Symbolic Logic · Philosophy
Honestly a lot of this course was a rehash of Discrete Math, but it was nice to see the grammatical side of everything
Intro to logic, model theory, completeness and soundness, incompleteness, etc.
Weekly problem sets (3 hrs?), quiz, midterm, final.
Very little. I spend less time on this class than I have on any other at Columbia. Homework is assigned every few weeks and takes no more than a couple hours to complete - assuming you include time spent reading the textbook to figure out the problems, if not, thirty minutes at most. Two midterms, one of which was dropped completely. Final. I thought the final was tough but came out of the class with an A, evidencing a generous curve.
Weekly homework assignments, 2 midterms, Final.
- Weekly ungraded (yet helpful) homework assignments, 2 Midterms (30% each) and 1 Final (40%). - First midterm is of average difficulty: if you've done the HW and studied, you'll have a good shot at getting an A (class average = around 70?, but curve was generously adjusted). - Second midterm is essentially a quiz: if you've been following along in class, it should be a joke (class average = 82). - Weekly recitations (not required) are definitely useful in gaining a better understanding of the material, as are Helzner's office hours. However, neither are essential.
sentential and predicate logic, logic in the lens of philosophy
Yes, professor Avital does speak English with a thick Israeli accent. Yes, he does make cryptic statements which dumbfound the class. However, if you’re a philosophy student looking to learn symbolic logic, I strongly recommend this class. About two-thirds of the class is spent learning the “mechanics” of logic – the symbols, the operations, laws etc. The other third of the class is spent discussing the various philosophical movements intimately related to logic, mainly Wittgenstein and his ideas on language and meaning, but also Russell and Frege along with discussions on philosophy of science and mathematics. As a philosophy student, it was these “digressions” that made the class interesting and worthwhile (as well as kept me awake); without them, the class would seem to belong in the math or computer science departments, not philosophy. So, again, if you’re taking this class to learn symbolic logic for the LSATs or otherwise don’t care about the philosophical digressions, don’t take this class – but if you want what amounts to an introduction to symbolic logic and analytic philosophy, I recommend professor Avital.
As an English major, taking Felder's class to fulfill the science requirement was maybe the best surprise of my semester. Felder, aside from showing a genuine interest in his students' understanding of the material, was incredibly fair. In addition to curving every test considerably, he announced late in the semester that the homework - though graded - could absolutely not harm your average. He even allowed students to drop one of two midterms when the grades were drastically lower on the second exam (which was, in fact, much more difficult than the first). Although two or three (I think) recitations took place each week, attendance at neither recitation nor lecture was required. I came away from the class with warm feelings towards this kind, enthusiastic, and admittedly adorable professor, but I should add that his lectures were sometimes scattered. If you are really intent on learning during the lecture, pay close attention. Felder frequently miswrote equations on the board, which proved pretty confusing at times. Don't be afraid to correct him. Students always did and he amicably laughed and corrected it. The bottom line is in a class at this introductory level, you can teach yourself everything you need to know for the homework and the exams from the detailed textbook.
Professor Rothschild seemed to be well meaning, but I have to agree with previous reviewers in saying that he is not a particularly good teacher. Hopefully he has improved since I took this course in Fall 2007, but at the time I almost always left lecture more confused than when I arrived. His scribbles on the board were not only confusing, but often incorrect as were the lecture notes he handed out at each class. Sometimes he would jokingly berate students for not realizing he had made some critical error of logic earlier. The optional TA discussion sections helped a little bit, although they too seemed confused about a lot of the material. The textbook was dense, although at least clear. The homeworks ranged from too easy to way too hard, and if you brought up issues with the homework content or grading, Rothschild would dismiss your comment since "homework doesn't matter" even though it did account for 10% of the final grade. The first exam was very difficult, the second easier, and the final was relatively cake. Overall I would not recommend taking this class with Rothschild. What could have been very informative and interesting turned into a confusing mess.