MetaChat - DEBATE TIEM: Logic for undergrads?

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

05 July 2009

DEBATE TIEM: Logic for undergrads? Should universities require all undergrads to be schooled in logic, especially the informal and formal fallacies?

I vote yes.

post by: kldickson at: 13:38 | 21 comments

Sure. And all horses should be led to water regularly.

posted by Wolfdog 05 July | 13:43

The point is making the water available.

posted by kldickson 05 July | 13:44

Oh yes. I would require one logic course (to replace some current math requirement) and one rhetoric course (to replace some current social science or writing requirement).

posted by casarkos 05 July | 13:50

Possibly. I had to take a class in that my first semester at Lyco and I think I showed up for the first class and the tests. (That was an especially horrific semester for me.) I don't think it really helped though.

posted by sperose 05 July | 14:16

≡ Click to see image ≡
I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE.

posted by jonmc 05 July | 14:39

That, and financial literacy.

The idea isn't wholly unprecedented. For example, in California, an accredited high school must meet certain requirements, such as taking roll, and teaching a year of U.S. History.

posted by ikkyu2 05 July | 14:48

People take, what, thirty or forty classes during their entire undergraduate career? I do not believe that learning formal logic is always the best possible use of what seems to be to be a rather starkly limited amount of time and resources. It seems to me that nursing, engineering and studio art students, just to pick a couple easy examples, might better expend their efforts elsewhere.

posted by box 05 July | 14:55

Out of those 30-40 undergrad classes, about 7-8 are going to be "general education" required fluff anyway - I ended up taking things like History of Jazz and Introduction to Cosmology so I could fill the reqs.

Dunno about studio art or nursing, but when I was an engineering grad instructor I was constantly wishing I could kick all the kids out for the semester and tell them to come back when they learned to properly analyse their data and make convincing, coherent arguments for their designs - not just "my dad who runs a construction company says this is kind of similar to things that work." Grading those reports was painful.

posted by casarkos 05 July | 15:39

Harvard, at least when I was there, required "Quantitative Reasoning," but you could test out of it at the beginning of your freshman year -- you couldn't use high school credits to place out of it; you had to actually sit and take a test. If you failed the test, you had to take the class your first semester.

I think a huge majority of students did test out of it, but that seems like a good compromise to me, conveying the idea that these skills are fundamental to any further work required by the college.

posted by occhiblu 05 July | 15:48

I vote yes. In fact I say start in high school. A basic ability to reason, catch flaws in arguments and to think critically is the most useful thing you can learn in my opinion. I got a basic understanding of the logical fallacies and critical reasoning from debate which I did throughout high school and I've long felt that all students could benefit from such studies.

posted by kodama 05 July | 16:26

Required? No. I am a firm believer in a liberal education based on choice instead of dictated by requirement.

posted by plinth 05 July | 19:23

I'm with plinth. Let Universities make their own curricula. The courses should definitely be available and encouraged, but I think what is more important is individualizing a curriculum to fit a student. More personal attention, and fewer cookie cutter requirements I say.

posted by eekacat 05 July | 20:23

I think logic and rhetoric should both be taught. Even in fields which seem to be mostly about memorization or skill... I think all fields need insightful practitioners in order to advance.

posted by halonine 05 July | 20:32

Well, I'm a firm believer in the value of a core curriculum -- my University of Chicago (both parents) and Beloit College (me) roots are showing there. I think having one is an excellent anchor for a more unstructured degree program, if you want one.

posted by dhartung 05 July | 20:33

I could take logic instead of math when I was an undergrad - the first time it was with an ancient prof and it made absolutely no sense to me, so I dropped it. The second time was with a much more energetic young asst. prof and it suddenly became clear. I won't say I enjoyed it, but I did do much better the second time.

posted by pinky.p 06 July | 00:14

As long as it doesn't cut into Bible Class, I'm all for the teaching of Logic.

posted by seanyboy 06 July | 05:43

Logic for the elite! Confusion for the masses!

Divide! Divide!

posted by Hugh Janus 06 July | 08:22

An interdisciplinary approach to logic, yes. For many people, the math of formal logic doesn't translate well to the Real World.

And Ethics. We could use a lot more Ethics.

posted by theora55 06 July | 08:29

Sadly, the destruction of the higher education core curriculum is a fait accompli. Yes, I think it's a good idea; no, I don't think many universities will implement it.

posted by Miko 06 July | 09:17

I'd like them to be able to read and write first. Just basic comprehension of words with more than 2 syllables and effective written communication with a smattering of grammar thrown in. Then we can worry about "higher" education.

posted by Susurration 06 July | 12:58

Critical reasoning rather than logic. Yes.

And shouldn't we add etiquette to that?

WELCOME kldickson.

posted by GeckoDundee 07 July | 10:30

← Nothing san stop me today! || Lordz Of Brooklyn - American Made. →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN