Friday, May 7, 2004

It's partly our fault because we've allowed the educational system to turn out PhDs who think and write like this about the structure of arguments. It's pretty clear that if the Requisites ever took a course in logic or philosophy of language, not much of it stuck. We've come a long way since grammar, rhetoric and logic were viewed as the trivial foundations for any other sort of education. [Language Log] I too was reminded of the trivium when reading about Harvard's curriculum review in the Chronicle of Higher Education, May 7 (registration required). The Chronicle made a big deal of the report's emphasis on "writing across the curriculum". Indeed, the Harvard report says A central skill that we seek to reinforce in Harvard College is clear and effective writing. Writing is important not only as a tool for communication, but also as a tool for thinking. The very act of writing forces us to clarify our thinking and to marshal supporting evidence. While writing is an important tool and vehicle for thinking, so are equations, proofs, visualizations, and computer programs. In separating 'writing" from "science" requirements, the report missed an opportunity to propose the urgent update of the trivium that computationally-supported representations and cognitive processes could provide. 12:33:57 PM