Is this class Worthy?

[Infected Mushroom]

Please consider the following hypothetical:

You work for the Ministry of Public Education. The funding for a public university is being slashed and some classes need to be removed. You have a say in which classes.

The purpose of the public university is to:

1. Train and equip future generations with the tools to succeed in the workplace and the economy
2. Instill loyalty to the government and a sense of nationhood
3. Promote critical thinking to solve society’s problems

The government has given you one day (that’s not a lot of time) to tour the campus so you do so. Most of the information you have about the classes is in paper files.

You stop by PHIL 123 Intro to Linguistics

The professor watches apprehensively as you walk in from a corner to the back (from your clothes and the name tag, it’s clear who you speak for). You lean against a part of the wall in a casual motion as you watch the room with a suspicious gaze. You lean your head back a bit and start to chew on a toothpick as your gaze turns towards the students filtering in.

The professor clears his throat and tells everyone to sit down.

It is an exam day and papers are passed out. The professor pulls a chair up to the front. Then he writes on the board just above the chair:

Please write a 3,000 word essay to discuss the following prompt: “Prove to me that this chair exists.”
l
l
l
v
(The chair is here*)

You are a bit puzzled... “What is this...”

You look around. The students have begun to write. The professor comes up to you and says quietly:

“How’s your day sir?”

“Quite... eventful. This is a very interesting class.”

Without saying anything further, you turn around and walk out.

Later that day, you go back to your office and pull out a file on the class. It says that the purpose of the class is to teach the students how to think like philosophers, understand the power of words and to explore the assumptions inherent in linguistic communication and it’s use. The class is graded as follows... 20 percent group project, 60 percent on a take home 3,000 word research paper, 40 percent on this final you’ve just witnessed (prove they chair exists).

Your Leader calls you and asks regarding Phil 123.

“Le Budget needs to be cut. Vat do you say to zis?”

Your options:

“Sir, I must recommend that this class be cut in light of the limited school funding. As things stand, it’s not a very useful class.”

Or

“Sir, upon viewing the class I think there is value. This class should be kept.”

Please consider your mandate, the value of the class, and the limited school funds. Do you recommend that the class be slashed? Or not? Explain.

The class should be cut. My main reasoning is that it’s not very practical. Also, funding is limited.

[Sundiata]

I'd keep the course in the curriculum as people should learn how to think.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'd keep the course in the curriculum as people should learn how to think.

Hmmm... but is the class useful? What do you say?

[Sundiata]

I'd keep the course in the curriculum as people should learn how to think.

Hmmm... but is the class useful? What do you say?

Yes, it's especially useful for attorneys and priests whose words are their trade.

[Foxfound]

I happen to be taking philosophy this semester, and it's proven very interesting so far, even if I don't understand every little detail about morality and manipulation we've been over. I actually think it does have some use. I'm not good at explaining it, but what I've been studying about different views on free will and moral responsibility could have impacts on how society should be run.

Of course, it's nearly midnight so it's always possible I have no idea what I'm talking about right now. And in any case there's a big difference between comparing theories of free will and defining moral responsibility and what the class in this scenario is focusing on. There still might be worth in thinking about what we take for granted about existence, but the thought of writing 3,000 words on it gives me a headache.

[Umeria]

It seems like this would be a prerequisite for other classes, meaning it can't be cut?

[Elsa De Arendelle]

I voted no as I'm sure there are some other useless classes you can cut.

[Infected Mushroom]

I voted no as I'm sure there are some other useless classes you can cut.

what would you cut for example?

[Infected Mushroom]

It seems like this would be a prerequisite for other classes, meaning it can't be cut?

You could cut other classes in addition too

Costs are tight

[Elsa De Arendelle]

3/4 of the humanities and arts should go, especially if it involves gender/race studies.

I'd keep a basic level and advanced levels of music, philosophy, ethics, and history. Then scrap the rest. Art class has to go, sadly, despite its usefulness for multiple purposes but people who automatically gravitate towards art will produce it naturally without having anyone encourage/teach them.

[Side 3]

It should be kept. Some things seem redundant at a glance, but you may just need another perspective. Therefore I think teaching people to think critically and outside the box is very useful to society.

[Umeria]

It seems like this would be a prerequisite for other classes, meaning it can't be cut?

You could cut other classes in addition too

Costs are tight

It that case what I'd do is merge the material into more general classes in the humanities department. Costs are lowered with the added benefit of the material reaching more students.

[Infected Mushroom]

The way I see it:

If chairs weren’t real, we’d be sitting on the floor.

I don’t know how productive it is to get someone to write 3,000 words on this.

Meanwhile, there’s a large number of real life problems that need tackling etc

[United Latin American States]

Cut the class, Linguistics isn't going cure cancer, get us to Mars, nor solve Climate Change.

[Exxosia]

I would say it should be cut because it goes against the three rules laid out as the purpose of the university. Especially the second, you do not want the people seeing through your statist cult-speak. This class would in turn be moved into some facility for the education of the state agents.

[Side 3]

Cut the class, Linguistics isn't going cure cancer, get us to Mars, nor solve Climate Change.

But asking questions and thinking critically will. You have to see the bigger picture. It's not about the damn chair; it's about thinking about and tackling tough questions. Beside, if people can't even prove that a chair exists with 3,000 words, how do you expect them to cure cancer, or get to Mars? They need to be able to think and reason, even when it seems like there's nothing to think and reason about.

[Auphelia]

Though I disagree that these sorts of classes have lesser value, nor do I believe walking in for a few minutes on an exam day constitutes a sufficient frame of reference through observation to outweigh whatever conclusions I might come to from the provided records, I would cut this class.

I don’t see why a class teaching the basics of linguistics would have an exam for half of the total based on philosophy.

But asking questions and thinking critically will. You have to see the bigger picture. It's not about the damn chair; it's about thinking about and tackling tough questions. Beside, if people can't even prove that a chair exists with 3,000 words, how do you expect them to cure cancer, or get to Mars? They need to be able to think and reason, even when it seems like there's nothing to think and reason about.

I concur. However, a linguistics course has no reason to teach these things. The study of language and the study of reasoning are only related so much as biology and physics are related: they’re in the same general area, but completely different things.

[Fahran]

Abstract thinking and critical analysis are a good deal more important than a lot of people who gripe about higher education seem to realize. They're two of the key advantages countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany continue to enjoy over emerging rivals such as China, India, and Nigeria, which often have robust instruction in more technical skills while lagging behind in the two skills in question. Leaders who cannot engage in abstract or analytical thought in a wide variety of fields tend to suffer from a particular and often debilitating form of myopia - whether that's in government, on the battlefield, or in corporate boardrooms.

Disdain for the philosopher, the artist, and the poet is unbecoming and tantamount to philistinism. These people can and do enrich and guide society, stimulating the moral imagination and erecting the facades of culture where ever they busy their hands. It's advantageous for society to accommodate a few of these sorts, and, as I stated before, the two skills in question, when applied in diverse fields, tend to yield significant dividends and confer substantial advantages. You want creative and abstract-thinking NCOs. You want creative and abstract-thinking lawyers. You want creative and abstract-thinking inventors and policy makers and businesspeople.

[Fahran]

I don’t see why a class teaching the basics of linguistics would have an exam for half of the total based on philosophy.

Logical positivism and existentialism focused quite a lot on linguistics depending on who you're reading. I had a philosophy of science course as a sophomore and it actually served a very important purpose beyond cross-disciplinary instruction on abstract and analytical thinking. It helped me to appreciate the underlying philosophical premises upon which the scientific method was constructed.

[Auphelia]

Logical positivism and existentialism focused quite a lot on linguistics depending on who you're reading. I had a philosophy of science course as a sophomore and it actually served a very important purpose beyond cross-disciplinary instruction on abstract and analytical thinking. It helped me to appreciate the underlying philosophical premises upon which the scientific method was constructed.

That all sounds well and good, but how would an examination of 3,000 words on whether or not a chair exists be a sufficient determinant of a student’s understanding of the content of an introductory level linguistics course?

We are given no information on what the objective of the course is aside from it being a linguistics course in a philosophy section. Even assuming there was a focus on the philosophy of linguistics, and assuming that this question has any relation to linguistics, this chair question is overly broad and insufficient to measure a student’s comprehension.

I change my answer. I blame the professor. If they are replaced, the course should go on. Linguistics can be quite useful and a holistic education is to be valued, but from what I can see, this is a poorly run class.

[Infected Mushroom]

Logical positivism and existentialism focused quite a lot on linguistics depending on who you're reading. I had a philosophy of science course as a sophomore and it actually served a very important purpose beyond cross-disciplinary instruction on abstract and analytical thinking. It helped me to appreciate the underlying philosophical premises upon which the scientific method was constructed.

That all sounds well and good, but how would an examination of 3,000 words on whether or not a chair exists be a sufficient determinant of a student’s understanding of the content of an introductory level linguistics course?

We are given no information on what the objective of the course is aside from it being a linguistics course in a philosophy section. Even assuming there was a focus on the philosophy of linguistics, and assuming that this question has any relation to linguistics, this chair question is overly broad and insufficient to measure a student’s comprehension.

I change my answer. I blame the professor. If they are replaced, the course should go on. Linguistics can be quite useful and a holistic education is to be valued, but from what I can see, this is a poorly run class.

Hmmm should it have been Intro to Philosophy of Linguistics instead?

It’s different?

[Auphelia]

Hmmm should it have been Intro to Philosophy of Linguistics instead?

It’s different?

Even then, this exam would be a farce.

Assuming you want that sort of broad philosophical question, there is no need for it to have anything to do with linguistics at all. Linguistics is the study of language: how words form, the meaning of sounds, the syntax and morphology of language, etc. I am far from an expert on the university system, but it would seem a simple Introduction to Philosophy course may be sufficient to frame your theoretical scenario around. Adding linguistics is a complication that detracts from your base struggle, which I assume is more to do with the value of an education in the abstract as opposed to the literal. Your classic arts v. sciences debate, no?

It might be interesting to see what the scenario would be like if we had to choose to spare a class on philosophy or in something more like mathematics.

[Fahran]

That all sounds well and good, but how would an examination of 3,000 words on whether or not a chair exists be a sufficient determinant of a student’s understanding of the content of an introductory level linguistics course?

Because of the previous link between language and philosophy that I brought up just a moment ago. These were hot-button philosophical issues in the twentieth century and there's a lot of material with which students may engage to deepen their insight into both philosophy and linguistics. You're viewing the assignment from an extremely limited and technical perspective at the moment when, as I emphasized before, it's not that type of class. If you're only going to train people to perform concrete tasks that don't require abstract thinking, you can simply replace universities with trade schools or technical institutes.

[Sanghyeok]

The class is graded as follows... 20 percent group project, 60 percent on a take home 3,000 word research paper, 40 percent on this final you’ve just witnessed (prove they chair exists).

I would keep this class, but also encourage more funding for basic math courses.

[Auphelia]

Because of the previous link between language and philosophy that I brought up just a moment ago. These were hot-button philosophical issues in the twentieth century and there's a lot of material with which students may engage to deepen their insight into both philosophy and linguistics. You're viewing the assignment from an extremely limited and technical perspective at the moment when, as I emphasized before, it's not that type of class. If you're only going to train people to perform concrete tasks that don't require abstract thinking, you can simply replace universities with trade schools or technical institutes.

The content is not necessarily the issue, it’s the examination. If the nature of the question were different, perhaps, or if it were a higher level course. But to use the philosophy of linguistics to prove the existence of a chair? For students just entering the study? And to have it be a third of the course’s grade?

Either the question should change or the course should.

I do realise that I am treating this from a more technical perspective, but this is an entry level course. As students move into higher levels, it would be fair to test them in more abstract ways. But when they are just beginning, it is vital to know that they know the basic concepts or else we are simply setting them up to fail later. Even a series of more structured questions with no set answers would be more appropriate, or even the same question but outlining concepts from the course they must utilise in their answer. For the sake of IM, however, rather than having to research the right questions for linguistics, it would be simpler to just change the course to something more broad and fitting with the existing question.