(BA Philosophy here) The biggest problem is that philosophy courses, all too often, are actually "History of Philosophy" courses. Regurgitating Plato or Descartes becomes the objective, rather than applying logic and philosophical methods to modern problems.
Everyone really should take class in Symbolic Logic.
Good article. I'm french and I did this (but in science, not literature like in the article). I've also been to US college for one semester and I had the chance to take an "Intro to Philosophy" freshman class. So I've had two formal introductory philosophy classes, in different languages, cultures and contexts, but definitely aimed at the same public (17-19 y. old). It's quite interesting to compare these two. In France the focus was definitely more on authors, philosophical theories, texts and ideas. In America the material was more on reasoning, logic and formal arguments. Never once were we presented a formal Modus Ponens layout in France. We were told never to write our own ideas in our essays --- "You'll do that if you get a master in philosophy". However the American class had too much of "learn those 10 arguments by heart" I would say. So they definitely had subtle and interesting differences.
Of course both had their share of "how the hell is this relevant to my life" reactions. But also those invaluable "ahah" moments, which make philosophy so wonderful. Hacking has this too. You walk out of the classroom with new cognitive pathways that you didn't know you had. You'll never see the world with the same eyes again.
My university (in USA) has a rather large set of required "core" courses, the inner core of which are a full year of literature and a full year of western philosophy. We read and discuss, in these two years, on the order of 40 classic works (!) of philosophy and literature. I personally believe that this is an excellent experience for those who have had minimal contact with the world of humanities.
As a math+physics student with a bunch of friends in my university's engineering school, I hear all too often engineers disparaging the humanities as "useless", "bullshit", etc. and it's really quite disappointing and close-minded. They simply miss out on an incredibly important and fundamental part of the human experience. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance (historical or otherwise) of philosophy and literature, to the point where I would expect anyone who considers himself an "intellectual" to have had at least brief experiences with the humanities (or at least thought about difficult philosophical questions or whatnot on his own time).
I'm french and before anyone write how wonderful this is let me explain how it goes :
We have 1 course of philosophy on our last highschool year (if you're doing a scientific baccalauréat).
(Along with math, biology, physics, french, history/geography, english, a second langage and a third option (which can be a third langage, it was chinese for me)).
No one wants to sit through a philosophy class in High School. It was the "boring class" we had to pass. It was "too soon".
Then in university we have this mandatory SHS which means human and social science course, which is basicaly philosophy for bachelors.
(This is in a math degree)
It's not more interresting, it's just that people are more mature and are more interrested in the topic. Way better than forcing it to kids in highschool who are still living at their parents imo.
Generally speaking, I think today's philosophy courses should focus on the big historical picture with emphasis on modern philosophers, as opposed to studying tomes like The Republic in painful detail. While it's easy to get lost in a sea of infinitely regressing metaphysics, I think there's value in applied philosophy (I don't think philosophy is useful in isolation).
1. The scientific method. Starting from the logical positivist school of thought, philosophers are converging at falsifiability as the primary criterion (cf. Popper, Wittgenstein).
2. Justice. Starting with rather crude notions of utilitarianism, it is possible to construct a transcendental notion of justice that is based on fairness (cf. Rawls, Sen). It is also possible to approach it from a theory on transcendental morality (cf. Kant).
3. Consciousness. This is a rather tricky topic that can be tackled by an analytical philosopher who has studied some neuroscience (cf. Metzinger).
4. Tackling the free will problem. When tackled in isolation, there is a dichotomy between compatibilism and incompatibilism (cf. Schopenhauer). However, attempts have been made to derive it from quantum decoherence and MWI (cf. Yudkowsky on LessWrong [1]).
5. Foundations of mathematics. While there are prominent platonists (cf. Gödel), there are several alternative approaches to the problem (cf. Spinoza, Hilbert).
To conclude, I'd say that some training in philosophical thought is essential to enabling the student in thinking about various questions that pop up during her lifetime. The goal is not to get definitive answers, but to have a good consistent framework to think in.
If students are free to express their thought, and graded on how coherent an argument they put forward, then this is great.
If it's about mucking up and memorizing someone else's thoughts (that you probably don't even agree with), then it's terrible.
I don't know which of above it is; but I will say, the examples in that article are splendid ("Is truth preferable to peace?", "Does power exist without violence?", etc.) These are things students should really think about; and I think it's great that it's mandatory for everyone (if it's being done right).
In general many commenters have a misconception that the mentioned French "baccalaureate" is related to the US/UK undergraduate bachelor's degree. As the article points out, and the corresponding wikipedia page hints at, this somewhat roughly translates to a high school diploma in the US, the British A-levels, the German Abitur, etc.
There is an interesting comment that illustrates the distinction between US/Europe education systems by observing that in Europe high schools are general followed by focused specific subject studies, whereas in the US there is a lot of focusing already happening in the high schools. Interestingly, though, there seems to be a general education requirement for an undergraduate degree; since I am from Europe this seems to have the purpose of ensuring that all admitted students get to the same level before specializing.
If you want a Master of Technology in Norway, you need to take examen philosophicum at your university. In theory it's nice. I think it's a valuable thing to learn, and interesting to see the roots of the science I'm working with. However, it has some issues. Especially that when I had it, it was more a history lesson about philosophy. They are changing the subject a bit now, to be more relevant, so I hope they also change it to include more thinking and less memorizing what he or she (mostly he, unfortunately) may have meant.
So, in theory I like it, but the execution is not the best.
During my studies I've been forced to learn lots of things I don't care for. BUT that's good. If school didn't force me to learn them, I would never have. Sometimes they turn out to be interesting, but not always. The good thing is that now, I'm 100% sure those particular fields are not for me. "Know your enemy." That's why I learn windows server...
Many comments underline the fact that learning philosophical theories is not philosophy, and thinking by yourself is better, and all this stuff.
I think it is very arrogant of we contemporary people to think that 17 something kids can think by themselves and should not need to dig the past to answer such important questions.
And in a philosophy class, as I received them in France when I was young, the teacher would expose contradictory positions and let you prefer the one you want. So, yes, you'd get a low score if you wouldn't name Plato on a question about idealism, but you would get the best score if you show personal and deep understanding of the topic.
I was startled by the word "master" in the submission title, but it's in the original article title, so it's good to have that word here. I think that MASTERING philosophy is not easy, as my late dad, a chemistry major who also did extensive study of philosophy as he considered a career in researching the philosophy of science, never stopped reading about philosophy throughout his life. He quoted to me the saying from about a century ago that all Western philosophy is just footnotes to Plato, and yet the footnotes keep gaining more elaboration and nuance over time. I'm not sure that anyone really masters philosophy. My oldest son had three year-long courses in philosophy as the core courses in the Stanford University Online High School,
http://ohs.stanford.edu/courses.html
and he is still thinking about philosophical issues as he pursues his career as a programmer in New York City's startup scene.
That said, what has this curriculum requirement done for France? Is France dealing better with assimilating immigrants, or figuring out full employment for young people, or managing sustainable energy supplies, or doing any other kind of problem-solving in the real world better than other countries? If so, what? If not, why not? Does France indeed have a systematic educational advantage from its program of school philosophy courses, or is this just one more mandatory school requirement that many students blow off?
I saw this headline and it reminded me of a talk I went to yesterday that was held at NYU as part of the World Science Festival 2013. The talk was title "Refining Einstein: New Theories of Time" and the guests were:Paul Davies, Craig Callender, Tim Maudlin, and Max Tegmark. Tim is a philosopher, while Max is a physicist and Max kept making an analogy between the "French" speaking (like him, metaphorically and referring to physics concepts) and the "German" speaking Tim. Essentially saying that the German speaking Tim (no really, just metaphorically) constraints his understanding of time to coordinate systems, while him, the French speaking Max, does not constrain himself to that. The video may be posted at http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos at a later time and you can check it out.
In any case, what I learned is the philosophy questions everything and sometimes this is good and sometimes it can be troubling because people really believe what they think they understand - this is true in any field. However, one thing that bothers me is that history shows that just as some group thinks they have it figured out, another group/person comes and changes all that (e.g. Feynman, Einstein) and then another group rises from that thinking they are right again - the cycle continues.
One last thought is about my first philosophy class, which I very much enjoyed, but the lack of happiness of my professor's face was scary and troubling. After the class, I had so many questions about who I was, my religion, the air I breath, and the things I see/feel, etc. So much questioning cannot be too healthy for the human mind, but philosophical specialization is probably what prevents insanity (I hope).
Unfortunately, they don't take economics as seriously. The combination of economics and philosophy is, in my opinion, far more empowering in terms of better decisions (both personally and politically) than any other coursework I have ever had. But at least they get the philosphy...we get fact memorization for test taking.
The title is misleading.
From a casual reading of the wikipedia article it appears that there are Baccalauréat qualifications (professional, technology) that you can obtain without a philosophy test.
So philosophy seems a requirement for the general Baccalauréat.
Here is the wikipedia link to the Baccalauréat qualification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baccalaur%C3%A9at
I agree, I've been saying it for years that there should be two mandatory modules on every university course: Philosophy and Physical Education. The baseline of requirement is a formed body and a formed mind.
Universities in Poland do at least PE and in most cases have an introduction to philosophy in first year. I moved to England to study and I was shocked to discover they don't care about this at all.
How would one undertake to study the International Baccalaureate without having to take the exams? I'm 34, and this sounds pretty awesome!
Philosophy and personal finance are two extremes that should be covered in K-12 but are not part of any standardized test so no public school is going to use resources for them. As a result we are at great risk overall of having a nation of shallow-minded, debt-enslaved consumers.
It is also compulsory if you follow the International Baccalaureate program, under the name of Theory of Knowledge. I think this is extremely useful for future social / natural scientists and engineers.
<shameless plug> Maybe time to repost an old link of mine: http://codosophia.blogspot.fr/ </shameless plug>
I applaud the French for this approach - of course there may be direct repercussions of teaching the masses to think and learn... and be smart.
> Is truth preferable to peace?
Mu.
> Does power exist without violence?
This one, I like.
Philosophy is the thing I turn to when I am sad/stressed/troubled. Best course the french schools gave me.
A rant:
When I was a teenager, I agreed with the French model as presented in this article. But as I continued on to university (in Canada), my 'inner discourse' turned into "How practical and valuable do employers see my education?" This turned out to be what I preoccupied myself with the most right before graduating university (around three years ago) and even now that I am in the US.
Well, it turns out North American employers don't see humanities or liberal arts degrees as creating critical thinkers. Or at least they don't believe people with either of these degrees are capable of enough critical thinking to come up with solutions to business problems. This means they are less valuable. They are lower on the critical-thinking ladder, so to speak. The only notable exception is philosophy majors, but even those are approached by employers sceptically at first. Anyway, because of this, it seems like your character, personality, and interests are key in deciding if you're a right fit. But this kind of opens up a complicated discourse on social dynamics, interview double-speak, and so on and so forth. Basically, more prejudices are at play, I believe.
This French model is good for personal growth, for creating a virtuous citizen, and a knowledgeable, cultured person, which was the point of educational institutions in part of the Middle Ages and, ultimately, in the Renaissance. France has a history of this stuff. Many writers in the 1900s spoke of how learning the French language meant learning about culture, philosophy, art, etc. Stuff that would sound "sophisticated" nowadays. So if you wanted to be cultured, you learnt French. What was the opposite? English. Learning English was many times looked down upon by liberal arts and humanities folks, because most people learnt it to conduct business. Learning English did not include learning about art, culture, and literature. Of course, there are very few exceptions, but this holds even in modern times. Most people learn English for business. To quickly trace its origins and demonstrate how old this concept has been in place (and how it is now phased out, which should tell us something about adopting it in its entirety), the concept of being "cultured" was associated with a specific type of curriculum that created "well-rounded" citizens. Being "worldly" came from the idea of "homo universalis" (man of the world, universal man) that was used in the 15th century. It came from the most notable example, Renaissance Italy. Renaissance, as in "rebirth". And it was called as such because in this time, it was a return to even older emphasis on classical notions of what was important for a society, which originated many, many centuries before 15th century Renaissance Italy. I don't think the answer lies in this type of curriculum.
My point: All this sounds fine and dandy, but how does this translate into getting employed, which seems to be the focus of our civilization these days? This is a rhetorical question (for me): it doesn't translate. The critical thinking part of this type of curriculum has already been put in place in other more technical degrees (such as Engineering and CS) that offer a better employment rate with higher pay. It is what our society has deemed more important and values more and rewards. We are ultimately to 'blame' for things being like this. I spent many years hoping for this French model to work and for people to change their prejudices and have people with humanities or liberal arts degrees live a decent life with a decent job, working in what they love, and being able to afford to start a family.
These days, I am lucky that I work my 9-to-5 crappy writing job (which is not sustainable, by the way, and for which I had to move to a different country to find) and cannot even think about renting my own apartment, starting a family, or indulging in a few things here and there. I go to work by day, and work on learning technical skills (programming, a few CS concepts here and there) at night and sometimes on weekends, when I'm trying to make myself available to my immediate family, so as to avoid getting them upset by my estrangement.
Yes, if I move out to the middle of nowhere I can probably find something with slightly better pay. But as someone with a liberal arts degree, I can't say cows and hay inspire me to continue living.
Question is. Does one who excels at repeating and doing what others tell to do, also excels at philosophy?
To impress whatever philosophy is currently most fashionable.
"To complete the education of young men and women and permit them to think."
Yes. Perfect. This is important, they're doing it right. I would venture to say that the specialization of the US education system, and the increased specialization especially in Engineering and Computer Sciences and in the sciences in general, is one of the largest problems in higher education today.
It's so important to learn how to think, to learn how to learn, to learn how fields are connected and interrelated even in indirect ways, and simply to learn that knowledge you cannot directly use still has value in its ability to train your mind to think about problems and make connections in new ways.
I am supremely thankful for my Bachelor of Arts in Comp Sci, for it gave me the freedom to take classes outside Engineering, in the arts. This liberal (aka comprehensive, varied, generous) arts education makes my computer science education flourish, and I believe has made me into the well-balanced person I am today.
What we need today are not people who can think intensely about one subject—we need people who can think about how to think, and apply that to anything. Well, we need both, surely, but we need some more generalists, or perhaps specialists who aren't myopic. We're getting overspecialized in the US, I think.
En d'autres termes, bonne travail France!