
Many Colleges Fail to Improve Critical-Thinking Skills - guildwriter
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-test-data-many-colleges-fail-to-improve-critical-thinking-skills-1496686662
======
jseliger
I've taught college. This study is wildly unsurprising. I've written about
this in various places (e.g. [https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-
the-party-eliz...](https://jakeseliger.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-party-
elizabeth-armstrong-and-laura-hamilton/)), but most colleges have evolved
majors and paths that are designed to move students through the system,
collect their tuition money, and graduate them.

In re-reading the previous sentence, I think I sound opposed to this. I am a
little bit, maybe, but mostly I'm opposed to the way no one explicitly tells
this to students. A lot of the brighter or better prepared ones figure it out,
but many, it seems, never do.

~~~
Animats
"Paying for the party" is amusing. "Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities"
covers much the same material. The importance of drinking didn't happen by
accident. The alcohol industry promoted it heavily.[1] Two out of five
students in the colleges studied are now binge drinkers.

I got critical thinking early because I was brought up by a lawyer. There were
always briefs around the house, and I could read the briefs for both sides.
Seeing both sides discussing the same facts and coming to different
conclusions gives a sense of how to decide something. Today I read The
Washington Post and Fox News every day, to compare what they're saying. This
is apparently unusual, although it didn't used to be. Left-wing radicals used
to read the Wall Street Journal, to see what the other side was up to. This
seems to have stopped; the problem with the Occupy movement is that while they
were against Wall Street, they never developed an agenda that could be
implemented to do something about it.

[1]
[http://www.soe.vt.edu/highered/files/Perspectives_PolicyNews...](http://www.soe.vt.edu/highered/files/Perspectives_PolicyNews/09-03/marketingalcohol.pdf)

~~~
thebspatrol
I'd actually be really interested in knowing what percentage of people read
opposing rhetoric.

I easily spend far more time listening to and reading right-leaning rhetoric,
despite being left leaning. I already know "my side". Why would I want to live
in an echo chamber?

~~~
davidf18
I have to read NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Economist, The Guardian, Breitbart,
TimesofIsrael to get full information. NYT does a lot of censoring/under
emphasizing of critical information. Of course there is also general reading
that is important.

~~~
Bakary
Interestingly, this is still a significantly limited echo chamber because
these sources are all Anglo-centric, perhaps even the Times of Israel despite
its location.

Of course, this number of publications is already a large investment of time
so I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to do more.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
> because these sources are all Anglo-centric

They are also mainstream media. They provide a very narrow set of viewpoints.

One example? No newspaper publish material as significant as wikileaks.

------
danielford
I teach community college biology, and I agree that we're really bad at
teaching critical thinking. But the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) cited
by this article was graded by a computer last time I checked. Here's a direct
quote from one of their papers a few years ago:

"Beginning in fall 2010, we moved to automated scoring exclusively, using
Pearson’s Intelligent Essay Assess or (IEA). IEA is the automated scoring
engine developed by Pearson Knowledge Technologies to evaluate the meaning of
text, not just writing mechanics. Pearson has trained IEA for the CLA using
real CLA responses and scores to ensure its consistency with scores generated
by human raters."

Link below: [https://www.pdf-
archive.com/2017/06/06/cla/cla.pdf](https://www.pdf-
archive.com/2017/06/06/cla/cla.pdf)

Most of you are more knowledgeable about technology than I am. So I'll leave
it to you to decide if using an algorithm to grade an essay-based exam of
critical thinking is a valid approach to this problem.

~~~
Xeoncross
So as long as you think critically the same way as everyone else does you'll
be fine.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Or perhaps worse: think critically the same way the test writer does:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-
are-s...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/standardized-tests-are-so-bad-i-
cant-answer-these_us_586d5517e4b0c3539e80c341)

~~~
jdmichal
I've often thought that a lot of the high-brow analysis put into art was junk.
Just people taking dots and connecting them with shreds of evidence existent
in the art. Confirmation bias masquerading as analysis. It's nice to see an
artist agreeing with that viewpoint.

I should clarify that I don't mind when the _context_ of a piece is explained.
I like knowing about where the artist was when a work was created; what was
happening around them that might have influenced the work. It's when that
jumps to "and this small detail is about this particular thing that was
happening" \-- and always spoken with confidence -- that I feel like the train
jumps the rails.

~~~
brightball
Ha! I don't know if you've ever seen Ocean's 13, but there's a line in that
movie that cracks me up along the same "high brow" analysis lines.

> Matt Damon - "Do you have any wine back there?

> Lady - "Château d'Yquem?"

> Matt Damon - "As long as it's not '73..."

Just makes me chuckle every time because he's a con artist in such a broad
field almost nobody can actually identify all of the good and bad varieties
from any given year. By just giving an obscure reference you somehow sound
like you know what you're talking about...knowing that nobody else actually
knows enough about what they are talking about to call you on it.

Just struck me as a great bit of "high brow crowd" humor.

~~~
colomon
Haven't seen the movie, so it's hard to directly comment, but for what it's
worth, Château d'Yquem is a very famous wine. Exactly the (rare) sort where
the popular wine magazines will routinely every few years have an article
reviewing how the different historic vintages are holding up -- should you
drink that 1975 d'Yquem now or hold it a few more years?

It also would be a very dangerous wine to BS about if you didn't know anything
about it. 1973 apparently was a lesser year. (Still, it would run you
something like $500 a bottle today.) 1975 and 1976 were classic years, name
those as something to skip and people will be questioning your taste. And they
didn't release a wine at all for the 1972 and 1974 vintages, because they
didn't think the grapes were up to snuff.

I had to look those details up because I haven't paid much attention to wine
in 20 years. (Wife doesn't like it, so it's hard to justify buying even $20
bottle. Not that I ever could have afforded a Château d'Yquem.) But I still
remembered the mid-70s produced a couple of really good vintages. Someone who
was actively into wine could probably have given you all those details without
any research.

------
davidf18
Why wait for college to teach critical thinking skills? My father is a prof at
a major university and we grew up discussing ideas, but high schools can teach
critical thinking skills and problem solving. My high school was owned by the
university and we did a lot of critical thinking.

Jewish religious schools (Yeshivas) teach critical thinking skills by studying
the Talmud [1]. A number of Yeshiva students take the LSATs and skip college
altogether to go directly to law school so powerful is the process of learning
Talmud.

Basically Talmud is full of (often) legal arguments and stories and a lot of
time is spent on thinking through/arguing edge conditions (e.g., a piece of
property is found overlapping public space and private space).

The point is that college is absolutely not necessary to teach critical
thinking skills and in my opinion this should be started at a much younger
age.

Incidentally, I have found even graduates of Ivy League schools seem to not
understand basic fundamentals. For example, in Economics, they don't seem to
understand why housing is so expensive in certain cities and don't seem to
have the analytical skills to understand why prices are high.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud)

~~~
sametmax
I agree that critical thinking should be taugth sooner. A 12 years old can
perfectly handle it.

I got the most jewish name ever, however, I can't agree with you on the
Talmud. Just like the Bible and the Coran, it's full of things that goes
exactly in the opposite direction of critical thinking. And religion, while
helping with a lot of things like holding communities and sharing values, is
definitly using a huge number of arguments that are totally in opposition with
critical thinking. Starting by the fact that all of it is based on the
assumption you believe in Yahweh.

However, since the Jewish community itself is pretty well educated, it's easy
to be biased.

~~~
davidf18
I have learned Talmud without being religious and it is very, very educational
in my opinion and very interesting. If you study it you will see that it is
full of critical thinking and different ways of looking at the same issue.

It has been translated into Korean and a number of Koreans study it to help
them to be better at thinking [1].

Check out an Artscroll Talmud which has a good English translation. There
might even be something on-line.

Also, much of critical thinking in my opinion is cultural. In some cultures,
children "are to be seen and not heard." In the Passover Seder (The Last
Supper was a Passover Seder) the youngest child at the Seder asks "The 4
questions" (memorized ahead of the ceremony of course).

[1] [http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/how-the-talmud-
be...](http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/how-the-talmud-became-a-
best-seller-in-south-korea)

~~~
rickdale
Well, speaking from a secular point of view, studying the Talmud in and of
itself makes you religious regardless of the education you are getting from
it.

You are funny. You are basically orthodox for whats considered Jewish around
me and yet you don't even think of yourself as ,"very religious".

~~~
davidf18
Well, I'm glad you find me amusing. Using your logic, studying Physics makes
me a Physicist. Studying Mathematics makes me a Mathematician.

Also, I think that the Koreans who study Talmud might not think that they are
religious.

Honestly, anyone with intellectual curiosity I feel would find the Talmud
interesting, regardless of being non-religious or of an ethnicity other than
Judaism.

~~~
rickdale
_Physics makes me a Physicist_ Thats not what I said. Thats comparing apples
and oranges. I would bet my bank account your are Jewish, and you are
religious in the eyes of this Jew, regardless if you are as religious as your
father. I dont doubt the talmud is intellectually interesting, but the reality
is those that are studying it ARE religious. Even the koreans you keep
referencing; even if they aren't religious at all, they are in the minority
for those studying the Talmud that way.

~~~
ambicapter
> the reality is those that are studying it ARE religious. Even the koreans
> you keep referencing; even if they aren't religious at all, they are in the
> minority for those studying the Talmud that way.

"All those who study it are religious, except those that aren't, but they
don't count anyways"

------
Nickersf
Every time a college sucks article gets published I think the same things:

Look at the college enrollment rates since the 1960's. Look at the tuition
rates since the 1960's Look at the distribution of majors since the 1960's

Then precede to look at the labor market. It all becomes very clear. There's
millions of great young people roaming the halls of colleges who are not
engaged in higher learning. Great young people who would develop critical
thinking skills from work, family and good on the job training.

Many of these young people are told from an early age that college is a must
in order to get anywhere. Whether that's true, I can't answer with confidence.
I waited to go to college. After high school I decided to work, pay bills and
taxes. In my late 20's I went back for a CS degree and am productive and happy
now. Had I gone right out of high school I would have wasted a lot of time and
money.

Is there even a solution to this issue outside of the family? Is the focus and
quality of k-12 in the wrong place? Is it a mixture? Who knows?

~~~
Hydraulix989
> Had I gone right out of high school I would have wasted a lot of time and
> money.

Why is that, if I may ask? For me personally, my goal was to graduate with a
CS degree as soon as possible right after high school so I could start my much
higher paying full time engineering job as quickly as possible. I noticed you
also majored in CS, so I wonder what I might have overlooked?

~~~
Nickersf
I was totally disengaged from school socially and academically. I went and
worked in a kitchen so I could buy a van, guitar and amp at 17. I spent my
20's touring around North America and Europe within the underground crust/punk
community. I worked at record stores and DIY labels. All of it has been a
great learning opportunity and helped me develop on the fly critical thinking
and problem solving skills. It helped me appreciate the value of the dollar
and what not having a place to live is like. It also taught me how the private
sector works, networking and selling products in a limited market. I learned
vast alcohol consumption causes problems when trying to do all those things,
and not having your shit together is costly. However, the big thing is I
learned all of that without being crippled with student loans, in fact I came
out of it with savings, and capital.

~~~
Hydraulix989
Wow, that's a great story! College definitely isn't for everyone, and I'm
hearing more and more of other people with stories just like yours.

------
Fricken
The problem isn't critical thinking skills. You can get together any 5 jokers
and ask them 'what's the best way to build a backyard patio?', and they'll all
start stroking their chins. But when thinking critically interferes with some
sort of strong emotion, or pre-conceived belief system, then forget it. It
doesn't matter how much education you have, if entertaining a particular
problem causes your amygdala to start firing then your ability to think
critically is out the window.

~~~
cirgue
> It doesn't matter how much education you have, if entertaining a particular
> problem causes your amygdala to start firing then your ability to think
> critically is out the window.

Thinking critically is, by definition, the ability to not hold beliefs and
opinions too deeply or too personally. This is a learnable skill, and is one
facet of intellectual maturity.

~~~
BearGoesChirp
In which case there are levels of it because there are issues that I can
discuss to get an emotional response from almost anyone, especially if they
think I'm arguing the issue for some reason other than to measure their
emotional reaction.

------
ThomPete
Critical thinking is an important skill but I'd like to caution against this
fixation on critical thinking thought in collage as some sort of beacon for
society.

Critical thinking is something people develop over the years and it starts
early IMO. It's not just a 4 year course. It's a whole approach to the world
around you. There are many critical thinkers in my experience outside of
collage. And I don't see it a problem as such.

Also it doesn't matter how good a critical thinker you are we all have blind
spots and biases that makes it impossible to be critical thinkers in all
contexts. Will need to look at the study to see how it's actually measuring
the critical thinking skills.

Many of those who do learn critical thinking first when they get to college
end up getting such a aha moment that they think critical thinking is the same
as constructive thinking and should be applied to everything.

You often meet them in the big companies or management. Many of them like to
play the devils advocate poking holes in everything around them but aren't
able to come up with solutions themselves.

In my view critical thinking is best learned by reading philosophy and seeing
how philosophers historically either improved or created new theories. Because
here critical thinking and constructive thinking goes hand in hand. If you
read the right progression of philosophers through time you end up
understanding how they didn't just critique but put forward their theories
which could then be critiqued.

In my view critical thinking without constructive thinking is as big a problem
as no critical thinking.

~~~
xaa
> In my view critical thinking without constructive thinking is as big a
> problem as no critical thinking.

I disagree. I see critical thinking as a prerequisite for constructive
thinking. Without the ability to identify problems, you can't offer solutions.

I and many fellow students in grad school went through exactly this evolution.
First, you are taught to be critical and skeptical of everything. But at some
point, you realize you can't get anything done in your own research if you are
constantly skeptical of everything, so you learn how to find "good enough"
solutions to tough problems.

So WRT society, I think it could use a healthy dose of critical thinking,
because it suffers from the same problem. People can't identify good
arguments, so they don't know they even need better ones.

~~~
ThomPete
Well by definition it can't be a prerequisite.

Constructive thinking must have come first otherwise there was nothing to
think critically about :)

Joke aside:

Critical Thinking isn't going to save the world. It's a fallacy in the same
line of; if only people were more rational or more logical.

It has it's uses but it also has it's mis-uses.

~~~
cryoshon
>Critical Thinking isn't going to save the world

true, but why is

>if only people were more rational or more logical.

a fallacy? we can see pretty clean data that show more education = better
societal outcomes...

~~~
ThomPete
Rationality and logic is used for bad things too.

------
aphextron
The thing that most struck me after signing up for a few college courses this
past semester for the first time is how little emphasis there is on actually
_learning_ the material. Especially in math classes. The entire focus is on
passing a test. It seems like the entire system is just set up as a means of
"testing" whether you already know enough to pass a given course, rather than
the focus being on learning and developing new skills.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I have attended several different colleges, and my kids have all attended
different colleges (than the ones that I've attended) and from that sample we
discovered great variation in both the quality of the teaching and the focus
of the teaching. From our limited data set (3 private liberal arts, 1 private
"top ten", 3 different community colleges) the small private liberal arts
colleges all had some classes that were taught by professors who cared that
the students really understood the material, the community college classes
were mostly taught to the exam, and my experience at USC was the big 'survey'
classes (like EE101, CS203, etc) were generally taught to the exam (specific
learning skills were 'taught' in the lab sessions) but the more specialized
classes (like EE450 engineering calculus) were more focused on developing
skills at using the material in your future life.

Bottom line is that it is really hard to generalize about colleges because
colleges can be so different.

~~~
lowpro
Can confirm that your experience at the top ten school applies to Purdue
Engineering and Technology majors. First year starts out slow with mostly 100+
people classes (accounting had 1,100! 550 in the room at a time), but after
that they get specialized and you normally find the more personable professors
in the higher numbers since there are normal size classes of maybe 10-50.

~~~
majewsky
Same here in Germany. Our CS faculty admits some 300-400 students who are
sitting together in one lecture hall in the basic courses (math, algorithms,
logic, information theory, electronics), with tutorial sessions for about
30-40 students per room. The specialized lectures in later semesters have
10-30 students and only one tutorial session.

I've found the smaller lectures to be much nicer since it allows engaged
students to discuss the subject with the lecturer more freely. (Of course, it
depends on the lecturer, i.e. if he/she allows questions and counterpoints
from the audience, but most lecturers do.)

------
ergothus
I remember the moment I unlocked the critical thinking I do have.

It was 7th grade, and I was in a home-ec-like class. The day before we had
learned how to order from mail order catalogues (showing my age there). This
day the teacher passed out magazines, told us to pick an ad, and then find 5
ways it was misleading.

Easy, right? Sex, money, Fame, these associations are in a bunch of ads, and
everyone knows about them. But it turns out that 5 is a pretty high number for
some ads. You had to really look. And even that didn't change anything for me.

Then we presented to others. And one girl showed an ad for Bayer, and said "4
out of 5 doctors recommend. Who picked the 5 doctors?".

My mind was blown. I think it was the moment where I considered myself a good
judge and then was shown a point I had never even considered. I had thought
all about having careful wording on the survey, not mentioning any negative
results, but I had never considered that the very basis of it could be
manipulated to the point of meaninglessness.

I think that moment of fundamental distrust, in both what I'm being told, as
well as in my own certainty, did the trick.

Perhaps too well - I'm hypersensitive to being manipulated. I rejected any
career that involved deliberate group manipulation, such as military, law
enforcement, and legal. I recognize that EVERYTHING is manipulative to some
degree and can't be avoided, but I try to avoid anything that does it very
explicitly, so I can't for example, watch most documentaries. The moment the
vocal pacing and background music starts something in my brains starts
shouting "YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED!" and I try to fight that manipulation,
which is largely impossible so I generally end up turning it off. Ditto
political speeches (I'll skim the transcripts, thanks), most anything out of
marketing, etc.

I don't really think we can "teach" critical thinking, but we can provide
opportunity for it again and again. I think our school system in the US (no
experience elsewhere) is very poorly set up to do that, be it college or pre-
college.

~~~
MaxGabriel
Side story about the 4/5 recommendation, this one for toothpaste: apparently
Colgate would just ask dentists to list every type of toothpaste they
recommended, and 80% of those doctors wrote down Colgate as an option, thus
the "four out of five dentists recommend Colgate" ads.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1539715/Colgate-
gets-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1539715/Colgate-gets-the-
brush-off-for-misleading-ads.html)

~~~
dhimes
Now I'm very interested why 20% _wouldn 't_ write down Colgate. Did they know
something the others didn't?

~~~
antisthenes
They probably just forgot about it.

If someone asked you to write all the brands of X that you've ever used, can
you remember all of them, especially if they were nearly equivalent in quality
and use case?

~~~
dhimes
I might forget about Aquafresh or Close-up or something, but I'm pretty sure
that I would remember Crest and Colgate- especially if I was a dentist. It's
like leaving Honda off a list of reliable cars. Hard to believe it's an
accident for any reasonable sample size.

------
camelNotation
> Results of a standardized measure of reasoning ability show many students
> fail to improve...

The irony of this sentence is painful. The entire reason most colleges fail to
improve reasoning - something everyone has known for a while now - is because
of standardization and industry-oriented training. They've transformed into
advanced trade schools, caring more about selling products (graduates) than
producing well-rounded, capable leaders. The entire idea of a standardized
test is to produce the very metrics they use to sell those products.

And you know what the worst part about it all is? They are using the old
college model (4-year baccalaureate programs) to do what could be done just as
effectively in about two years. So they aren't even good at what they are
TRYING to do.

~~~
eastWestMath
I used to make fun of the idea of coding bootcamps. Then I started a PhD in
computer science and realized only 30% of CS students actually engage with the
theory courses that would differentiate them from boot camp grads. At this
point I'd be more inclined to hire a philosophy grad from a small liberal arts
school who went to a boot camp than a CS major from a big school, at least I
know there will be a capacity for abstraction and decent writing skills.

------
unabst
I went to MIT, and I'm pretty sure everyone already had critical thinking
skills. In fact, I just assumed that's part of what the admissions office was
looking for.

> 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

Is this what defines critical thinking? Because if these are the skills they
want to teach, they should just explicitly teach them. Philosophy taught me a
bit about arguments, but it wasn't writing class. In writing class we wrote,
but they didn't teach structured arguments.

Personally, I loved solving logic puzzles as a kid, and I'd read. Also my
mother raised me to think carefully and objectively. I don't ever remember
being taught "critical thinking" at school though - not in college or anywhere
else. I'm not aware of any workplace that teaches it either.

Maybe that's why we're screwed!?

~~~
austenallred
It seems that no one is really sure what job college _should_ be doing. It's
this massive bundle of so much everything that no one knows what's going on
but we all keep attending almost no matter what the cost.

~~~
askafriend
I really think you hit the nail on the head. The critics of college _and_ the
proponents of college _are both_ right - to a certain extent.

But therein lies the true problem - no one is really sure about what college
truly is, at least we can't agree on it anymore at any level from the student
level all the way to the business level. The system has evolved _and_ devolved
to a point where it has strayed far beyond it's original intents.

However even despite this uncertainty, we continue participation in the system
blindly without asking questions and taking into account modern context.

I think systematic educational progress is closer to the pace of social
progress than the pace of technological progress. It's incredibly complicated
with tons of actors that keep the current system rolling and not enough
inertia yet to push it in a different direction.

------
ReinholdNiebuhr
I've always wondered if going to college immediately at 18 is the wisest of
choices. Personally I worked numerous jobs until 30 and earned my bachelors in
history and political economy. I always appreciated each class and all that
was offered while everyone else around me being way younger were recovering
from the night of partying before. I know how I was at 18, I was tired of high
school and ready to just explore the world. I did and when I went to college
it was on my own dime and when it felt right.

Granted what was learned would be considered soft, nothing that could really
show in the coding world.. and I get it.. you go to get technical skills to
get a good job. To me though if this is what college is about then perhaps we
should aim for more of an apprenticeship type set up like Germany. Liberal
arts colleges can exist still, but it'll be to teach for a more mature crowd
able to pay out of pocket and not being something made almost as a
requirement. That's not to say you need a college degree to succeed.. I was
already set up in my career at the time without any college experience.
Considering now I'm trying to start an aquaculture company I probably should
of majored in marine biology... then again.. I really didn't become passionate
about over-fishing until I took a political course on it. Shrug.

------
xchip
Critical thinking skills are not taught because they teach you how to question
authority, and that means criticizing parents, teachers and the system.

Socrates already tried doing that and was accused of corrupting youth (and got
him condemned to death)

~~~
cryoshon
critical thinking also incentivizes discontent, generally speaking.

better not to ask the difficult questions

~~~
xchip
Epictetus (134 BC) explained very well how to deal with that:

[http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html)

It's a short but amazing read. On can't believe it was written 2151 years ago
:) Let me know if you liked it, I'm curious!

------
raleighm
Many comments here are about the value of higher ed generally and are
fascinating to read, but I'm interested in critical reasoning particularly,
and this study doesn't surprise me.

(1) Critical reasoning is rarely taught directly, especially to students who
don't major in or take a philosophy course.

(2) Even when critical reasoning is taught directly, it's poorly taught.
Compare an introductory text on critical reasoning from fifty years ago with
one today. You will find that the former feels like it's written for a user of
reasoning (which is as it should be written) and the latter is written for
explainers of reasoning (colleagues or future academics, I guess?). Jargony,
technical, prolix, etc.

(3) Too many professors in the humanities are influenced by a conception of
argumentation-as-narrative rather than argumentation-as-truthseeking, or deny
there's a distinction or that the latter is possible. Quality of
indirect/incidental critical reasoning education is not what it used to be.

(4) STEM education overemphasizes formal logic. Most of our daily reasoning
that's worthy of being called "logic" is informal logic.

Outside of university is more important, but things don't look great there
either, for reasons everyone here is already familiar with. Echo chambers.
Loss of nuance as deliberation is framed in terms that can easily be
liked/hearted/shared/retweeted. Curious what, if anything, folks here think
could be done to turn things around.

[Edited for clarity.]

~~~
lemming
Can you recommend a text on critical reasoning? It's something I often feel
I'm quite bad at.

~~~
raleighm
These are good:

The Art of Reasoning: An Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (Fourth
Edition) 4th Edition

[https://www.amazon.com/Art-Reasoning-Introduction-
Critical-T...](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Reasoning-Introduction-Critical-
Thinking/dp/0393930785)

Reflections on Reasoning 1st Edition

[https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Reasoning-Raymond-S-
Nicke...](https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Reasoning-Raymond-S-Nickerson-
ebook/dp/B00G6TC2AK/)

~~~
lemming
Thank you!

------
WheelsAtLarge
The article is about college but what about the previous 12 years of school.
Why don't students learn critical thinking during those years. 12 years of
school and students lack learning skills, critical thinking skills and what
burns me most high school graduates don't have a marketable skill they can use
to get a job if they have to start working.

Last year's election focus on some very irrelevant subjects yet our graduates
aren't ready for the world they have to face. School reform should be a hot
subject yet it's not at the top of the list. Start up jockeys take note the US
school system is ready for disruption. I hope it happens soon.

~~~
thesagan
Yeah, I think this one of the great oversights of the higher ed discussion:
the near collapse of much of the public school system "outcome profile".
Sounds like we're trying to bandaid that with a declining uni system, too.

------
Radim
The mandatory Jordan Peterson link:

"Why You Go To College"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtPUg37f04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtPUg37f04)

~~~
bumblebeard
I mostly agreed with what he was saying until he made that non-sequitur about
"postmodern neo-Marxism." Universities are just giving the students what they
want: a piece of paper that allows access to the job market. Most modern
university students do not appear to want an education and neo-Marxism has
nothing to do with that shift.

~~~
programmarchy
This is a cynical view of what students want. I think you're underestimating
the influence that professors have over young developing minds. There is an
intellectual war being waged on university campuses, and students are being
used as cannon fodder.

Postmodern Marxists have virtually taken over humanities, and have been
extending their reach outward through the soft sciences for some time now. I
would argue that this is directly related to the lack of critical thinking
skills developed in universities.

Postmodernists view logic and rational thought as tools of oppression used by
white males to subjugate women and minority groups in Western cultures. This
became a convenient philosophy for Marxists who could no longer rationally
defend communism after its repeated failures in the early 20th century. And
this is the philosophy being pumped into the minds of students.

Hence, you see students of these far left academics violently shutting down
free speech across university campuses. They have nothing to gain from
rational debate. Their feelings and subjective interpretations trump any form
of reason or critical thinking.

Jordan Peterson would argue that what young people really want (and what would
be good for them) is responsibility. Because responsibility gives an
individual a sense of purpose and moral agency. And currently, these values
are mainly being cultivated by the right side of the political spectrum, which
is why I think you see younger generations shifting towards conservatism.

------
shirro
If people had critical thinking skills they wouldn't be taking out outrageous
loans to pay for often worthless degrees.

~~~
rockinghigh
Good luck finding a job without a college degree.

~~~
shahbaby
This guy should not be down voted.

For better or worse, College is the new high-school.

Of course a degree in of itself won't get you far but it's an easy filter that
many companies use to quickly weed out candidates.

There are also other opportunities inside college (internships, friends,
learning difficult concepts) that you realistically aren't going to find
outside.

The value of a College degree depend heavily on how the individual leverages
it but it's an important thing to have. Without what are you left with?

Retail/Sales, Warehouse work, Construction, Odd-jobs, Uber

That's the reality.

~~~
icelancer
>The value of a College degree depend heavily on how the individual leverages
it but it's an important thing to have. Without what are you left with?

Being a software developer with an impressive Github and set of independent
work, the likes of which will impress the vast majority of good tech companies
that need productivity and not papers to hang on a wall?

People that think that undergraduate degrees pass a "filter" are ones that are
applying through open portals and hoping their resume is selected. Most of the
good jobs in software development are obtained through networking in one form
or another, in-person and online (Show HN is a good example, amongst millions
of other ways to get your work out there).

More and more hiring managers are becoming like me. I blind your resume for
education. I actively don't want it. I have found it to be a useless signal at
best and a counterproductive signal at worst.

~~~
rockinghigh
I also hire engineers and don't care about education. However, what you call
networking is often bootstrapped by education and previous work experience.
Very few people have "an impressive Github" out of high school that will
actually impress good tech companies. However, if you have a bachelor from an
average university, you will at least get some phone interviews.

------
seibelj
I went to Boston University for undergrad. When I went, tuition and board were
46k, which I thought was absurd. Fast forward a decade and it's 70k. At this
rate, in less than 10 years it will be 100k per year. How does any of this
make sense?!?!?!?

~~~
learc83
Most students aren't paying that much. Sticker prices are often much higher
than what students actually pay. The sticker price at Harvard is around $60k,
but 70% of students receive financial aid from the University and of those
students the average paid is actually only about $12k per year.

Some quick googling reveals that 52% of Boston University students receive
financial aid, and the average award is about $30k per year.

What's happening is that only students from wealthy families are paying $70k a
year, and they are basically subsidizing everyone else.

~~~
joatmon-snoo
> What's happening is that only students from wealthy families are paying $70k
> a year, and they are basically subsidizing everyone else.

To be fair, this is what the system _strives_ to. More and more schools are
achieving an equitable balance (this is also why top unis are shifting towards
need-based policies, as opposed to merit-based ones: your merit threshold for
FA should be the threshold at which you accept students), but there are still
kinks (IIRC students from farms are one notable demographic - their families
tend to have high cashflow, because of the sheer value of the equipment and
crops that they work with, even though their net income is incredibly low).

On the other hand you have schools like NYU that pretty much exist to strip
their students of financial assets: they combine administrators who don't care
for furthering their institutions as ones of education, but rather moneymaking
tools, with financial aid offices so miserably incompetent that they
presumably only exist so that they can claim to have such on marketing
materials. (Apologies for the vitriol, but as a New Yorker I've always been
ashamed of the school, and it embodies all too well so many of the things
wrong with our higher education system.)

------
jstewartmobile
Not the biggest fan of higher ed, but why put this on the colleges? Why not
the high schools? Eighteen was practically middle-aged in the 19th century. We
just keep dropping that bar and infantilizing people so much that WSJ will be
writing this about PhD programs in a few more years.

~~~
mowenz
>Eighteen was middle-aged

That is possibly misleading.

By year 1500 the life expectancy of a nobleman in England who had reached age
20 was about 70--about the world average in 2017.

Infant Mortality rates were high back then, skewing averages, and during the
Middle Ages they had the Bubonic Plague, skewing it even more...

~~~
jshmrsn
Perhaps he was referring more to amount of responsibility at age 18 rather
than % of lifespan?

~~~
mowenz
Sure. It's possibly a misleading statement and that's all I said.

------
happy-go-lucky
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_education](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_education)

> Thomas Jefferson proposed "establishing free schools to teach reading,
> writing, and arithmetic, and from these schools those of intellectual
> ability, regardless of background or economic status, would receive a
> college education paid for by the state."

> In the United States, the first free public institution of higher education,
> the Free Academy of the City of New York (today the City College of New
> York), was founded in 1847 with the aim of providing free education to the
> urban poor, immigrants and their children. Its graduates went on to receive
> 10 Nobel Prizes, more than at any other public university.

[https://www.ccny.cuny.edu/about/history](https://www.ccny.cuny.edu/about/history)

> City's academic excellence and status as a working-class school earned it
> the titles "Harvard of the Proletariat," "the poor man's Harvard," and
> "Harvard-on-the-Hudson." Ten CCNY graduates went on to win Nobel Prizes.

~~~
lr4444lr
All true, but left unmentioned is that a significant part of that was due to
the open discrimination against immigrant groups by the prestigious ivy league
that viewed them as inferior. CCNY benefited from that pool of excluded
talent.

------
jakob223
Link to get past paywall:
[https://twitter.com/jposhaughnessy/status/871799072956534784](https://twitter.com/jposhaughnessy/status/871799072956534784)

~~~
eddyg
Thanks to AMP (pretty much the only good thing about it!) this works:

    
    
        curl -s https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/exclusive-test-data-many-colleges-fail-to-improve-critical-thinking-skills-1496686662 | sed -n '/./{/<title/,/<\/title/p;/<p>/,/<\/p>/p;}' > wsj.html; open wsj.html

------
pieterk
Why should we believe that their critical thinking evaluation is accurate?

~~~
omegaworks
The first critical comment!

A lot of anti-college head-nodding in the commentary here. It's not really
that unexpected from a community that goes ga-ga over stunts like this[0]. The
headline wreaks of Rupert Murdochian anti-intellectual pandering.

A great claim requires great proof, and when it's below the fold... what can
ya do?

0\. [https://venturebeat.com/2011/11/21/peter-thiel-
fellowship/](https://venturebeat.com/2011/11/21/peter-thiel-fellowship/)

~~~
linksnapzz
Of course, we all agree that criticizing the efficacy of the Higher Ed.
academic-bureaucratic axis is de facto anti-intellectual.

Where else but Higher Ed. would we find intellectuals?!

I am also unclear that the headline "wreaks" anything.

------
suneilp
It took me a long time to really develop critical thinking skills. I'm still
behind where I think I want to be. One thing I've noticed is spending more
time on the right sites, like HN, has helped tremendously. Even if they aren't
perfect. Another thing that has really helped is spending more time with
critical thinking friends.

So what really makes the top colleges so great. Is it really just the
professors and curriculum or is the real value in that more bright minds are
all grouped together.

~~~
wccrawford
I'm curious about what you've done to "develop critical thinking skills". I
learned that kind of thing really young and I've always enjoyed puzzles and
thinking, so it's not something I've had to work on.

And when I've seen others have problems with it, I've never seen them improve.
I've watched them learn facts and processes, but never seen them actually
learn how to think about new things that weren't given to them in a book or
tutorial.

So... What's worked for you?

~~~
gagege
My wife, for one, did not grow up in an environment that encouraged critical
thinking. In school she did the work and got 'A's, but admits that she never
really questioned anything. And apparently her parents never tried to get her
to ask deeper questions about the world.

She wasn't really interested in science, literature, math, or history. She
wasn't really interested in anything having to do with education. It was just
what she was "supposed to do". She remained in this state throughout most of
her 20s.

In the last few years though, she has started homeschooling our daughters and
has completely immersed herself in the liberal arts, as well as math and some
science (she never had a good basis for understanding science and still
struggles with it). It's almost like talking to a different person now.

She has read more books in the last year than she had in her entire life
previous. She argues, what I would consider, well. She doesn't fall for the
unreasoned ideas of bloggers and mainstream news anymore. It's pretty awesome.

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what it is that any one person could do to
develop these skills other than immersing themselves in whatever subject
they're into and exposing themselves to all sides of an argument.

Also, I've realized that it helps to get out of your own head sometimes and
just let all the information wash over you. Don't try to scrutinize every
little thing immediately. Your subconscious will remember bits and pieces that
you will use later.

~~~
wccrawford
"just let all the information wash over you" is one of the things that I think
is required of someone that thinks well. I find that too many people either
accept or (worse) reject information immediately without considering it. In
that state, you either can't think critically about new information, or your
old information, depending. I think the inability to look at "facts" and
consider them unreliable is one thing that keeps people from being able to
think well.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone learned something 20 years ago
and absolutely refuses to accept that it might be wrong, simply because
someone in authority taught it to them.

Authority means nothing in the end, and memories fail.

------
almonj
It isn't just that people aren't taught thinking skills, it's that people are
actively attacked and coerced into suppressing that kind of thinking style.
Going through normal public schooling systems most people are taught during
key developmental phases that questioning the world around you causes
punishment. If it isn't your parents, it's your teachers or the government
constantly shoving stupid thought-suppressing ideas in your head. During these
phases your immune system learns to associate free thinking with abuse and
pain. When you are an adult it becomes very difficult to undo this. An adult
who gets very emotional when their beliefs are questioned likely got abuse and
punishment when they questioned the beliefs of those around them in youth.

------
6stringmerc
If I'd used my critical thinking skills to go to an HVAC vocational track,
following years of hourly / labor Summer jobs as a teenager, and took out a
business loan half of what I've spent on University studies, I'd probably have
a small empire by now.

Universities are great for a liberal arts study track, but that's kind of it.
I'm not even sure most require Students to study Retirement Planning or "How
to Understand a Car Loan" in practical terms.

~~~
smileysteve
No Universities require students to do anything. On mandatory attendance, a
good professor will tell you, "you're paying for it, I could care less if you
show up."

But on retirement planning and car loans; these are failures of being aware of
the world around you. On understanding a car loan, plenty of people that are
not college educated need to and do "understand" these concepts.

Anecdotally, I bought two cars (though I didn't finance) before I turned 18;
Enrolled in my first 401k by the time I was 18, and understood my work's
entirely employee paid healthcare options at 16.

To the autodidact admission though; I learned about programming on my own on a
TI-80; about finance from picking up a "Money" magazine - and posters on a
teacher's wall from a different class doing an investment challenge, and cars
from walking around the neighbor's garage.

------
_pmf_
For a lot of people, college is a phase where you have to suspend critical
thinking and go with the flow.

~~~
ygaf
Apparently you can be so correct that it overflows, resulting in downvotes.

------
harry8
Not having read TFA due to paywall I've noticed that a hell of a lot of people
deriding critical thinking really mean something like: "So many people
disagree with me about the environment/healthcare/religion/liberty/whatever
and I just _know_ they're wrong so they must be unable to think critically."

They, them, over there. There are whole courses run on "Why other people are
so unfathomably wrong." [1]

Maybe the TFA says so, but maybe we should actually look at our own thinking.
What facts we'd actually not bet on yet find it ok to use as opinion
foundations. How many ways could we be wrong in what we think. It doesn't seem
to be popular (or I'm missing the point, am not up to date with the zeitgeist,
or thinking is totally overrated anyway or ...)

[1] one example. Maybe it's excellent, for all I know.
[https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-
deni...](https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-
denial101x-4#)!

------
Xeoncross
I'm working on critical thinking with my 2 year old. If he can't think
critically by college then I've failed.

I spend time each day practicing discussing things with him and he has already
come to assume if he wants anything in life he will need to talk about it as
throwing a fit or whining ensures he does not get anything.

People assume because kids haven't been trained, they can't be trained. So
they wait until they are older (or even at college level) to begin training.
Really bad idea.

~~~
akud
I have a 1&1/2 year old, and I'm curious about your approach. What kind of
things do you discuss with your son? Is it on the level of "if you want a
cookie, you have to ask" or more like "why do you think so-and-so did that?"

~~~
Xeoncross
> if you want a cookie, you have to ask

Is a good start - then I build from there. We're working on the
'understanding' part of critical thinking right now since he is still trying
to make sense of the world.

A) Whining isn't a nice way to ask. [start conversation about manners...]

B) No. We just ate lunch. [start conversation about eating when we all eat..]

C) No. Do you know why we don't eat cookies all the time? [etc...]

D. Yes. Can you talk one to ____ also? Do you think they want one?

Each of these is a series of short explanations along with a question for him
to answer and speak his mind. If he doesn't understand I say something similar
I know he can respond too.

For a 2 year old, people have remarked how well he talks/communicates.

------
agentgt
Is it possible a large portion of the observed behavior of critical thinking
personality based (ie Jung Theory)?

That is to say could it be certain personalities are more likely to analyze.
They may not be smarter or even more educated but are more drawn to problem
solving and analysis than others.

So even if the individuals were taught to perhaps be more logical, detail
oriented, not reactive, etc it maybe incredibly unnatural such that a normal
psych test may not elicit the behavior.... just a theory... I'm probably
wrong.

While it seems critical thinking is a good thing it might be in some cases
detrimental particularly if it requires more time. That is reactive
individuals who prefer not to rely on critical thinking might be able to make
critical decisions quicker (albeit possibly incorrect).

~~~
cryoshon
I'd put it on some sort of bio-psycho-social-economic-educational axis.

not everyone has the spark... some can develop it, and some clearly have it
from early in their life, before the other factors could have an impact.

i'd say the biggest division is introversion vs extroversion. extroverts are
the majority of people and are more likely to engage with the world via their
senses rather than their analytical capacity by definition.

------
JuliaMel
The problem is that most students now go to school just to get a degree, a
certification of sorts. They don't want to think and they're very resistant to
any teaching that not "on the test."

What's more, college students have come to view their college enrollment as a
commercial exchange where they expect to get "what they paid for."
Unfortunately, for them, that's not critical thinking skills, but a "good"
piece of paper that can get them a job.

Critical thinking can't be quantified or measured on a multiple-choice test,
and is therefore becoming highly unpopular with students in even the best
universities

------
cyberjunkie
Critical thinking topples popular, mainstream, insecure systems and that's not
good. You want obedience and the lazy, traditional education systems ensure
they put out order-following, capable workforce, not adaptive, ever-changing
ones.

------
mowenz
Higher ed needs competition.

In the interest of human progress, justice, and fairness, top-tier education
needs to become open-access and in the form of competitive study.

Instead of the greatest academic achievement having anything to do with money,
connections or committees, make degrees open access: anyone can study for them
and test for them.

If any person, no matter how disadvantaged, or from what community they come
from, wants to study pre-med, then they should be able to self study and test
for a bio, chem or other pre-med degree.

There's no technological or economic reason this can't happen.

~~~
chii
I dunno if i can trust a doctor who hasnt been through a rigorous course of
several years, but self studied to pass the certification. May be if the
certification process is very stringent, and take into account many practical
skills, and the evaluation and have little false positives...

~~~
mowenz
I was actually talking about a pre-med degree to apply to med school. I also
would prefer a doctor who has been through med school and residency.

~~~
greglindahl
Even pre-med has a lot of lab courses, which are a bit more difficult to do
with self-study than straight textbook-based instruction.

~~~
mowenz
Every approach has pros and cons. And wouldn't "straight textbook-based
instruction also omit lab work?" I'm a little bit confused by this language.

Anyways it doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle: If it's deemed
necessary one physically demonstrate certain skills before med school
admittance then perhaps admissions could be contingent on passing a summer
course in lab skills could be

------
rotexo
I don't think I was forced to develop critical thinking in a systematic way
until my PhD, where I actually had to produce ideas that would withstand
scrutiny by both professional scientists and experiments. I went to a magnet
high school and then a liberal arts college and the emphasis seemed largely on
preparing for tests at both places. It is probably true that I could have
developed my thinking more at an earlier stage if I had been more self-
motivated. Needless to say, the PhD was a painful experience.

------
Banthum
Lots of reasons for this.

Actual generally-applicable critical thinking ability is an exceptionally rare
skill. So rare that I think it'd be damn difficult to find faculty who could
even start teaching it. I don't think most faculty come close to being solid
critical thinkers.

Whereas most beliefs are life-long emotional self-indulgence parties (my tribe
good! their tribe bad!) critical thinking is a life-long struggle against your
own lazy and thoughtless mind. It's very low-entropy so it takes intense,
endless, focused effort to maintain, especially in a group.

\--

Another big impediment is that teaching critical thinking would go directly
against many professors' big goal, which is to spread whatever memeplex
controls their mind, because they think that's the biggest moral command for
an educator. Higher education is now a political orthodoxy. Free-thinking,
questioning of accepted ideas, and consideration of "dangerous" ideas are now
often considered not just factually incorrect but morally incorrect. e.g. In
the social sciences, professors lean the same direction politically in a ratio
of 15 to 1 now. Students who speak or write against the orthodoxy become the
victim of outgroup psychology and are punished socially, academically, and
professionally.

People notice when the purity spiral goes totally insane like at Evergreen
recently, but this is a universal phenomenon at this point. The quiet damage
of self-censorship is constant and massive, and destroys critical thinking
education not just by ignoring critical thinking, but by actively teaching
students wrong critical thinking and tricking them into believing it is
critical thinking. They'd be better served with a pile of books and an
anonymous Internet forum.

There is some pushback from organizations like Heterodox Academy [1] but it
remains scattered and ineffectual. Until the academy re-embraces freedom of
speech, diversity of viewpoints, it'll continue to be a moralizing seminary
school and thus will continue to teach to moral conclusions instead of
teaching thinking methods.

\--

And the final reason that seems obvious is that most of the people in
university these days just shouldn't be there. They're not mentally prepared
for higher education; they don't have the IQ. It's like sending a blind person
to a school of visual arts. But they're sent there because it sounds good in
politics, provides false hope that everyone can become high status (the Lake
Woebegone dream), and provides for the endless expansion of a very lucrative
government-money-milking educational establishment through subsidized tuition.

Education is in a sad state and a growing number of people think the model has
to collapse and be replaced by a more decentralized model aided by technology
(e.g. YouTube lectures, etc).

[1] heterodoxacademy.org

~~~
jstewartmobile
I always like to look at the items at the bottom since that's where best and
the worst clump together. Thanks for sacrificing some HN points on this. You
nailed it!

------
monksy
Side note: Should we allow WSJ articles as that they prevent the reader from
reading the entire article for free? At this moment it seems like it's an
avenue to advertise for WSJ.

~~~
giarc
The issue with WSJ articles has come up many times before. There used to be
work arounds (googling the url, going through a FB link etc) but most seemed
to be closed now. I agree, WSJ articles should be discouraged, however, it's
an open submission process. The problem is that people upvote the submission
based upon the headline (and comments/discussion) and don't access the
article. This is fine, however we then end up in situations like this.

------
andrewflnr
I'm not sure this is a reasonable expectation of college. Critical thinking is
hard to teach. I don't know if it's possible to scale it beyond the few
teachers who are good at it.

Measuring critical thinking is hard, too. The universities who criticized the
test used here are probably not wrong, even if their motive is only to save
face. It's only 90 minutes, which is a time limit more suited for quick
sophistry than looking at some new evidence and coming up with a solid
argument from it.

~~~
TallGuyShort
I went to a very religious school that has a bad reputation for being closed-
minded. I found many of the graduates and students to live up to that
reputation, but I learned to question a lot from the professors. My biology
professor there taught evolution in the most convincing way I've ever seen.
Presented the history, the evidence, the thinking behind the theory, common
fallacies, etc. Across the board, I heard some of the most convincing
arguments for political, religious and scientific thinking that contradicted
the stereotype from the very professors who were teaching everyone. So they
exemplified it well, and I feel like they taught it to me well, but I look at
the result and it just didn't happen a lot. Could be hard to teach, could be
hard to make someone learn (I feel like it's the latter), but it certainly is
not just a problem caused by professors who can't think critically themselves.

~~~
andrewflnr

      Could be hard to teach, could be hard to
      make someone learn (I feel like it's the latter)
    

I don't really see the difference between these, at least from a practical
perspective. I guess my point is that you can't make someone learn critical
thinking. I definitely wasn't trying to say that the problem is professors
being bad at critical thinking; that hardly enters the equation. :)

------
eeZah7Ux
Sadly, nobody is pointing out how critical thinking is under constant attack
in some western societies.

In a society based on entertainment and consumerism, emotions, desires and
impulsive behaviors are [made] king. Nobody will try to sell you a car or some
shoes by appealing to your rational side.

Analytical and level-headed people, e.g. academics, mathematicians, engineers
are frequently depicted as uninteresting and boring in movies.

------
xname2
90% of college "critical thinking" will result in same conclusion. 9% will
change their conclusions to match with the majority. 1% will be shamed.

------
jordanjustice
Interesting, and not entirely surprising.

I just finished Godin's altMBA two weeks ago, and it's all about critical
thinking. This was a struggle for a lot of the students as they were either
use to or expecting a typical college style instructional design.

The whole program was incredible and my mind is still spinning.
[https://altmba.com/](https://altmba.com/)

------
notadoc
It's almost as if relentless standardized test taking doesn't generate
critical thinking skills? Wow who woulda thunk! If only we could critically
think, maybe we could think critically about this.

------
MichaelMoser123
i have several questions here:

\- how does one measure critical thinking in a survey? The article doesn't say
so.

\- The humanities/liberal arts are supposed to encourage critical thinking,
how do the Humanities compare vs exact sciences/engineering in terms of
critical thinking?

\- Do employers really value critical thinking, or does too much critical
thinking inhibit your career prospects in an organisation?

~~~
pas
This is the test:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_Learning_Assessment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_Learning_Assessment)

There are a lot of studies about what is critical thinking, how to test and
teach it: eg.
[http://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ojs/leddy/index.php/infor...](http://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2254)

Here's a PDF about the CLA itself:
[https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL/Reports_Papers/highe...](https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL/Reports_Papers/higher_ed_papers/The%20Collegiate%20Learning%20Assessment_Ford%20Policy%20Forum%20Monograph%202008.pdf)

> liberal arts ...

Yes, good insight, it'd be good to have access to the data.

> employers

I think there are very different types of employers. Some need broad
rationalist critical thinkers, some need focused specialized experts, and so
on.

~~~
MichaelMoser123
Thanks, I wonder about the nature of the jobs that have a requirement for
critical thinking: these might be analysts, or managerial posts, how prevalent
is this requirement?

~~~
pas
I think it's more dependent on the type of organization and sector.

So if you are in a fast moving sector, you need agile self-aware people. They
will think critically about the problems, uncover their basic assumptions, try
to challenge them, and so on. It helps if you have open-ended, think outside
the box, oh wait, we don't even have a box ... problems.

But it doesn't help if you want to cook your books and your accountant start
to ask inconvenient questions.

I'd say product designers/managers are an interesting case, because coming up
with a new product (or just new/different/fresh/interesting features for an
existing product - for a new version) requires a lot of thinking, yet it
requires a certain focus after the spec has been finalized, otherwise the
product guy/gal will find itself in constant anxiety worrying about how the
basic assumptions are shifting, how things need to be tweaked, and so on.

And of course, the aforementioned is just a very narrow aspect of thinking,
and a lot of non-strictly-cognitive psychology.

But as our current state of society shows, critical thinking doesn't really
have a super-duper-extra high and obvious utility reward. Otherwise it'd be
more prevalent. Aaaand of course you'll get into a loop, trying to questions
yourselves, your thoughts, trying to eliminate your biases, correct for
others', estimate, forecast, predict, post-process. (And some people do it
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/31/2016-predictions-
calibr...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/31/2016-predictions-calibration-
results/) , some don't.)

~~~
MichaelMoser123
Thank you for the answer.

------
known
Asking WHY is a taboo in modern education system :(

------
Paul-ish
How do we know this test is not just a proxy test for motivation? Why would
anyone try to do well on the test?

------
nether
Well, I'm a product of this system, so I'm not sure what I'm missing out on.

~~~
pas
Critical thinking is basically a built-in bullshit detector. And if you use it
on yourself it helps you to come up with good explanations [models] for things
in the world, hence it helps you understand the world.

------
ekm2
Long thread and no one talks about just teaching Logic like French schools do.

------
umroh-murah
critical thinking is very importen thing, student must have the ability
([http://www.aidatour.co.id](http://www.aidatour.co.id))

------
umroh-murah
critical skill is importen, student must have the ability
([http://www.aidatour.co.id](http://www.aidatour.co.id))

------
bipr0
However this article is revealing, it is not surprising at all.

------
whatnotests
Do what you're sold^H^H^H^Htold.

------
csmark
I graduated college back when there were still a few summer jobs that earned
enough to pay for the following 2 semesters of college. I was in the
biological and chemistry sciences.

The CLA+ is the test discussed in the article which measures critical
thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving and writing. (thanks to
jakob223 for the link) A sample "spreadsheets and news articles" example asked
students to decide and backup your recommendation for a product campaign given
numerous sources.

Looking back the biggest change in college was how fast I could absorb
information and mentally outline a document's contents to come back to it.
Critical thinking and analytical reasoning came from my background in
computers and an amazing high school instructor. Is being faster the same as
improving a skill?

The example mentioned above focused on the ability to interpret charts,
tables, and graphs and write a plan of action based on and backed up by the
information. Being able to work with numbers and charts usually ties into
one's chosen area of study. Those who are not comfortable with numbers are not
going to learn it in college because they're going to avoid exposure to it as
much as possible.

Certain majors put an emphasis on critical thinking skills. If the school or
the selection of seniors to sit for this exam represented this group it would
definitely skew the results.

Things (I think) I did right: Always take the majors intro course versus the
general. It's better taught, not everyone is clueless, and you'll probably
hate the subject less. Physics 213 E&M test Average: 43% Range - 23%-63% & an
84% "outlier" by me. Won't ever forget that one!

I took a 300 level History of the Civil War rather than Western Civ. Criminal
Justice and Differential equations even though I didn't need either. There
were a few others but it's been too long. This was before prices exploded so
taking a course out of curiosity wasn't a major financial burden. I thought my
Criminal Justice instructor in insufferable liberal at the time. Four years
later in a completely different environment what he said was happening all
around me day and night. Without it I would have no context and completely
missed what was a prelude to current day Baltimore. I continuously learn more
about the Civil War. One course and I've given tours to friends of Gettysburg,
Antidem, Harper's Ferry, and the Bloody Angle. Seeing why things were done a
certain way after reading about it in a book is a treat. Seeing the bend in
the Missouri River at Vicksburg was amazing! Look up Grant landing south of
Vicksburg.

What would I suggest taking? Never stop asking "Why?" Philosophy involves
questions and critical thought and discussion to a rational argument to an
answer or at least something close to it. In a society of systems for stamps
of certification or education asking why is increasingly infrequent. TBTAW
"Too Big to Ask(or Answer) Why?" There's an art to doing it so as to not
offend or insult. Putting down the brush for a mallet does have a time and
place. But it's not just asking the question, it's having a system to deduce
an answer. When it comes to identifying stressors asking and then answering
questions is part of the process. It's part of a process.

------
adjkant
Just yesterday there was a thread [1] on the rising costs of college and if it
is worth it. The general consensus on that link seemed to be that most can no
longer afford learning for the sake of learning.

Contrast that with this thread, where many appear to be taking the stance that
college education, particularly one of breadth, is a crucial part of their
education. Some posters have discussed the benefits of small liberal arts
colleges.

As far as I can see, the anecdotes from many here about education is a big
part of why the cost has been able to rise so much - it can give a life-
changing value for some. HN is a community of programmers, mostly. Ask many
about a CS degree, and they won't tell you that the programming languages they
learned in college are what makes them successful, but the way they learned to
teach themselves as needed on topics in CS. Give a man a fish, yada yada yada.
The same really goes for critical thinking and education in general. It's the
reason a few in the thread yesterday talked about their loans being worth it.

The hard part is getting a student to focus on learning to think/learn, to
borrow from a post by @closure in this thread. There seems to be a lot of
support behind pushing for critical thinking and this type of learning in high
school, which I strongly agree with. I was lucky enough to get it in high
school, and early at that. It made an absolutely huge difference in my
approach to education.

The question then arises: is it the responsibility of a college to teach a
high-level of critical thinking, or should you enter with it? I don't have the
answer, but I'm curious as to what people think.

I go to (chose) a college that is very much pre-professional at the core, but
it offers all of the resources I need for a full and fulfilling education. I
have always seen college as a resource, but you have to know how to use it to
get the most out of it. The problem is that most college freshman, and many
college seniors, don't know how to do this, and critical thinking is probably
a big piece of that.

It's a bit of a circular problem - you need critical thinking skills to get
the most out of college, but may need to also learn critical thinking at
college. If we ever actually get to a point where we can do a proper overhaul
of the education system as a whole, I think properly defining and executing
these roles should be a key focus.

\--------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: This is just a collection of thoughts/insights, not really a stance or an
argument. Not sure what to make of all of this yet as a full picture.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14483409](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14483409)

------
libeclipse
I can't bypass the paywall with Google. Any help?

~~~
eBombzor
[https://twitter.com/jposhaughnessy/status/871799072956534784](https://twitter.com/jposhaughnessy/status/871799072956534784)
This twitter link worked for me.

------
pmarreck
See: the last election cycle

Also: As someone who does have critical-thinking skills (perhaps taught by my
Cornell Psych major), it's extremely disheartening to see bad thinking pretty
much everywhere

~~~
monksy
The last election cycle and the conservative party is not reflective on
intelligence. (Granted the party has had and currently has vocal people who
are 1. aren't well educated and 2. are incredibly intolerant 3. a mixture of
both)

Politics relies on playing on people's confirmation biases and it works. Trump
is not the only one who did that. Politicians won't debate fact because they
can be wrong, and also they can be proven wrong. (From there their opponiate
can harp on that and use people's confirmation bias to discredit)

~~~
TallGuyShort
>> the party has had and currently has vocal people who are 1. aren't well
educated and 2. are incredibly intolerant 3. a mixture of both

Hmm... once again the conservative and liberal parties sound identical to me.
OP didn't say anything about conservatives.

