I like the idea that it's an "outdated notion" to think that the "gold standard" of teaching science to undergraduates is to focus on journal articles.https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/27142/34994

@petersuber Students can struggle with primary sources, but not allowing undergraduates to read them, is counterproductive and condescending: it will severely undermine the joy of studying (and the credibility of the professor). I did not enroll in philosophy to study what x said about a famous philosopher - I wanted to read what they wrote and discuss it! Students need to learn to read, yes, so teach them, but skip the training wheels. Some may not keep up, true. And that is actually fine.

@petersuber yup, the Trump regime has made that phrase laughable as an actual concept

@kritischelezer
FWIW, no one recommended "not allowing" undergrads to read articles. If anyone did, I'd join your critique.

BTW, I'm in philosophy too, and one reason I don't want to use journal articles as the *focus* of undergrad courses is that I want to teach students to read hard books slowly. (I'm not saying that all fields should do this, or even that all profs in my field should do it.) First, the history of philosophy lies much more in books than articles. Second, students who learn to read hard books can read articles, but students who train on articles cannot always read hard books.