5 ms·

I largely agree with the sentiment that we need more plumbers than liberal arts graduates. One answer, though, is "why not be both?" Post-secondary education,

I largely agree with the sentiment that we need more plumbers than liberal arts graduates. One answer, though, is "why not be both?" Post-secondary education, regardless of the specific major a student chooses, does provide a significant benefit to society: especially in the early years, it teaches students how to think critically. Perhaps this skill could be taught earlier during secondary education, but at least in the U.S., it is not. And this skill is incredibly important for becoming an informed member of the electorate who can separate truth from bullshit.

panzagl 5y ago
> And this skill is incredibly important for becoming an informed member of the electorate who can separate truth from bullshit. Which is why both sides either denigrate college or treat it as some sort of tech jobs training.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  Which "both sides" denigrate college? Last I checked some progressive Democrats wanted to make college free, not denigrate it.
  - panzagl 5y ago
    The question is do they want to produce more nurses and web developers, or more informed citizens. I believe the emphasis is on the former.
jfrunyon 5y ago
It absolutely is taught in secondary education in the US. Heck, it's taught during elementary education. But you can't teach someone something unless they're willing to learn it. Post-secondary education doesn't help that.
- otterley 5y ago
  Young children's brains aren't developed sufficiently to build these skills. Even a lot of high schoolers have difficulty with it. It's largely taught in post-secondary education because by then, the brain has matured enough to handle the cognitive load.
  - greedo 5y ago
    Tell me you haven't raised kids without saying you haven't raised kids. Mine have been critics since before they could speak.
    - otterley 5y ago
      Every kid does that. That’s not the kind of critical thinking taught in university, involving research and the evaluation of nuanced arguments, and I think you know that.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    Not only is it not remotely true that children can't think critically or research something; not only is that irrelevant to whether or not it's taught to children; it's a mighty heavy assumption to say that people's brains have matured enough for anything when they're in college.
lowkey_ 5y ago
> it teaches students how to think critically Most colleges have done the opposite in recent years. They provide echo-chambers for emotionally-fueled pseudoscience. I've seen this while spending time at Boston University, Harvard, Brown, and Columbia. It's frightening how little people are able to think or question anything once they've gone through the college system. They become frightened by and angry at truths that don't align with the narrative they've been taught. I've spoken to dozens of people who've gone through the wringer and come out the other side realizing how detrimental college was to themselves and their peers intellectually.
- TheCondor 5y ago
  Please elaborate.. Did these people have world views that they didn't wish to have challenged and feel it was detrimental to challenge themselves? Or were they actually taught something detrimental? What is the nature of this pseudo-science?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lowkey_ 5y ago
    They were taught, through teachers but especially through the peer community, that there's an established, unarguable set of world views that shouldn't be questioned or challenged, and the scope of that set only grows larger. I believe it really stems from a belief that they are collectively special — that they're wiser, more moral, and more 'perfect' than their ancestors, their less-educated fellow citizens, and so on. They encourage people to become 'educated' on issues that they themselves aren't particularly educated in, aside from reading Instagram graphics. They seek to 'cancel' people who present other world views. While most people I know have been through all that and eventually come to a place of humility after college, easily half of the students never did. They continue on, unfazed, with a radical belief in their own moral superiority. I'm sorry for the length and vagueness of this — it's really incredibly hard to describe as it's so pervasive throughout everything, and generally it's something people only understand after going through the system. You've got me thinking of how to articulate it better!
drdeca 5y ago
Can critical thinking be taught?
- datameta 5y ago
  Through practice. It can be shown, but learning by doing is the only way.
logifail 5y ago
> Post-secondary education, regardless of the specific major a student chooses, does provide a significant benefit to society: especially in the early years, it teaches students how to think critically. (My highlight) I wish that were true, but it isn't always the case. My counter-example is my ex-colleague who started her science PhD at the same time as me in the same research group as me waaaay back in the late 1990s. Long and short of it, we each did our 3-ish years in the lab, she wrote up her thesis, I wrote up my thesis, we each had our oral exam around the same time. Her writing (her words) was "torn to shreds", she ended up back in the lab for several months doing more work and some serious rewriting, I got away with only a handful of typos to fix. I blame our supervisor for this, but that's another story.
- cdcarter 5y ago
  I'm not sure how this is a counter-example of students being taught to think critically. Are you saying you did not think critically in your thesis but passed anyway?
  - logifail 5y ago
    My colleague didn't seem to think at all. I've no idea why she did a PhD, and I don't think she knew either. EDIT: (Follow-up Q) who exactly is supposed to be teaching critical thinking?
ericmay 5y ago
> One answer, though, is "why not be both?" Resource constraints basically, and the removal of the degree from free market mechanics. I.e. guaranteed loans, not being able to discharge upon bankruptcy, etc. You also don't need to go to college to get an education in what are historically liberal arts subjects (history, etc.) and in-person classroom lectures for those topics really should be few and far between and extremely academic. I probably remember or know as much about history as a random undergrad history major does just because I read a lot and you can't remember everything. Most of those classes aren't worth a lot of money. In fact you can take pretty much any class you would want to for free with open lectures too. I'd also argue that most liberal arts courses don't teach students how to think critically as a broad skillset. Usually the professor just has a narrative or point of view that they want to push and you can't really write contrary to that without an inordinate amount of research which begs the question "why bother?" when the whole point of being there is to get a degree with good grades to get a job. The whole cycle is screwed up. I'd also say besides some class signaling stuff I can't really tell the difference between university graduates and non-graduates. Work output is the same in my experience.
vadfa 5y ago
>especially in the early years, it teaches students how to think critically Is this a thing only in the US? I went to university in Europe and there were 0 subjects that were unrelated to the (STEM) degree I chose. It was all 100% technical stuff.
- andrewprock 5y ago
  Yes, most liberal arts programs will have a variety of general education requirements. For my math degree, I also had requirements in: psychology, philosophy, religion, science, writing, and foreign language.
- namdnay 5y ago
  In the US and UK you can choose a (completely unrelated if you want) “minor” subject to broaden your horizons
- evgen 5y ago
  This lack of any background in the humanities (including history, philosophy, or ethics) clearly shows. It is quite astounding to me how much a certain class of STEM grads like to wear their ignorance like a badge of honor and attempt to convince us all that their ability to piece together a mediocre argument using wikipedia and google searches is somehow worthy of merit. Given the fact that the STEM subjects most in use by the HN crowd are the easiest to learn on your own I find it fascinating when people start bragging about all of the educational opportunities they avoided.

panzagl 5y ago

> And this skill is incredibly important for becoming an informed member of the electorate who can separate truth from bullshit. Which is why both sides either denigrate college or treat it as some sort of tech jobs training.

warkdarrior 5y ago
Which "both sides" denigrate college? Last I checked some progressive Democrats wanted to make college free, not denigrate it.
- panzagl 5y ago
  The question is do they want to produce more nurses and web developers, or more informed citizens. I believe the emphasis is on the former.

jfrunyon 5y ago

It absolutely is taught in secondary education in the US. Heck, it's taught during elementary education. But you can't teach someone something unless they're willing to learn it. Post-secondary education doesn't help that.

otterley 5y ago
Young children's brains aren't developed sufficiently to build these skills. Even a lot of high schoolers have difficulty with it. It's largely taught in post-secondary education because by then, the brain has matured enough to handle the cognitive load.
- greedo 5y ago
  Tell me you haven't raised kids without saying you haven't raised kids. Mine have been critics since before they could speak.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Every kid does that. That’s not the kind of critical thinking taught in university, involving research and the evaluation of nuanced arguments, and I think you know that.
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  Not only is it not remotely true that children can't think critically or research something; not only is that irrelevant to whether or not it's taught to children; it's a mighty heavy assumption to say that people's brains have matured enough for anything when they're in college.

lowkey_ 5y ago

> it teaches students how to think critically Most colleges have done the opposite in recent years. They provide echo-chambers for emotionally-fueled pseudoscience. I've seen this while spending time at Boston University, Harvard, Brown, and Columbia. It's frightening how little people are able to think or question anything once they've gone through the college system. They become frightened by and angry at truths that don't align with the narrative they've been taught. I've spoken to dozens of people who've gone through the wringer and come out the other side realizing how detrimental college was to themselves and their peers intellectually.

TheCondor 5y ago
Please elaborate.. Did these people have world views that they didn't wish to have challenged and feel it was detrimental to challenge themselves? Or were they actually taught something detrimental? What is the nature of this pseudo-science?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lowkey_ 5y ago
  They were taught, through teachers but especially through the peer community, that there's an established, unarguable set of world views that shouldn't be questioned or challenged, and the scope of that set only grows larger. I believe it really stems from a belief that they are collectively special — that they're wiser, more moral, and more 'perfect' than their ancestors, their less-educated fellow citizens, and so on. They encourage people to become 'educated' on issues that they themselves aren't particularly educated in, aside from reading Instagram graphics. They seek to 'cancel' people who present other world views. While most people I know have been through all that and eventually come to a place of humility after college, easily half of the students never did. They continue on, unfazed, with a radical belief in their own moral superiority. I'm sorry for the length and vagueness of this — it's really incredibly hard to describe as it's so pervasive throughout everything, and generally it's something people only understand after going through the system. You've got me thinking of how to articulate it better!

drdeca 5y ago

Can critical thinking be taught?

datameta 5y ago
Through practice. It can be shown, but learning by doing is the only way.

logifail 5y ago

> Post-secondary education, regardless of the specific major a student chooses, does provide a significant benefit to society: especially in the early years, it teaches students how to think critically. (My highlight) I wish that were true, but it isn't always the case. My counter-example is my ex-colleague who started her science PhD at the same time as me in the same research group as me waaaay back in the late 1990s. Long and short of it, we each did our 3-ish years in the lab, she wrote up her thesis, I wrote up my thesis, we each had our oral exam around the same time. Her writing (her words) was "torn to shreds", she ended up back in the lab for several months doing more work and some serious rewriting, I got away with only a handful of typos to fix. I blame our supervisor for this, but that's another story.

cdcarter 5y ago
I'm not sure how this is a counter-example of students being taught to think critically. Are you saying you did not think critically in your thesis but passed anyway?
- logifail 5y ago
  My colleague didn't seem to think at all. I've no idea why she did a PhD, and I don't think she knew either. EDIT: (Follow-up Q) who exactly is supposed to be teaching critical thinking?

ericmay 5y ago

> One answer, though, is "why not be both?" Resource constraints basically, and the removal of the degree from free market mechanics. I.e. guaranteed loans, not being able to discharge upon bankruptcy, etc. You also don't need to go to college to get an education in what are historically liberal arts subjects (history, etc.) and in-person classroom lectures for those topics really should be few and far between and extremely academic. I probably remember or know as much about history as a random undergrad history major does just because I read a lot and you can't remember everything. Most of those classes aren't worth a lot of money. In fact you can take pretty much any class you would want to for free with open lectures too. I'd also argue that most liberal arts courses don't teach students how to think critically as a broad skillset. Usually the professor just has a narrative or point of view that they want to push and you can't really write contrary to that without an inordinate amount of research which begs the question "why bother?" when the whole point of being there is to get a degree with good grades to get a job. The whole cycle is screwed up. I'd also say besides some class signaling stuff I can't really tell the difference between university graduates and non-graduates. Work output is the same in my experience.

vadfa 5y ago

>especially in the early years, it teaches students how to think critically Is this a thing only in the US? I went to university in Europe and there were 0 subjects that were unrelated to the (STEM) degree I chose. It was all 100% technical stuff.

andrewprock 5y ago
Yes, most liberal arts programs will have a variety of general education requirements. For my math degree, I also had requirements in: psychology, philosophy, religion, science, writing, and foreign language.
namdnay 5y ago
In the US and UK you can choose a (completely unrelated if you want) “minor” subject to broaden your horizons
evgen 5y ago
This lack of any background in the humanities (including history, philosophy, or ethics) clearly shows. It is quite astounding to me how much a certain class of STEM grads like to wear their ignorance like a badge of honor and attempt to convince us all that their ability to piece together a mediocre argument using wikipedia and google searches is somehow worthy of merit. Given the fact that the STEM subjects most in use by the HN crowd are the easiest to learn on your own I find it fascinating when people start bragging about all of the educational opportunities they avoided.