the pedagogical value of the question you seek to answer and how well you answer it.  In other words, I want this paper to provide you with the opportunity to think through a big issue we have considered during the course.  The extent to which you allow yourself to do this is a significant part your the grade for this paper; equally significant is your ability to execute the plan you lay out.

You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to discuss Staal and/or L-McC.

Need Help?  We will hold an extra class during Reading Period, on Wednesday, December 11 from 4:30-6:00 in Bennett Hall 325 (our normal time and room).  I will also hold office hours during Reading Period, and will check my email daily as usual during the final weeks of the term.  Start thinking about what topic you will address and what claims you wish to make, so that you have time to plan your paper and discuss with me or other students what you want to write.

Giving Credit:  Feel free to discuss the assignment and your own paper with other students in the class.  Any help you receive from others should be acknowledged in your paper, unless I am privy to it:  thus, do not acknowledge help received during class discussion or from me in conversation or email.  The idea is that I as the reader need to be aware of where your ideas come from, so that I can evaluate your contribution to your paper.  It reflects well on you if you know where to go for the help you need, and also if you have good ideas of your own.  So acknowledge help from others generously and include all the good arguments that help you meet the criteria above.

A bibliography is necessary only if you use written sources other than assigned readings (including web-based material and drafts of one another's papers).  All references to written materials should include page numbers, and all acknowledgements (including conversations and correspondence) should be given in footnotes, endnotes, or the text of your paper, with references (if you like, as appropriate) to your bibliography.

If the class is in general agreement that this would be a good idea, I can post here possible topics suggested by students.  Thus you can profit from each other's ingenuity, and get a list of topics with tentative approval by me. 

Length:  This paper counts 40% of your final grade, in contrast to 30% each for the other papers, so it will probably be slightly longer (maybe 6-8 pages).  But use only the space you need, up to a maximum of about 8 pages.