Is America a nation at risk?

[coberst]

Is America a nation at risk?

In 1983, in its landmark report A Nation at Risk, the National Commission on Excellence in Education warned:

"Many 17-year-olds do not possess the 'higher-order' intellectual skills we should expect of them. Nearly 40 percent cannot draw inferences from written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps."

“The religious believer assigns dignity to whatever his religion holds sacred—a set of moral laws, a way of life, or particular objects of worship. He grows angry when the dignity of what he holds sacred is violated.” Quote from The End of History and the Last Man.

To what does the non believer assign dignity? If the non believer does not assign dignity to rationality, upon what foundation does s/he stand? If the non believer does depend upon rationality for dignity how is it possible that so few know anything about rationality?

Our schools and colleges are beginning to introduce our young people to the domain of knowledge called Critical Thinking. CT (Critical Thinking) is taught because our educators have begun to recognize that teaching a young person what to think is not sufficient for the citizens of a democracy in an age of high technology. CT is an attempt to teach young people how to think. Like the adage about giving a man a fish versus teaching him how to fish, a youngster who knows how to think is prepared for a lifetime rather than for a day.

What about today’s adult? Today’s adult was educated in a time when schools and colleges never gave universal instruction in the art and science of thinking—rationality.

If today’s adult wishes to learn CT s/he must learn it on their own nickel. I think a good read to begin with is this one:

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking

“ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate.”

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

[AuntShecky]

As far as the American public education system goes, we don't seem to have come very far in the last two and half-decades, have we? I agree wholeheartedly that CT should be taught in our schools, but it would require integration within every discipline in the curriculum, rather than as a new separate subject, because the schools have already been given far too many mandates (both academic and non-academic) for the swollen, inefficient system to handle.

I don't know if most parents themselves are aware that there is such a deficiency in their children's education, or if we do know about this lack, we alone may not be fully-equipped to fill in that gap. I do believe that until recent years, the media (both print and broadcast varieties) were
good role models for impartiality and the same kind of critical thinking of which you address. Lately, however, the cable news channels, and to a lesser extent, the major networks seem to have aligned themselves to one side or another. As a result, each "preaches to the converted."

As for trying to acquire these skills on their own, I don't see any other than the most conscientious students. Without motivation, I don't really know how young learners would obtain critical thinking skills.

So you are absolutely right in declaring that the art of critical thinking should come from somewhere, but from where who knows?

[JacobF]

Ultimately, from my experiences, high school students can only obtain critical thinking skills when they volunteer their minds to do so. The majority of high school students are indifferent to the true purpose of education because they see it merely as a pass to get into college, so they complete only the bare minimum. This is a problem because the bare minimum required by high schools these days is very, very little, and is no where near achieving worthwhile critical thinking skills for the future.

There's a major discrepancy between teachers and students. With sites like sparknotes.com where a student can obtain a full summary and explanation of a novel, or with secret Facebook groups where students share essays and papers written by older siblings, steal ideas from them, and hand them in seperately, teachers become frustrated because there's often little they can do. Therefore, they often are forced to position themselves as adversaries even to students who don't cheat. Instead of teaching, they end up enforcing. My most recent English teacher, in the scope of an entire semester, must have spent at least twenty hours talking about how important grades are and the penalties of plagiarism. So it's no wonder why students don't care about their educations: we're taught to care more about report cards and test scores more than actually learning. Combined with the huge sense of entitlement by coddling baby boomer parents, we're in a generation that feels no remorse for being numb.

There's a thick curtain that shrouds the school system's real purpose of teaching. Most students don't see past the curtain because they see it as an obstacle rather than a challenge. So they aren't actually getting an education but rather a watered down series of tests and maybe only glimmers of what it's like to critically think: the bare minimum. To partly answer AuntShecky's question, the students who become critical thinkers for life are the ones who take those glimmers and foster them on their own terms. These students aren't very common -- but I can't say that is only the fault of the school system. That's the fault of an entire culture consumed by the indoctrination of mass media.

I mentioned the word 'volunteer' for a reason -- there really are no rewards for being a critical thinker in this society other than your own personal glory. I get pretty good grades, but I see other students who do as well as me because they cheat on virtually every test and buy copies of final exams. I can say to myself, "well, they'll suffer in university," but I don't; that's a lie perpetuated by the school system to make their flawed approach look decent. There's that curtain again.

[coberst]

Aunt

Richard Paul, author of Critical Thinking, informs me, and I agree, that CT is far too important and far too complex to be integrated into other curricula.

[coberst]

Jacob

The first thing that our culture must do is to make teaching the most sought after profession in our society. Is it possible to do so before our adults learn CT? I doubt it. Therefore the first thing we must do is to convince adults to learn CT on their own after their school daze are over.

[trueromantic]

Interesting, I'd hate to violate your belief that reason is humanities cure all but the ability to think critically often goes hand in hand with all manner of social ills.
Now if you want to discuss national well being ideology is the key- the problem is unnessersary criticism, an inability among critics of any ideology except skeptisism to admit any idea, let alone a system of ideas, despite belief systems being the only way to maintain broader social well-being.
I agree though, America, like all nations doesnt have a public who read Bertrand Russel, but social ills don't arise from the inability to think rationally, if anything they arise from inequality, something which both scientific materialists and the religious need to do something about- in short c.t is just one method by which people and societies live healthily- if you care to compare primitive societies to this day with their 'enlightened' neighbours you might see this.

[Buh4Bee]

One question no one ever wants to ask is can everyone be a good critical thinker? This is just another way to say, can everyone be good at math? When you spread the population over the bell curve, teachers probably teach to the middle or average student (as long as they aren't teaching to the test?). No matter what subject you are teaching, you can teach the students to think critically about their subject matter. Further, if you hold them accountable, you may get some good results. The middle students may do well depending on how well they and the teacher motivate! However, what about the students on the lower end of the spectrum, who will never be able to be good critical thinkers, because they don't have the cognitive skills? I do not believe they contribute to our nation being at risk.

I haven't even touched on environmental factors or questions of inequality.

[islandclimber]

there is something profound to be said for irrationality... something delightful to be found in sticking one's tongue out at reason on occasion (or frequently in some cases)... something borderline divine in credo quia absurdum and yes I know this is bastardizing Tertullian, and the way I am referring to it has nothing to with what he was trying to put across, but all the same I believe it because it is absurd is an endless source of delight....

critical thinking is something that should be left to those who want to think this way, and not force-fed to children and youth in the school system.. who cares if the majority of the proletariat has the ability to analyse and critically think.. to be honest it won't make things any better in this world, or any worse.. so what's the point in frocing it upon students who would rather not?

[coberst]

One question no one ever wants to ask is can everyone be a good critical thinker? This is just another way to say, can everyone be good at math? When you spread the population over the bell curve, teachers probably teach to the middle or average student (as long as they aren't teaching to the test?). No matter what subject you are teaching, you can teach the students to think critically about their subject matter. Further, if you hold them accountable, you may get some good results. The middle students may do well depending on how well they and the teacher motivate! However, what about the students on the lower end of the spectrum, who will never be able to be good critical thinkers, because they don't have the cognitive skills? I do not believe they contribute to our nation being at risk.

I haven't even touched on environmental factors or questions of inequality.



I think that any normal human has the capacity to become a Critical Thinker. The first problem is to teach our teachers what CT is about so that they can become Critical Thinkers. However, since our adults know little or nothing about CT they, not recognizing its importance, do not support such an effort. Thus it all depends upon the adult to learn what CT, the art and science of good judgment, is all about.

[coberst]

there is something profound to be said for irrationality... something delightful to be found in sticking one's tongue out at reason on occasion (or frequently in some cases)... something borderline divine in credo quia absurdum and yes I know this is bastardizing Tertullian, and the way I am referring to it has nothing to with what he was trying to put across, but all the same I believe it because it is absurd is an endless source of delight....

critical thinking is something that should be left to those who want to think this way, and not force-fed to children and youth in the school system.. who cares if the majority of the proletariat has the ability to analyse and critically think.. to be honest it won't make things any better in this world, or any worse.. so what's the point in frocing it upon students who would rather not?

Therein we see the problem in bold relief. This is the result of teaching youngsters what to think rather than how to think.

[Buh4Bee]

The first problem is to teach our teachers what CT is about so that they can become Critical Thinkers. However, since our adults know little or nothing about CT they, not recognizing its importance, do not support such an effort. Thus it all depends upon the adult to learn what CT, the art and science of good judgment, is all about.

Coberst?
I usually don't get to excited about replies, but what are you basing this idea that teachers are not aware of critical thinking or do not know how to apply this in their own craft?


:flare:

[coberst]

Coberst?
I usually don't get to excited about replies, but what are you basing this idea that teachers are not aware of critical thinking or do not know how to apply this in their own craft?


:flare:

I am not a teacher. But I have yet to hear from a teacher that indicated a knowledge of CT. I have heard from many who think that they know something about it but it is like everyone else, they do not know enough about it to recognize their ignrance. I also guess that not 5% of the adult population knows what CT is; however, 95% are confident that they do know. Under such circumstance I suspect the United States will remain ignorant of this most fundamental foundation of good judgment.

[Buh4Bee]

Empirical evidence is a good way to draw a conclusion, but I still disagree. If you are looking for a specific textbook answer than that may be the problem. My point is to ask questions as a means to prevent stereotyping.

Coberst, thanks for your civilized response.