The term "covered" does a lot of work here. The thing with science is that it's generally considered more practical than philosophy, and people are content wit

The term "covered" does a lot of work here. The thing with science is that it's generally considered more practical than philosophy, and people are content with learning a bunch of pre-packaged recipes to solve pre-packaged problems (use F = ma to solve that inclined plane problem). But try asking the average student what F = ma actually means a bit deeper than just how they would apply it and you'll see how much the topic is "covered." Consider that the concepts of force and mass themselves are mostly left unexplained. Or that people have no idea what "energy" is. They're models of reality that are not taught as such, because we're happy with teaching future engineers a bunch of recipes to learn by rote as long as they "work". So I remain unconvinced of the proposition that philosophy should be taught the same way. In that respect it's closer to science and the inherent doubt that comes with the scientific method — even though, similarly, there's a lot of dogmatic "philosophy" (think Marxism).