Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JohnMakin 252 days ago
There was a critical thinking requirement that multiple courses fulfilled. One was a critical thinking english class that involved a lot of writing. I didn't want to write, so I chose the philosophy course (which still involved writing).

Here is a state school that has a foundation requirement in critical thinking with several courses:

https://www.csulb.edu/student-records/ge-approved-courses-ca...
1 comments
mike_hearn 252 days ago
Yes, but, thinking critically about this, why would learning how to hand-weave on a loom teach critical thinking? I get that you weren't doing these courses at Stanford but it's this kind of thing that makes people skeptical when universities make grandiloquent claims. Stanford is supposed to be the gold standard, so when it makes it appear that they teach critical thinking but actually don't (or it's at least very easy to make choices that won't do so) of course the claim is devalued.

If universities really cared about this aspect of their reputation they'd defend it by firing professors who were found to not be thinking critically e.g. by praising or putting their names on papers that are clearly fraudulent. It doesn't happen.

link
JohnMakin 252 days ago
Your original claim was "there is no evidence to suggest this is true (teaching critical thinking)". I presented my own anecdotal evidence, and then a counterexample. I'm sure there are many, many more. Moving the goalposts is not a discussion I'm interested in having and you seem to have a very set viewpoint on this topic.
link
mike_hearn 251 days ago
But I disagree with your counterexample - Stanford may say they do this but I don't think they do given the evidence I saw. Or at least, you'd have to explicitly seek it out as a student to get such exposure.

So we're left with your anecdotes. Lots of people have such anecdotes. People saying "I learned critical thinking at university" are a dime a dozen, but their beliefs aren't evidence they really did.

I don't think this is moving the goalposts. Obviously when I meant "no evidence" I meant no evidence that could persuade someone who didn't agree with the proposition. Just saying "yes they do" isn't evidence.

link