[devwastaken]

Philosophy is essential, how it's taught is unfortunate. In my philosophy class it was almost all about the history of philosophy, not the reasoning behind it. Assignments and tests were all about time periods, the specific names of philosophical ideas, from whom they came from, etc.

I'd rather have open ended assignments. Ones that give moral dilemmas, and challenge their solutions. Make me think about something In a perspective I haven't thought of before. That's a powerful tool.

But that's how academics works, the culture wants tests and assignments with check boxes.

[nathan_compton]

I can't help but come to the defense of the traditional style, particularly for introductory philosophical classes. The fact is, people have thought about every moral situation from every angle already and just asking undergraduates to wax on about the trolley problem is kind of a waste of time. It is much more valuable to get them into the detailed history of ideas so they can appreciate just how long these problems have been open and discussed.

[codingdave]

I'm not sure where you went, but my undergrad philosophy courses matched your desired approach:. We were presented with problems, and presented solutions in return. Sure, we had to know the historical context of what solutions other have brought already... but our work was not regurgitation of those ideas, it was reconstruction into new ways to advance the discussions.

[capitalsigma]

I have never taken a philosophy class that involved tests or naming philosophical ideas. The work of an academic philosopher is to write papers (like an academic historian or sociologist), so a philosophy degree should focus on writing papers. Often the papers will be analyzing previous philosophical work and attempting to present some novel synthesis of it, either with itself or with some broader context. Neither "giving moral dilemmas" nor "quizzes about history" fit anywhere into that picture.