Note that one of the usual tips for getting a discussion going is "don't ask 'how was the reading or lecture?'". This usually leads to silence and shuffling feet. And yet when asked what seminars are for both tutors and students give checking understanding of the reading or lecture as one of the answers. Given that we have a system of largish lectures and small seminar groups this seems a reasonable way of thinking about their use, but it worries me that this could be read as a very transmissive model of learning. That is the idea that in the lecture information is given and in the seminar you check that the information has been received 'correctly'. And likewise in the textbook information is given and the seminar is the place to check that you have understood it correctly. This seems a particularly unhelpful way of characterising a process that should involve critical thinking. Checking that your interpretation of and response to the lecture or reading is not hopelessly idiosyncratic is something that can take place in the seminar, but shouldn't this emerge from your working with the others on thinking critically about those ideas? Although there are facts that can be learnt regarding philosophical positions and one could get them either right or wrong, the substance of philosophy is the type of questions and the ways of thinking about them. Remembering facts and getting them right will help, but it shouldn't be substituted for philosophical enquiry.