Logic requirement for US PhD admissions

[md124]

Hi, my question relates to the courses admissions committees want to see on your record. (I apologise if some or all of my questions come off as naive; I have only begun to give serious thought to applying to graduate programs in philosophy in the past year or so, and have a lot of catching up to do in all areas concerned.) I am a conversion student doing an MA in the UK, which means my undergrad degree wasn't in philosophy. Now presuming that fact alone doesn't shut me of PhD programmes in the US next year at least, my concern right now is that I haven't done a logic course as yet. (I've taken some courses undergrad courses in ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of mind and am taking some more in my MA). The problem is that we're only allowed to formally take a max of 4 courses for the MA here at my university, and I would prefer if one those slots wasn't filled by a logic course (there being so few slots in the first place). The professors I've talked to here all advise that auditing/sitting in on logic courses (which I'm doing) should be enough for graduate applications, but I get the feeling they are much better informed about the situation here in the UK than they are about the situation in the US. So I would be grateful for advice on that matter. Should I play it safe and formally register for the logic course, or should auditing it be enough?

[Establishment]

I've never heard of logic being counted as an admissions requirement.

[dgswaim]

I've heard of very few cases where logic is counted as a requirement for admission. The only two cases I can think of are actually for terminal MA programs (Houston and SF State). But even in those cases, they'll typically still admit students who haven't met the requirement on a provisional basis, usually meaning that they'll have to take a couple of logic courses before that provisional status is lifted. Pretty rare, though. There are probably plenty of programs that would like you to in some sense demonstrate familiarity with logic, since logic is fairly integral to the mainstream of philosophy in the US. SO maybe audit the course and just mention that you've done so in your personal statement, or something like that.

[Gnothi_Seauton]

As far as I know, no program *requires* logic as a prerequisite for admission.  However, all doctoral programs (that I'm familiar with) have a logic requirement of some kind, which is usually satisfied either by taking a course or passing an exam.  The course/exam will cover material standardly learned in a second course in logic, and both will presuppose knowledge of a first course in logic.  So, while you're not required to have taken logic before starting, you will need to know at least the material standardly covered in a first course.  If you're auditing a year-long course in logic, that should absolutely be sufficient, particularly if you can get one of your letter writers to mention it.  

[md124]

Thanks all three of you, that clarifies the matter for me pretty nicely. I think I'll stick with auditing the logic course, and will try and get one of my referees to mention it. Thanks!

[Infinite Zest]

Just a bit of advice on auditing logic/math classes:

 

I think it's very important to keep up with homework assignments, at least to some degree.

 

There's a huge difference between understanding a proof and being able to effectively generate one.

[overoverover]

Some profs are very skeptical of claims of having audited courses—basically, there's no reason for them to believe that you've understood the material at all unless the professor actually looked at your assignments and gave you a grade. That's probably particularly true in logic classes, as IZ noted, because working through a proof is  much different than reading one on the page and just sort of 'getting it.' 

[overoverover]

Not saying you shouldn't audit, but do what IZ suggests and get the professor (if they are a letter-writer) to mention your performance. 

[md124]

Just a bit of advice on auditing logic/math classes:

 

I think it's very important to keep up with homework assignments, at least to some degree.

 

There's a huge difference between understanding a proof and being able to effectively generate one.

That makes sense, and it is one of the reasons I was unsure about this whole issue in the first place. How would the admissions committee(s) know how good I actually am at logic (as opposed to merely being able to follow what's happening in class) if I've only audited the course?

 

 

Not saying you shouldn't audit, but do what IZ suggests and get the professor (if they are a letter-writer) to mention your performance. 

But what if the logic professor isn't one of the letter writers? Seeing as I'm only auditing his course, he wouldn't know me or my abilities well enough to write me a letter, would he? Or do you suggest maybe asking the logic professor to mention my progress to one of my letter-writers, and then request the letter-writer to mention it in the letter?

[overoverover]

That makes sense, and it is one of the reasons I was unsure about this whole issue in the first place. How would the admissions committee(s) know how good I actually am at logic (as opposed to merely being able to follow what's happening in class) if I've only audited the course?

 

 

But what if the logic professor isn't one of the letter writers? Seeing as I'm only auditing his course, he wouldn't know me or my abilities well enough to write me a letter, would he? Or do you suggest maybe asking the logic professor to mention my progress to one of my letter-writers, and then request the letter-writer to mention it in the letter?

I guess this illustrates the problem: there are different kinds of auditing. You can audit-1 a class just by showing up to the lectures. You can also audit-2 a class by doing all the assignments, going to lectures, and maybe even having the professor evaluate your work. Just saying that you've audited a class doesn't let your readers know whether it was audit-1 or audit-2. TBH, audit-1 sounds basically useless in a logic class (this isn't true of all philosophy courses—sometimes deciding to audit-1 might be beneficial), and audit-2 sounds like you should just take the class for a grade. 

But if you decide to audit-2 and not take it for credit, maybe ask a letter-writer to mention that you actually did all the work for the class, and that you have a grasp on the material. They'd only find this out through conversation with the logic professor, so you should encourage that conversation. 

Basically, I don't think you should expect ad coms to read that you audited a logic class and assume that means you can do logic. 

Edited October 20, 2014 by overoverover

[Establishment]

That makes sense, and it is one of the reasons I was unsure about this whole issue in the first place. How would the admissions committee(s) know how good I actually am at logic (as opposed to merely being able to follow what's happening in class) if I've only audited the course?

 

 

But what if the logic professor isn't one of the letter writers? Seeing as I'm only auditing his course, he wouldn't know me or my abilities well enough to write me a letter, would he? Or do you suggest maybe asking the logic professor to mention my progress to one of my letter-writers, and then request the letter-writer to mention it in the letter?

 

You really have nothing to worry about regarding logic. Worry about something else.

[md124]

You really have nothing to worry about regarding logic. Worry about something else.

Hmm, I hope you're right.

 

 

I guess this illustrates the problem: there are different kinds of auditing. You can audit-1 a class just by showing up to the lectures. You can also audit-2 a class by doing all the assignments, going to lectures, and maybe even having the professor evaluate your work. Just saying that you've audited a class doesn't let your readers know whether it was audit-1 or audit-2. TBH, audit-1 sounds basically useless in a logic class (this isn't true of all philosophy courses—sometimes deciding to audit-1 might be beneficial), and audit-2 sounds like you should just take the class for a grade. 

But if you decide to audit-2 and not take it for credit, maybe ask a letter-writer to mention that you actually did all the work for the class, and that you have a grasp on the material. They'd only find this out through conversation with the logic professor, so you should encourage that conversation. 

Basically, I don't think you should expect ad coms to read that you audited a logic class and assume that means you can do logic.

I guess the kind of auditing done here is usually the 1st one. But I'll ask if I can do the assignments and get them evaluated like the rest of the class. I understand your point about admission committees' skepticism; guess I'll try to make sure my rec letters somehow address that issue.