You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

AlexMennen comments on Help Reform A Philosophy Curriculum - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: JonathanLivengood 08 December 2012 10:45PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (24)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AlexMennen 09 December 2012 02:35:35AM 13 points [-]

The problem with gating classes is that it makes life difficult for students who self-studied the lower-level material. The UC Berkeley math department does not enforce prerequisites, which made my life a lot easier, since I already knew most of the material for the lower division classes despite never having taken equivalent classes, and was able to skip directly to the classes that were at a more appropriate level. So I wouldn't suggest having strictly gated classes, although it might make sense to put in weaker filters to weed out the students who really don't have the necessary background (e.g. "... or consent of instructor")

Comment author: Desrtopa 09 December 2012 03:46:39AM 13 points [-]

At some universities, at least, it's possible to test out of many class requirements. This is easiest to implement with math classes, but I think creating tests that gauge proficiency in logic shouldn't be that hard. Probably easier than creating a meaningful test for familiarity with the works of various philosophers.

Comment author: JonathanLivengood 09 December 2012 04:57:00PM 8 points [-]

I was going to say that the problem from the instructor's point of view is deciding whether the student really has the necessary background, but Desrtopa is probably right that some sort of testing system could be set up.

In one sense, I agree that there shouldn't be any gating. It is overly-paternalistic. Students should be allowed to risk taking advanced classes as long as they don't gripe about their failures later. But on the other hand, the actual result that I see in my classes is that many -- and here I mean maybe as many as half -- of the students in upper-division courses are not prepared to do philosophy at that level. They don't know how to engage in discussion appropriately or productively; they don't know how to write clearly or criticize arguments effectively; etc. If they only affected themselves, I could put up with it. But they don't affect only themselves, they affect the other students as well.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 10 December 2012 03:49:15PM *  3 points [-]

If you're going to back off on the gating, you need to provide sufficient guidance to the students on what they will practically need to know that they can make an informed choice. I took a course in baroque music that went very badly. If I had known how much music theory I would have to have, and how much facility I would have to have with it, I would not have taken the course.

Comment author: JonathanLivengood 11 December 2012 04:37:34AM 0 points [-]

Good point.

Comment author: loup-vaillant 14 December 2012 05:07:56PM *  2 points [-]

So, we have a few alternatives:

  1. No filters at all.
  2. Full gating (if you didn't went through the prerequisite courses, you're out).
  3. Instructor's approval.
  4. Entry tests.
  5. Big warnings about prerequisites.

I think the best way is probably a mix:

  • If you took (and passed) the prerequisite courses, you can enter.
  • Otherwise, you pass the entry test (if available).
    • Above some threshold, you can enter.
    • Below some threshold, you're toast.
    • Between them, you need instructor approval.

The idea is to make prerequisite courses optional, while keeping the actual proficiency of the prerequisite material mandatory.