> And of course, most people taking Math 202 are not taking it for intellectual broadening, as Rabieh admirably was; they are taking it because somebody told me

> And of course, most people taking Math 202 are not taking it for intellectual broadening, as Rabieh admirably was; they are taking it because somebody told me they had to. This is an unacceptable response as well. Why would the students get told that they had to if not for the purpose of intellectual broadening? In my college experience, symbolic logic served this purpose. It was taught by a clearly dismayed senior member of the Philosophy department, who used plenty of class time to berate the general idea of the "gifted computer whiz kid who doesn't do the work" while clearly running the material on autopilot from the publisher provided syllabus. It didn't make me less interested in philosophy, but it made me a lot less interested in formal philosophy as taught at that school.