<p>I’m not sure it is possible to measure someones ability to think critically, at least not very accurately. You may be able to roughly measure one facet of critical thinking, but this can be defined in many ways. It seems a bit arbitrary to me, but maybe I’m missing something.</p>
<p>In an engineering, design, and business context, critical thinking can be counterproductive. To think critically often means to say to others, “let me tell why that won’t work.” It’s equally if not more important to develop the skills of divergent thinking, social awareness, empathy, experimentation, and artistic imagination. So personally I’m happy to know that colleges are doing a poor job teaching critical thinking. Keep up the good work!</p>
<p>CollegiateDreams, you’re right that critical thinking is far harder to measure than the ability to memorize or solve equations. Obviously, that’s why it’s NOT emphasized on standardized tests. But that doesn’t make it any less important.</p>
<p>Eclpts: I suggest the term critical thnking is not about being “critical” of other’s ideas. You may want to Google the term.</p>
<p>Maybe I misunderstood.</p>
<p>Why is this surprising? </p>
<p>Take a look at the SAT. If ETS increased the number of true thinking and reasoning questions, the average would plummet. Criticism? Yes, THAT is not what is taught in our schools. And yes, rote memorization and short term gains is what rules our curriculum.</p>
<p>Colleges cannot undo the last six years of K12 schooling. It will not change until we revert to adequately educate, train, and empower a new wave of teachers who master their subjects.</p>
<p>Critical thinking is never counter-productive. The lack of clear thinking is.</p>
<p>I think the schools are doing just fine, producing the workers needed to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.</p>
<p>What would they do with this critical thinking stuff, post on CC?</p>
<p>I believe Critical Thinking is all important and necessary for a democracy to thrive, especially in a world where there are so many attempts to manipulate the masses with gobbledygook and one liners. Example: Liberal = Bad, Opponents to the Iraqi War = Unpatriotic, Obama = muslim born in Kenya. The effect of a person’s lack of ability to think critically is evident in many of the posts on College Confidential. How many people give opinions as if they are truisms without any data to support them? How about the rankings of colleges themselves. Should people just buy into the rankings as some sort of gospel? I know my daughters can read. I read to them at an early age (bythe way, my oldest is a Harry Potter fanatic, so I’ll have to send her to that website), and they have done well on their standardized tests. BUT I want to make sure they can not only digest information, but analyze it for what it is, and have a sound basis for accepting or rejecting that information coming their way. It is very frustrating on my end meeting people who simply buy into all of the propoganda they hear or read about in the media or on the web. Sometimes I go out of my way to challenge peoples thoughts, but really that’s not very polite to do in most circumstances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would not be surprised if a lot of social studies majors also cruised through those same courses, if their actual major is “malted beverage social studies”.</p>
<p>We organize our school systems the way corporate America needs it to be organized, like a 13-year “game” of Simon Sez. “Critical thinking” would have to begin with an ability to analyze and understood one’s own daily condition, which is an exercise in authoritarianism. </p>
<p>Not to fall victim to Godwin’s Law, Dietrich Bonhoeffer got it right, 'Hitler and the Third Reich were the inevitable result of good schooling.</p>
<p>Critical thinking means that every statement of ‘fact’ has to be supported by evidence. That evidence has to be supported by more fact based evidence. No statement should be taken on faith. </p>
<p>When one has the fact based evidence then an analysis can be deduced logically. </p>
<p>Law school really teaches this. Assume nothing. Question everything. Eliminate unnecessary, irrelevant information. Make the proponent of a statment prove it.</p>
<p>Yes lawyers learn to question everything and try to see all sides of a position. . . but I do believe critical thinking goes beyond that. Not sure how to explain it other than the ability to see the whole picture in the information you are being provided.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But apparently not as much after they become politicians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lawyers may question everything and understand all sides, but never let the other side know, or admit, the weakness of their position - perfect for a politician.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course they don’t. That would be suicidal for a lawyer. Law is often a game of bluff . . convincing the other side that your client’s case is better than it is. That’s what trial preparation is often all about . . finding out the facts and portraying those facts in a light most beneficial to the client. and yes, that is why they often make good politicians, and why it is important for people to have the ability to critically analyze information, so they can see through all of the B.S.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In D’s IB program, they learned to think about connections, especially connections between things that are seemingly unrelated, or far apart in time or space. IMO that “connection-thinking” is an important piece of critical thinking.</p>
<p>ETA - Here’s the IBO’s take on the definition of critical thinking:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ibo.org/ibaem/conferences/past/documents/BrianHullCriticalThinkingMadrid.pdf[/url]”>500;
<p>We’ve got way too many lawyers. Any school system that is preparing students to become future lawyers isn’t doing its job.</p>
<p>Of course, lying (or is it just not knowing what is true and what is not) is not all that unusual among politicians:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.politifact.com/[/url]”>http://www.politifact.com/</a></p>
<p>But then people believe them…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This is not critical thinking.</p>
<p>You’re right, BC.</p>