Slashdot Mirror
Many Colleges Fail to Improve Critical-Thinking Skills: WSJ (wsj.com)
Freshmen and seniors at about 200 colleges across the U.S. take a little-known test every year to measure how much better they get at learning to think. The results are discouraging. From a report: At more than half of schools, at least a third of seniors were unable to make a cohesive argument, assess the quality of evidence in a document or interpret data in a table (Editor's note: the link might be paywalled; alternative source), The Wall Street Journal found after reviewing the latest results from dozens of public colleges and universities that gave the exam between 2013 and 2016. At some of the most prestigious flagship universities, test results indicate the average graduate shows little or no improvement in critical thinking over four years. Some of the biggest gains occur at smaller colleges where students are less accomplished at arrival but soak up a rigorous, interdisciplinary curriculum.
Critical thinking skills don't make one rich. Social skills and connections make one rich.
There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking one climbs the executive ladder via connections and social skills, and that's where the money is.
trying to fool citizens with fake news. Come one, WSJ! If students did learn critical-thinking, to whom would you sell the fake news story?
I believe the better generalization would be that Colleges are teaching students "What" to think, and not "How" to think. Since cognitive dissonance is painful, and it feels good to belong to something you believe is important, it's easy to get people to go along with the game.
When you consider that the people with political power on the left are pushing for more "free" college the prospect 10 years down the road could look much worse.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
A populace capable of critical thinking would not be easily herded into reactionary mobs. Only a few of us actually want that. Many others talk about critical thinking, but just claim that anyone who disagrees with them hadn't learned critical thinking.
Not even posting this under my own name because I know damned well a shitstorm is what I'll get for my trouble. No thanks.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this, but it saddens me at the same time.
Corporations, Rich People, Governments, organized religion -- they don't want people learning how to 'think'. They may allow them to learn certain things so they'll be productive and useful workers, and so they can afford the Bread and Circuses that keep them occupied when they're not making their masters richer, but they sure as hell don't want them actually having the mental tools and time to doing something as dangerous as thinking about how their world is being governed, or the direction the rich and powerful are pushing us.
Those of us who CAN think, and voice our concerns about the state of things, are scoffed at, mocked, ridiculed -- and very often attacked, both virtually, verbally, and sometimes physically. In extreme cases our lives are ruined -- because, apparently, we know too much, and that Powers That Be can't have us runnng around loose, so we're discredited to the point where no one will get anywhere near us or listen to us anymore (discrediting and disgracing someone is much, much more powerful than killing them, which creates a martyr, and leaving someone alive serves as a living example of what will happen to you if you don't 'behave' and 'keep your place').
Critical thinking is not a part of STEM. Be careful what you try to cram down everyone's throat.
Very few people teach critical thinking, at least at the institutional level. It's antithetical to what they stand for. If you learn critical thinking, it's because you transcended various things. In a world full of critical thinkers, it becomes difficult to overcharge for a degree.
I think the better generalization is that colleges are being used as prep for employment, and teaching us the loads of data required to function in a corporation in a particular discipline.
Seems to match what I stated.
To your second point, critical thinking is essential all the time every day. People in power have historically attempted to keep people from learning the skills, because their bullshit is easier to see.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The article I read did not give enough specifics (I skipped the paywall one).
So you can't tell if a good school merely failed to improve rather than had their students fail.
Everyone should have critical thinking skills, and if you don't have any, then college should teach you that skill. But that is NOT the only thing a college should teach. Once you have that skill, there are many other skills you need, from pure knowledge, to creativity, to social skills (beyond drinking), pattern recognition, basic computer usage, among other things.
In particular, I would be SHOCKED if Ivy league schools showed significant improvement in critical thinking. It's exactly the kind of thing they love their incoming students to already have, and the ivy league schools have gotten so selective that they can pick the students that already have that.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
They don't reward critical thinking because they're meant to prepare students for the real world, and there nobody appreciates critical thinking either.
I once taught math at a "Top Tier" college and was absolutely appalled by what I saw: kids cared more about whining for better grades than actually working for them. I once had a student who got upset that I deducted 1/3 of her quiz grade because she left one of the questions blank (out of three). She could not understand, for the life of her, why I would do such a thing. Another complained to the chair that I gave him a poor grade on his final project (half was blank, and what was written managed to contradict itself). Additionally, for my exams, I tried to focus on applying concepts we've learned in class, yet many of them had noticeable difficulty doing anything that wasn't directly regurgitated from class. It's entirely possible that I was an ineffective professor, however when your feedback to your teaching is either "no comment", "you suck" or "you're awesome", it's hard to know for sure.
The cynic in me has to wonder if this is because those in charge don't want their new sheeple to know how to think for themselves.
I went to a mid tier college as an adult and was surprised to find that most of the students already had good critical thinking skills. I guess you couldn't get in the door without it.
You know, critical thinking really starts with clarity about what you're talking about. This kind of emotional argument about "safe spaces" is a perfect example of how not to go about it.
"Safe space" refers to two very different concepts. The first sense is inclusive: it's about minority or disparaged groups being free from intimidation or threats of violence in a community. The second sense is exclusive: "Safe space" can also refer to clubs and societies reserved for minorities to discuss their particular concerns.
I find neither sense of "safe space" to be objectionable. The first is just an explicit extension of the normal protections of academic freedom to the LGBT community. The second is something which doesn't particularly concern me one way or the other.
Where there is trouble is mixing the two concepts up. And to be fair, it's not just the right who does this. The fuzzy thinkers on the left do too. In an inclusive environment, you have to be prepared to face opinions that offend you or make you uncomfortable: that's why there needs to be a prohibition on intimidation. People don't threaten people whom they find unthreatening.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Evergreen College fits this to a T
For more fun go to Youtube and search Evergreen College and watch the spectacular fail by SJW Students and one Jabba the Hut teacher in particular.
Be sure to bring Popcorn.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I needed a class to fill out my schedule. The theory of scientific thought was led by a prof (?) who instructed us to talk as he left the classroom. I was right behind him and gave myself an "A".
The original medieval concept of a liberal arts education was that it prepared you intellectually to perform the duties of a gentleman. This is why mathematics played a major part in the liberal arts. First you mastered grammar, logic and rhetoric, then you tackled the mathematical disciplines: astronomy, music (theory of harmonics mainly so that counts as another dose of math), arithmetic (Books V - X of Euclid) and geometry (Books I - IV, XI - XIII).
Only after you'd mastered all that material were you considered prepared to go onto specialized advanced studies (sadly, your choices were limited pretty much to theology, law or medicine).
Now from my geekish perspective this medieval curriculum looks a hell of a lot more rigorous than anything any modern American university offers. I'd update the math curriculum, add some basic courses in physical and social sciences and finance and you'd be graduating people fully prepared to be kick-ass citizens.
But universities act more like vocational schools. Even if you major in art history, they train you as if that's going to be be your job. And employers treat universities not as educational institutions, but as certifiers of social class.
It's no wonder that universities don't improve critical thinking skills. You're supposed to pick them up by osmosis.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So it sounds like you're cool with discrimination, as long as it's against the "right" group? Do you really feel that's equality?
Of course, maybe I'm assuming and you're cool with anyone making a safe space (not just certain groups). If that's the case, cool, you're not a hypocrite.
A big part of the problem is that some of these spaces are used to foster hate towards the "oppressors", or whatever group they feel is harming them (which runs the spectrum from regressives/SJWs to the KKK).
I guess I'm saying it's not as rosy of a picture as you're trying to paint what these spaces always are. See Evergreen College as an example.
I am cool with anyone making a private safe space, so long as they don't try to extend the rules of their private space to public safe spaces. Both have legitimate functions but mixing them up is bad.
As for hate, that's a moot point. Some people are natural haters. I draw the line at intimidation -- things a reasonable person would find threatening. If someone can maintain a hateful opinion under conditions that subject that allow others to subject that opinion to critical scrutiny, then they are unlikely to ever change their mind. However they are also likely to find such conditions intolerable.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It does not seem obvious to anyone that colleges and universities define "critical thinking" in a way that is different from "critical thinking" defined by businessmen. Businessmen always ask for critical thinking skills in potential employees, cannot find it, and whine. Academia whines back, "But we are teaching them critical thinking, we are!." In other words, "critical thinking" is nothing but a buzzword. The inabilities cited above are a product of that lack of knowledge for which American education is famous.
--- Andy West http://andywest.org
If only we had chapter 11 and 7 for student loans then the banks would force the schools to lower costs / time and teach real skills with less fluff and filler.
if it were we'd have a lot less problems in the world. Folks are great at holding inconsistent ideas. I'll refrain from naming names, but it's been all the rage with humanity for thousands of years.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
degrees are theory loaded with limited real usage of the skills. So people may know alot of theory but have a hard time working on thinking / using them in an day to day setting.
it's all about the loans that just about any one can get.
Nothing in TFA to show it's a "new" problem, but the massive amount of degrees, student debt, and money going into a massive number of institutions sure is. At least agree that the scale of the problem has grown massively.
To be a bit more fair with your minor point, even 30 years ago when I was going to college people in the administration attempted to keep people from learning Philosophy, Ethics, and Logic. For a 4 year degree, we were required at least 1 year of Philosophy though (and my degree is in Mathematics). Colleges then were happy to push you into "Humanities" for a 2 year degree, but at least we had pure Philosophy courses in even community colleges. Many schools today don't offer the courses, and have no requirements for any for many degrees.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
College would be great but it's important to teach this as early as possible so that kids can also learn to properly grasp the concept and use it effectively, and to be taught how to argue without fighting early on.
Twinstiq, game news
I wasn't taught critical thinking at college. In my day, if you weren't capable of it you didn't get it. See also: belt, onion, Morganville.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I am cool with anyone making a private safe space, so long as they don't try to extend the rules of their private space to public safe spaces.
There is no such thing as a "public safe space" and no such thing as an inclusive safe space. Safe spaces are by design places where certain thoughts and their thinkers (and through stereotyping, people who are expected to think such things) are excluded. It is an environment of exclusion. It is most obvious when dealing with women's issues' safe spaces, where being a man automatically disqualifies one from participating. Or any of the "cultural centers" on college campuses which serve as "safe spaces" for minorities.
I draw the line at intimidation -- things a reasonable person would find threatening.
Thus "exclusion" based on an interpretation of "reasonable" that would define anyone who thinks certain things as "unreasonable". A "reasonable person" thinks X, therefore thinking not-X is not-reasonable. How dare you think not-X?
If someone can maintain a hateful opinion
"Hateful opinion" defined by whom? To some, any opinion that they deem "unreasonable" (see above) is "hateful".
Those terms have become useless buzzwords through mis- and over-use.
Well, you can win any argument if you get to redefine the words other people are using. I made it clear what my definitions were, so at best you're just making an unrelated point.
As for the reasonable person standard, it is a long-established legal concept in the United States which you clearly don't understand -- or have again redefined to make your job easier.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I've heard it said many times.
I don't agree though. I think most people who earn a degree are very practiced at the hands-on task of writing a paper including the keywords that the professor emphasized.
The claim that people "only" know the theory seems to imply that the theories are wrong. I favor the idea that many of the theories are actually useful, and if the students had bothered to actually learn the theory they'd have an easy time applying the knowledge. But instead, they've only practiced talking about the theory, which is a different thing than understanding it.
Do employers really want worker drones to have critical thinking skills?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
"College-educated, still dumb as a box of rocks."
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Well, you can win any argument if you get to redefine the words other people are using. I made it clear what my definitions were, so at best you're just making an unrelated point.
No. I read your "definition" that tried to claim that there were inclusive safe spaces, and that's specifically what I replied to. Your "first sense" inclusive safe space truly is not. It is as exclusive as any other "safe space". Here's how you defined it:
The first sense is inclusive: it's about minority or disparaged groups being free from intimidation or threats of violence in a community.
Being "free from intimidation or threats of violence" requires excluding those who they fear from their "safe space". This exclusion applies not only to people who are true threats because they intend violence, it includes stereotypes that they see as oppressors. When you have a "safe space" for women's issues, you must exclude men simply because they are "oppressors" no matter what their actual views or actions are. If you need to create "safe space" when a conservative speaker comes to campus and the ideas he expresses are "threatening", you must, by default, exclude anyone who is or may be supportive of those ideas, too.
As for the reasonable person standard, it is a long-established legal concept in the United States which you clearly don't understand
I understand very well the "reasonable man" standard in law. Unfortunately for your arguments, such "reasonable man" standards are not used by those who seek "safe space" from anything that disagrees with them. They adopt a personal "reasonable man" standard, to the point that their opinion is "reasonable" and everything else is not. That's the exclusionary principle of "safe space" in action yet again.
I will point again to the example of "safe space" that our campus demonstrated not long ago. A night was set aside for minority concerns on campus, because a few idiots had misbehaved and the University was falling on their sword taking responsibility for the acts of presumed adults. A white male walked to the microphone and expressed his support and concern for the issues of the night. The next day, he was being excoriated in the school paper and on campus for daring to invade the space that belonged to the minorities. It was a "public space" that was not open to the public in reality. His opinion was irrelevant; his lack of threatening opinions was irrelevant. He should have been excluded from speaking because of what he was, not what he thought. That's your idea of "inclusive" safe spaces in action in real life.
You can talk about "safe spaces" in the context of the legal "reasonable man" and "inclusion", but the real world implementation of such spaces does not match your definition. It is not my definition that is at odds with reality, and if you choose to use your personal definition then it is you that is talking about fictional situations. "Safe space" always requires exclusion and never allows true inclusivity. This is true even if your "space" is a nebulous "public speech" arena. You cannot remove the "threats" from a public space without excluding parts of the public, which turns them into a private space.
Well, I agree that you shouldn't have to be a minority. However to designate a place specifically safe for LGBT students does not violate the principle that it should be safe for all. It's a specific application of the general principle.
Just to be clear, I haven't lived on a campus in 35 years; I don't speak for anyone but myself. I'm simply stating what I believe safe space advocates are talking about. But that doesn't mean that that every last one of them has fully worked out the consequences of what, is a fairly unobjectionable starting point. One of those consequences is that you have to live with other people who are expressing viewpoints you find odious.
Just as an evangelical Christian has to cede some of the public space for atheists and people who think homosexuality is natural, those people in turn have to cede some of the public space to people who think gays will burn in hell.
Does this make safe space advocates hypocrites? I have no doubt some of them are. But in my experience very few people escape hypocrisy completely. It's a struggle to do the right thing, and anyone who thinks it's always easy is probably more self-righteous than righteous.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What he/she implies is not "theories are wrong", but it's only theories. literally, you learn mostly just theories.
Let's say we teach a kid about a tomato. We teach them that it's a fruit, it's part of the family Solanaceae, and it's called Solanum [I can't read] lycopersicum.
The kid learned a lot, but none of those directly lead to practical use. The kid more or less wouldn't know how to prepare the tomato for the salad.
College degrees are exactly like that. We learned everything about the tomato except the practical stuff. That's why it's only theories.
That's unpossible!
For some reason the education system still live under the illusion that people actually learn anything useful using rote 'learning'. How in the world are you supposed to remember and use this information in a sensible way later on, when you have no context or practical relations to apply it to while studying?
Everyone should have critical thinking skills....
And yet it remains quite the rarity in humans, including those spat out from expensive universities with highly coveted reputations. What is common rather than rare? Self-delusion is commonplace. It crowds out critical thinking, since the two cannot coexist. Tribalism is comorbid with that self-delusion, and nurtures it to the detriment of critical thinking. The so-called top universities actually nurture tribalistic thinking. Critical thinking goes out the window more often than not; it's simply not the most useful survive-and-thrive skill in this over-populated highly tribalistic groupthink-dominated environment. Only certain roles in this civilization make well developed critical thinking a necessary mental discipline.
You rarely get what you pay for. That is capitalism for you.
Curious - what was your major? Most colleges if you're in a science type program, you either get it or you're going to be a non competitive major such as a journalist. Even business schools were known for kicking you out.
Of course, I haven't been in college in decades.
Can we all agree that the vast majority of colleges? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Can we all agree that the news reports have very frequently been talking about how Trump voters are less educated?
So, now we see that all of these more educated people are lacking in critical thinking skills. Oh, the irony!
Just another day in Paradise
Only if you're being stupid about it.
My house is a safe space in that regard, in that I do not tolerate intimidation or threats of violence and will enforce that as necessary (yeah, I'm willing to break the rule to enforce it). This doesn't mean I have to exclude people preemptively based on what they are. I've hosted liberals, conservatives, the odd anarchist (very odd, to be honest), assorted genders, and everybody goes along with that rule. I've got a fair amount of intellectual diversity going on, and discussion on a wide variety of topics. People bring up topics they're interested in to hear what others have to say.
It's easier to do this in a small group, of course, but it's possible to have a larger group with generally accepted rules.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes