3 ms·

There is a stark difference between the critical thinking abilities of my freshman and senior students. It seems to me we're doing something to them over their

There is a stark difference between the critical thinking abilities of my freshman and senior students. It seems to me we're doing something to them over their 4 years with us.

TotoHorner 4y ago
How do you even define “critical thinking”. Obviously students will learn how to game the system and pass all the essays/tests over their 4 years. That doesn’t imply that they’re more useful for society or better placed for their futures. It just means that they know what words/phrases to use to get an A on their paper.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  If by "game the system" you mean, "learn the necessary knowledge and skills taught in the curriculum to graduate", then yeah, they are gaming the system. But to you point, I define critical thinking as the ability to analyze and synthesize disparate data in order to form thoughts and opinions which are well founded. When they come to me out of high school, this ability is often completely lacking. When they leave after 4 years, they are being sought after by top companies, forming their own companies, and entering into public service well equipped to meet the demands of their new careers. No one is graduating from our programs by regurgitating words/phrases. I don't know where you got that perception. That would be descriptive of high school, not a top-ranked university.
_dain_ 4y ago
mate, they just got older. there's a stark difference in critical thinking skill between 22 year olds and 18 year olds, regardless of what degree they get (or whether they get one at all).
- ModernMech 4y ago
  So you’re telling me that 4 years of continuous and rigorous study on a skill has absolutely 0 effect on one’s abilities regarding that skill? They could have done nothing whatsoever wand would have gotten the same result? That’s quite a take if that’s what you’re saying, and also disproven by the fact that students absolutely differ in ability depending on how much they apply themselves (studying vs partying). Also disproven by the fact our non-traditional students also improve in their abilities in the same way the 18 year olds do, despite being much older. What you’re saying here essentially is that the entire institution of education, something developed societies universally recognized as a cornerstone of civilization, is entirely without merit. Maybe you should rethink that position?

There is a stark difference between the critical thinking abilities of my freshman and senior students. It seems to me we're doing something to them over their 4 years with us.

TotoHorner 4y ago

How do you even define “critical thinking”. Obviously students will learn how to game the system and pass all the essays/tests over their 4 years. That doesn’t imply that they’re more useful for society or better placed for their futures. It just means that they know what words/phrases to use to get an A on their paper.

ModernMech 4y ago
If by "game the system" you mean, "learn the necessary knowledge and skills taught in the curriculum to graduate", then yeah, they are gaming the system. But to you point, I define critical thinking as the ability to analyze and synthesize disparate data in order to form thoughts and opinions which are well founded. When they come to me out of high school, this ability is often completely lacking. When they leave after 4 years, they are being sought after by top companies, forming their own companies, and entering into public service well equipped to meet the demands of their new careers. No one is graduating from our programs by regurgitating words/phrases. I don't know where you got that perception. That would be descriptive of high school, not a top-ranked university.

_dain_ 4y ago

mate, they just got older. there's a stark difference in critical thinking skill between 22 year olds and 18 year olds, regardless of what degree they get (or whether they get one at all).

ModernMech 4y ago
So you’re telling me that 4 years of continuous and rigorous study on a skill has absolutely 0 effect on one’s abilities regarding that skill? They could have done nothing whatsoever wand would have gotten the same result? That’s quite a take if that’s what you’re saying, and also disproven by the fact that students absolutely differ in ability depending on how much they apply themselves (studying vs partying). Also disproven by the fact our non-traditional students also improve in their abilities in the same way the 18 year olds do, despite being much older. What you’re saying here essentially is that the entire institution of education, something developed societies universally recognized as a cornerstone of civilization, is entirely without merit. Maybe you should rethink that position?