[SpecialK]

Digital can make you sloppy but it also has instant feedback, with details of the settings, which is a very useful learning tool to know what works and what doesn't. Keeping a shooting-details notebook to look at days later and keeping track of negs and prints is not something I would choose instead.

[Naturenut]

Thanks as always for the great opinions guys.

[magkelly]

Yes, I would and I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

In fact I hope to do that soon here.

Some people go to school to learn how to shoot commercial digital photography and there is nothing wrong with that. It is the standard in a lot of places now and that makes sense given that the digitals have gotten to where they are, but there is more to learning the art of photography than simply learning to shoot a particular camera and a lot of that has to do with film, history, and understanding why the things we commonly do with a digital now are done the way they are. Shooting with an SLR vs a digital can really open your eyes up if you haven't used one. It did mine. I really took a lot for granted about photography until I shot a few rolls in a friend's old camera. Shooting with an SLR can really be a whole different creative experience and it can be an interesting one.

Personally for professional work I'd still probably use a DSLR, but I think having now used one I'd also like to have the experience of shooting a few rolls of film the old way now and again too. That doesn't mean I'd particularly want to develop it in a darkroom, though I expect it won't hurt me to learn, but it's a different mental space than digital and I am finding it takes me to different places than my digital does sometimes.

Fact is those concepts you learn in Photography 101/102 are important and in some ways they are best learned the old way.
I'm a big digital fan myself, much more so that film, but I'm still making myself go back to shooting with a film SLR too. I'm finding I have a lot to learn from both mediums and they do compliment each other.

Your basics teachers, a lot of them are old school, and stuck in that era's training true, but a lot of it is excellent training that will serve you well even if you never pick up a film SLR again once you are done.

Let the "old guys" teach you what they can. Learn from it to truly, understand the origin of the art you want to do, then later take more advanced classes geared more towards digital. You can't go wrong on that path. You'll have the advantages of both sides of the equation going for you and I think you'll find that your digital work will actually be that much better for the experience.

Years ago when I was taking dance there were kids who hated the Dance History classes we all had to take on Saturdays. That was wasted time for some who just wanted to be learning the fancy moves instead. But later, some of those kids went on to dance professionally and then they finally got "why" they needed those non-dancing lessons too.

Dancing professionally wasn't just about the steps. It was also about the parts, the ballets, and the back stories behind them, and they wanted to be any good, to get those parts, then they had to know "what" they were dancing. I think learning film basics is rather like that. You might not need the "history" for every project, but sometimes it comes in a lot more useful knowing all that archaic stuff than you might think.

[spystyle]

I would attend that class, digital and film are essentially the same thing on a different medium

I enjoy shooting film and JPG and RAW, I like it all