Generally, I focus on these four reasons to take classes:
Some people take classes because they want to learn the subject the class is on, but unless that unpacks into the latter three reasons, there's probably a better way to accomplish it.
As mentioned by others, it looks to me like this class does well on all of those reasons (but I'm going off of your one-lecture impression of the professors). This is probably the best place in Yale to meet interested students for your rationality meetup- and the professors are probably good network hubs for this.
As for feminist critiques of rationality, the syllabus lists the reading right there! This is week 1, and this is week 2. (The first one has limited pages in the preview- I doubt you'll be able to read all 51 pages of the second chapter- but you should be able to find it in the library.)
This would count toward my major, and if I weren't going to take it, the likely replacement would be a course in experimental/"folk" philosophy. But I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the virtues of academic rationality courses in general.
(The main counterargument, I'd imagine, is that the Sequences cover most of the same material in a more fluid and comprehensible fashion.)
Here is the syllabus: http://www.yale.edu/darwall/PHIL+333+Syllabus.pdf
Other information: I sampled one lecture for the course last year. It was a noncommital discussion of Newcomb's problem, which I found somewhat interesting despite having read most of the LW material on the subject.
When I asked what Omega would do if we activated a random number generator with a 50.01% chance of one-boxing us, the professors didn't dismiss the question as irrelevant, but they also didn't offer any particular answer.
I help run a rationality meetup at Yale, and this seems like a good place to meet interested students. On the other hand, I could just as easily leave flyers around before the class begins.
Related question: Could someone quickly sum up what might be meant by the "feminist critique" of rationality, as would be discussed in the course? I've read a few abstracts, but I'm still not sure I know the most important points of these critiques.