"Critical thinking" = Liberal thinking?

[kimba1]

if I remember right apple computer has a job offer for any graduate from st. johns college.
stating they can teach them computers ,but learning how to think is another matter.

[_JS]

You presented my point, and the author's quite clearly.  No one is advocating a "shielding" of liberal thinking.  What's being advocated is what you referenced in the latter part of the above sentence, an "opening of the minds", which equates to exposing students to ALL ways of thinking, Liberal AND Conservative, and everything in between, then allow the students to learn from a BROAD spectrum of thought, vs indoctrination of a very narrow view, which many would claim as "critical thinking".  Currently we're predominantly getting the latter, which obviously you have no problem with, considering your anti-1st amendment positions aimed at conservatives

I'll be honest Sirs, this article is rubbish.

For one, you are setting up a false dichotomy: liberal and conservative (and everything in between). There is a great deal that lies completely outside of either "liberal" or "conservative" thought. In fact, you've limited the view of all of academia to two competing American political schools of thought that aren't even all that different from one another when compared to other national political systems.

You haven't even discussed intellectual movements, philosophical schools of thought, historical critiques, literary movements, etc.

Your view of universities and education is amazingly simplistic and quite honestly, peculiar. You espouse a "broad view" but you don't even know what that means.

I've got to agree with Tee, this article is written to whine and complain.

[Michael Tee]

<<Here's the Great Books list used by St. John's College.  Not everything for everyone, but quite extensive.>>

Some great selections there.  Some not.  Thanks, Lanya.  Makes me wish I had the time to read them now.  Quite a few of them we never looked at, some jogged my memory back into life - - I can't believe that I left both Hobbes and Descartes off my list of U of T classics, they were heavily emphasized here.

I missed Dickens, but I understand.  Similarly, Victor Hugo.  I'm guessing they were cut because they lacked the depth of the great Russian novelists.

I felt the list was over-balanced towards the Catholic-friendly side of the spectrum, understandably so, considering the source.  But I also felt there was a real lack of modernity on that list.  It was very much overloaded with "classical" and mediaeval authors, relatively little to equip one for the world that followed the French Revolution.  Anyone who prepared a list like that would probably be in sympathy with the author of sirs' article posted at the head of this thread, but personally I found the list a bit stuffy.  But that's the trouble with lists - - everybody's got his own and no two of them will ever match up.

[sirs]

You presented my point, and the author's quite clearly.  No one is advocating a "shielding" of liberal thinking.  What's being advocated is what you referenced in the latter part of the above sentence, an "opening of the minds", which equates to exposing students to ALL ways of thinking, Liberal AND Conservative, and everything in between, then allow the students to learn from a BROAD spectrum of thought, vs indoctrination of a very narrow view, which many would claim as "critical thinking".  Currently we're predominantly getting the latter, which obviously you have no problem with, considering your anti-1st amendment positions aimed at conservatives

I'll be honest Sirs, this article is rubbish.....I've got to agree with Tee, this article is written to whine and complain.

Why of course.  Anything that points to an overt leftest agenda/ideology must be designated "rubbish", and anyone that highlights it is simply "whining".  Academia & MSM being the optimal examples.  I grasp the rationale.  It's much like the threat of Islamofascism.  Ignore it, and call it "rubbish".   Head ---> sand       

[Michael Tee]

"Whining" is just a kind of non-specific vaguely worded complaint like this (taken from the article) - -

<<Many students who take IHUM classes, like "Race, Gender, and the Arts of Survival" and "Worlds of Islam," complain about pedantic, ideological professors and teaching assistants.>>

- - - concerning something about which (a) is either a petty annoyance not worth mentioning (like pedantry) or (b) something you can or are expected to do something about on your own (such as engage an ideologue in debate and test your ideology against his.)

THAT is whining and the author of the article was definitely engaging in some big-time whining.  Waaaaaa, my prof is pedantic!    Waaaaaa, my prof is ideological (and presumably of an ideology with which the writer is not in agreement.)  As if University professors of the humanities are not expected to have any ideology.  As if ideology is something a university is expected to shelter its students from.

The assessment of whining was right on.  And I think I showed in some detail where and how the article was also, as J.S. puts it, rubbish.  Leave it to sirs, the classical example of an ideologue, so captured by his ideology that he abandons any pretence of logical argument in favour of sweeping denunciations ("anyone that highlights it [leftist agenda, "Islamofascism," whatever "menace" the fruitbats currently see on the horizon] is simply 'whining.' ")

sirs, if you post an article, expect it to be taken to pieces and ripped apart in detail.  If you don't accept what's been said about the article, rebut it in detail.  With fact and/or logic.  Summing up your opponent's views in one ironic line with an "oh yeah!" or head-in-sand drawing doesn't really constitute "debate" and does nothing to bolster your credibility.  And yes, I've probably done the same thing myself once or twice.  When I couldn't resist the temptation.  Still don't make it right.

[_JS]

complain about pedantic, ideological professors and teaching assistants

LOL

Students complaining about professors and teaching assistants? <gasp> Surely not! Does anyone remember university? It would be remarkable if students (especially undergrads) weren't complaining, bitching, and moaning about their professors and TA's. It doesn't matter if they are liberal arts, science, engineering, agriculture, law, you name it.

And pedantic? I had a history professor who taught Medieval Intellectual History and History of the Crusades who would fail an essay for a list of grammar errors that he gave out at the beginning of the year. It didn't matter how great of an essay you wrote, one of those errors and the best you could get was a 60.

Now, I guess you could go online today and write an essay bitching about how pedantic he is. But, I learned how to review my essays about fifteen times over before handing them in. I also learned that this guy really knew his stuff. He knew a host of languages and was one of the top scholars of the Crusades in the world.

As for this:

Why of course.  Anything that points to an overt leftest agenda/ideology must be designated "rubbish", and anyone that highlights it is simply "whining".  Academia & MSM being the optimal examples.  I grasp the rationale.  It's much like the threat of Islamofascism.  Ignore it, and call it "rubbish".   Head ---> sand

If you are going to debate about academia, at least provide a cogent response.

[Lanya]

Michael,
I don't think St. John's College is a Catholic college.  There's one in Santa Fe and one in Annapolis, MD (I think).  It's just a very expensive private liberal arts school.
You have to learn the languages the books are written in, as I recall.  Greek, French, etc.
I agree with your point about the lack of modernity of the selections, although I'm happy to see one of my favorites is on there, Flannery O'Connor. 

[The_Professor]

We are what we are to a large degree from HISTORY. That means we should concentrate on the classics, in my mind primarily Greek and Roman literature.

[kimba1]

at least now I got some reading to do now
this gonna take afew weeks
my head is gonna sting alittle

[sirs]

Why of course.  Anything that points to an overt leftest agenda/ideology must be designated "rubbish", and anyone that highlights it is simply "whining".  Academia & MSM being the optimal examples.  I grasp the rationale.  It's much like the threat of Islamofascism.  Ignore it, and call it "rubbish".   Head ---> sand

If you are going to debate about academia, at least provide a cogent response.

This op-ed, and a plethora of many more detailing the same cogent responses have been provided many a time.  All pretty much pfffft'd as apparent rubbish.  So, not sure where else you want to go with this.  Anything else provided to this mountain of deductive reasoning isn't going to find your stamp of approval.

[Michael Tee]

<<We are what we are to a large degree from HISTORY. That means we should concentrate on the classics, in my mind primarily Greek and Roman literature.>>

I would agree with you up to a point, so I am not arguing that the Greek and Roman stuff be cut completely.   It's more a question of weight and emphasis.  The St. Johns list was overloaded with Greek and Roman and could have been heavier on the post-1789 stuff.  Greece gave us the framework for our present civilization but there are limits to the amount of detail we need to know of their world.  A good biography of Huey Long, for instance, would give us a lot more background about Louisiana today than any ten works from ancient Greece or Rome.  Background is important to understanding, but recent background is more informative than remoter background in most cases.

IMHO, one of the reasons that the remoter sources are valued by the more conservative institutions is that they are by nature less controversial; the more recent analyses are more directly related to contemporary issues and the conservatives have a lock on the general public discussion of many current public issues.

"Duty, honour, country," for example, are generally treated as sacred cows in the U.S.; they are what permits debate over the war to be silenced for many by turning it into a debate over "supporting" or "not supporting" the troops; the troops, as it happens, are virtually immune from public criticism because they are the noble followers of a noble creed (duty, honour, country) and so to many people an attack perceived to be on them is totally off limits, beyond the bounds of decency, etc.  "Duty, honour, country" CAN be debated in a sanitized environment, for example, the Greece of Sophocles' "Antigone," where the issue is not whether to torture prisoners, or abuse civilians, but whether Antigone should give her late brother a proper funeral despite the wishes of the ruler, Creon.  Here the issues can be debated but in a context which poses little danger of the conclusions being extrapolated to the actual conflict in Iraq, leaving the conservative lock on the issue relatively undisturbed.

[_JS]

I'm not sure I agree Tee.

Don't get me wrong, I think that modern history is extremely important as well, but I think you are not giving the Greeks and Romans a fair look (which in fairness, a lot of Greek and Roman history and literature is taught as being very sterile as is Medieval history and literature - it was far from that).

Take the Greek play of Lysistrata by Aristophanes. It is anti-war, lewd, and an impressive satire. Also read Aristophanes The Birds.

Roman literature...check out the Satires of Juvenal and let me know if you have any curiosity in Medieval lit (that goes for anyone). One of the great misconceptions of modern people is that the people of Medieval times were somehow stupid, ignorant, or contributed nothing.