"Critical thinking" = Liberal thinking?

[sirs]

Learning what 'liberal arts' really means
Many required college courses seemed designed to promote a leftist agenda.
By ALLYSIA FINLEY

Colleges initially implemented general education requirements supposedly to ensure that students received a well-rounded, liberal arts education, but coercing students to take classes in certain disciplines perverts the "classical liberal" ideal. Many colleges now use GERs to inculcate students with their leftist ideology and force math and science students to take humanities classes. While most schools have some math and science requirements, the majority of GERs are within the humanities.

Though most incoming students at elite colleges have scored well on Advanced Placement English and social sciences exams, many colleges refuse to give GER credit for their scores. Colleges say the reason is that their "higher-level" courses teach students to think more critically than the AP classes do.

While this may be true to an extent, what colleges don't say is that their classes also teach students to think much more liberally. Students quickly realize that when professors tell students that they need to think critically to earn good grades, professors really mean that students need to think like a liberal. For many academics, critical thinking and liberal thinking are synonymous.

Like many colleges, my school has a yearlong Introduction to the Humanities (IHUM) requirement. 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. When I asked a Worlds of Islam teaching assistant what made his course different from other IHUM classes, he told me that my very question was "demeaning."

This was when I still believed that liberal arts colleges promoted free inquiry.

Many students also complain that professors neglect the classical canon in favor of modern, multicultural works, or that they approach the canon primarily from gender, environmental, or racial perspectives. For example, in my IHUM literature class I learned that "The Canterbury Tales" was one of the first feminist literary works and that Shakespeare's sonnets were ecologically inspired. Like many freshman, I found it difficult to distinguish between what is true and what ideologues profess is true. Because freshmen are sponges, first-year humanities requirements are effective ways for colleges to indoctrinate young, impressionable minds.

Like other colleges, my school also mandates a three-course writing requirement for all students regardless of their writing scores on standardized tests. Even if you were F. Scott Fitzgerald (but maybe not Karl Marx), they would still insist on teaching you how to write.

Like other GERs, the requirement makes it more difficult for students, especially science students who have more major requirements, to graduate early and save money. The classes are often a waste of time, units and tuition money for those who are already adept writers and those who plan to pursue science or math degrees. Many humanities students complain that they could get A's on their papers without attending class. Many do.

Furthermore, science students should be allowed to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of spending the extra time, units, and money on humanities classes. Is learning how to follow Modern Language Association format for research papers worth $15,000 for prospective engineers? Colleges call on students to take charge of their educations but then make the most basic academic decisions for them.

In addition to general humanities requirements, many liberal-arts colleges have begun implementing "citizenship" requirements in subject areas like gender studies, global communities, ethics and environmentalism. This last year, Harvard revisited its general education curriculum, proposing eight new subject areas including Aesthetic and Interpretive Reasoning, Culture and Belief, and Societies of the World.

While such requirements ostensibly aim to make students better citizens of the world, I have a feeling that they really aim to make students better citizens of the academic, politically correct world. Colleges, after all, need to ensure that all students graduate knowing that "black" and "queer" are inappropriate terms, that Western culture is heinous and that women are and always have been oppressed.

These as I have learned are the new, basic tenets of the "liberal" arts education.


Article

[_JS]

Because freshmen are sponges, first-year humanities requirements are effective ways for colleges to indoctrinate young, impressionable minds.

If this is true then there is a serious problem in that clearly critical thinking needs to be taught.

The classes are often a waste of time, units and tuition money for those who are already adept writers and those who plan to pursue science or math degrees.

I used to help students, primarily engineers, write papers. You'd be amazed at how awful some of these kids were at writing. I'd seen better papers from high school students and some of these guys were close to graduating with chemical or mechanical engineering degrees. So I'd have to argue that this anecdotal evidence doesn't match my experience at all.

Furthermore, there's a lot more to education than standardized tests and routine math problems. To put history or writing into a standardized test rather misses the point (though explains the state of writing and history in this country). People who graduate from university are supposed to be extremely knowledgable individuals and also very intelligent thinkers, but I've found that to be less and less true.

I think it is a good thing for any student to read Petrarch, Swift, Kant, or Marx. In fact, if more of them understood intellectual movements and how they change over time then perhaps we wouldn't have the absolutely vapid debates we have today.

As for writing, Ms. Finley is no F. Scott Fitzgerald (which is an odd comparison to Marx) and could benefit from learning how to develop a logical and persuasive essay.

[kimba1]

 People who graduate from university are supposed to be extremely knowledgable individuals and also very intelligent thinkers, but I've found that to be less and less true.


well that`s just simple economics.
learn only what`s need and ignore the rest.
remember it`s the goal of the students to get this learning nonsense out of the way to get the job.
the joy of learning and writing is only reserved by people who have time for it.
these KIDS are not gonna put the energy needed in these subjects.
ex. the majority of people I talked to don`t remember any of the subjects they learned thats not actively used in thier lives.
I know folks who still don`t know 2-8 =

[Michael Tee]

<<While this may be true to an extent [that colleges will give students better English language skills than they got from AP English in high school]  what colleges don't say is that their classes also teach students to think much more liberally.>>

Probably more accurate to say that the colleges teach higher-level English skills and expose students to more liberal thinking.  Probably better to expose students to more liberal thinking than to zealously shield them from it.  I thought college was about opening up minds, broadening them.

<<Many colleges now use GERs to inculcate students with their leftist ideology and force math and science students to take humanities classes.>>

This is just more nutty conservative paranoia.  The stated purpose of the GERs is to broaden the perspective of a university's grads so that when they interact with the rest of the world, they will sound like university graduates and not trade-school grads.  The last thing the University wants is to turn out math and science grads who speak and write like semi-literate proles or ghetto thugs.  All of them will have to write reports, evaluations, professional articles, etc. and the University has some interest in maintaining the integrity of its degrees, doesn't want to see them cheapened by people with poor communication skills and little knowledge of the common elements of world culture.  Not only is that the stated purpose of the University in imposing GER requirements, it's a purpose that is plausible, credible and easily understandable.  If Ms. Finley believes there is some other purpose to the GERs, I would like to see some evidence of that other, unstated, interest.

In my own experience, I have to deal with the written reports of engineers, accountants, physicians and other professionals, and most and perhaps even all of them adhere to a  high standard of literacy and style.   Any that did not would be an embarrassment and probably not worth the paper they are printed on.  Any professional graduate of a University should be able to express himself or herself ably in writing and would be a profound embarrassment to their alma mater if they could not.  An exposure to literature, particularly English literature, exposes them to a wide variety of methods, tricks and techniques of expression and is invaluable in the formation of a decent writing style.  There are very few "naturals" in the world of writing, and although Damon Runyon comes quickly to mind, I don't think an engineering report written in his inimitable style would bring much credit to any academic institution of higher learning.

<<Students quickly realize that when professors tell students that they need to think critically to earn good grades, professors really mean that students need to think like a liberal.  For many academics, critical thinking and liberal thinking are synonymous.>>

Critical thinking is critical thinking.  Liberal thinking is liberal thinking.  I went to a very liberal university (Toronto) with very liberal professors.  None of them told us to "think liberal."   This is total bullshit.  In my post-grad studies, the profs were more of a mixed bag.  There was a lot of give-and-take.  It didn't hurt me to argue with conservative profs and students and it didn't seem to hurt the conservatives to argue with liberal profs and students.  It's just part of an education.  Good for all parties concerned.

<<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.>>

Does anyone else want to throw up at this pathetic whining?  When are these f*****g idiots ever going to grow up?

<< When I asked a Worlds of Islam teaching assistant what made his course different from other IHUM classes, he told me that my very question was "demeaning.">>

No shit?  And I suppose it was at this point in the conversation that a mysterious, sudden muscle paralysis prevented you from asking, "Yeah?  What's so demeaning about the question?"

<<Many students also complain that professors neglect the classical canon in favor of modern, multicultural works . . . >>

Why that's . . .   that's . . .   it's almost like broadening young minds!!!  The horror!  The shock!  The outrage!  Stop them, stop them somebody, before even MORE minds are broadened!!

<<For example, in my IHUM literature class I learned that "The Canterbury Tales" was one of the first feminist literary works . . . >>

Oh God NO!!  NO!!!  I pray to our precious Lord and Saviour that you stopped yourself in time from asking the prof, Why?  WHY is "The Canterbury Tales" one of the first feminist works?

<<Like many freshman, I found it difficult to distinguish between what is true and what ideologues profess is true.>>

Are you really SURE you belong in a University?  Do you think maybe hairdressing school would be a more comfortable environment for you?

<<Because freshmen are sponges, first-year humanities requirements are effective ways for colleges to indoctrinate young, impressionable minds.>>

Good point!  I say no higher education for anyone under 40.   How the hell can an 18-year-old learn to think critically?

<<Like other colleges, my school also mandates a three-course writing requirement for all students regardless of their writing scores on standardized tests. Even if you were F. Scott Fitzgerald (but maybe not Karl Marx), they would still insist on teaching you how to write.>>

Local high schools producing lots of F. Scott Fitzgeralds, are they?

<<Like other GERs, the requirement makes it more difficult for students, especially science students who have more major requirements, to graduate early and save money.>>

Never mind cutting the humanities, think of how early they could graduate and how much money they could save if they didn't even have to learn math and science!!  I think they should just show up on the day after Labour Day, pay the discounted tuition at the front window and pick up their diploma at the back door on their way out.  The One-Day Diploma, a new concept in the pursuit of higher education!

<<The classes are often a waste of time, units and tuition money for those who are already adept writers and those who plan to pursue science or math degrees.>>

That's because they reached such a high degree of perfection at the end of high school that any further improvement was simply an impossibility.

<<Many humanities students complain that they could get A's on their papers without attending class. Many do.>>

Ah, so they have grade inflation in the U.S. universities too.  It's a f****n scourge, eh?

<<Furthermore, science students should be allowed to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of spending the extra time, units, and money on humanities classes.>>

Sure, just so long as they graduate without a degree and don't mention the name of their college ever again.  In which case, wouldn't they save even more money by going to a trade school?

<<Is learning how to follow Modern Language Association format for research papers worth $15,000 for prospective engineers? >>

Yeah, actually, knowing how to write a smart, professional-looking report that earns the respect of peers and other professionals IS worth $15K for a P. Eng., considering that this is what he's going to be doing for the rest of his life.  That's what professionalism's all about.

<<Colleges call on students to take charge of their educations but then make the most basic academic decisions for them. >>

That's cuz they don't want people wandering around the world with their degrees in a CV, speaking and writing just like any average guy without the degree.  They want to avoid "devaluation" of the university's degree.  They want their grads to make a very  favourable impression by the way they communicate, and they're not gonna leave it to chance.

<<Colleges, after all, need to ensure that all students graduate knowing that "black" and "queer" are inappropriate terms, that Western culture is heinous and that women are and always have been oppressed.>>

Why, that's absurd!  What colleges really need are graduates who aren't afraid to call blacks "Niggers" every chance they get, to call gay people "faggot" even if - - especially if!! - - they are the head of an advertising agency or a hospital, and who will lose no chance, if they are sent abroad on business, to tell any of the locals with whom they come in contact that they are filthy heathen but blessed beyond belief to have the opportunity to watch a real American in action.  Real men, men who won't be afraid to tell any woman they meet in business to bring that coffee and bring it hot!!

[Lanya]

Michael,
I expect they just can't meet the standards and resort to this sort of excuse making because of it.

Or, they simply don't agree with the subject matter so they whine.  Either way, tough.

[Michael Tee]

 Lanya, I tend to the "whiner" theory with a little fear thrown in. There are POVs that make the whiner feel uncomfortable, and they know that they aren't smart enough to prevail in an argument with the "smart" liberals, so they fear losing an argument and looking ridiculous, or they fear branding themselves as selfish nerds in a liberal classroom environment.  They don't have the courage of their convictions, which is not unusual for kids that age.  Everyone wants to conform.

Either way, they're people who aren't comfortable in a liberal college environment and in fact they are the niche market for whom institutions of "higher learning" like Bob Jones' University of the Ozarks or Oral Roberts U. were created.

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is total bullshit, other than the statement that Shakespeare admired nature in his sonnets (anyone who doews not believe this has not read them).

I suppose the dolt that wrote this would like a university like what Randy Newman sang about LSU.

College men from LSU,
Walkin' 'round Atlanta in their alligator shoes,
Went in dumb, come out dumb too,
Keepin' the niggers down...

[yellow_crane]

People who graduate from university are supposed to be extremely knowledgable individuals and also very intelligent thinkers, but I've found that to be less and less true.


well that`s just simple economics.
learn only what`s need and ignore the rest.
remember it`s the goal of the students to get this learning nonsense out of the way to get the job.
the joy of learning and writing is only reserved by people who have time for it.
these KIDS are not gonna put the energy needed in these subjects.
ex. the majority of people I talked to don`t remember any of the subjects they learned thats not actively used in thier lives.
I know folks who still don`t know 2-8 =

You may have a point.

Why waste time and money trying to maintain a societal structure with a history of heritage, continuing to bind itself together with its enduring sense of moral responsibility and just law when clearly Jesus will take care of all and I do mean all of that (after the liberals are thrown out of the temple.)

I can't wait until all our dry and robotic earth (not heaven) sciences are finally put to rest--then we'll see science manned by America's mentally bucolic Christians--rightfully so since it is they who yell the loudest and the longest about the sinful perils of Liberalism, and its demonic influence on things like biology, geology, anthropology, zoology, etc.

This way, everybody gets to be a scientist, because just like in Christian Psychology, all questions, all dynamics, all knowledge are reduced to a single term--JESUS!!!  JUST ASK JESUS!!!

The looming finality of an individual's responsibility otherwise--to continue to become a questionless, dissentless lemming consumer--shall continue with full force and, besides being ever obedient to Jesus and those who have heard him speak to them, shall continue to be obedient to the heavenly laws of consumerism, all of which shall continue to retain its 'elephant in the room' status.

[The_Professor]

Actually, I am a graduate of ORU and happy to be one. I found their educational process incredibly difficult. To my knowledge, they did not "give" out any degrees; it was tough to graduate from there. And, I liked the fact that I earned a liberal education, in the classic sense of the term where we studied Cicero, Dickens, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Shelley and the like and am better for having doing so.

My perception, which may not be entirely correct, is that many institutions of higherr learning are resorting more to teaching revisionist literatire and "culturally relevant" literature just to be able to say these teach cultural diverse literature instread of the classics. I find this to be of lesser critical value. Just my view.

[The_Professor]

People who graduate from university are supposed to be extremely knowledgable individuals and also very intelligent thinkers, but I've found that to be less and less true.


well that`s just simple economics.
learn only what`s need and ignore the rest.
remember it`s the goal of the students to get this learning nonsense out of the way to get the job.
the joy of learning and writing is only reserved by people who have time for it.
these KIDS are not gonna put the energy needed in these subjects.
ex. the majority of people I talked to don`t remember any of the subjects they learned thats not actively used in thier lives.
I know folks who still don`t know 2-8 =

You may have a point.

Why waste time and money trying to maintain a societal structure with a history of heritage, continuing to bind itself together with its enduring sense of moral responsibility and just law when clearly Jesus will take care of all and I do mean all of that (after the liberals are thrown out of the temple.)

I can't wait until all our dry and robotic earth (not heaven) sciences are finally put to rest--then we'll see science manned by America's mentally bucolic Christians--rightfully so since it is they who yell the loudest and the longest about the sinful perils of Liberalism, and its demonic influence on things like biology, geology, anthropology, zoology, etc.

This way, everybody gets to be a scientist, because just like in Christian Psychology, all questions, all dynamics, all knowledge are reduced to a single term--JESUS!!!  JUST ASK JESUS!!!

The looming finality of an individual's responsibility otherwise--to continue to become a questionless, dissentless lemming consumer--shall continue with full force and, besides being ever obedient to Jesus and those who have heard him speak to them, shall continue to be obedient to the heavenly laws of consumerism, all of which shall continue to retain its 'elephant in the room' status.

senseless unenlgihtening dialogue meant for the masses. nice to know your emotions are in high swing tonight. geeez.

[Michael Tee]

<<And, I liked the fact that I earned a liberal education, in the classic sense of the term where we studied Cicero, Dickens, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Shelley and the like and am better for having doing so.>>

I'd consider that more of a classical education considering that out of six authors mentioned, 4 were from ancient Greece and Rome.   With all due respect, I would think there were more relevant cultural milestones.  We studied all the authors you mentioned except Cicero, but I would think the percentage of classical Greek and Roman writers was much lower on our curriculum than on yours.

A classical liberal education, which I consider I received, included John Stuart Mill, John Locke, T.H. Huxley, Matthew Arnold, Darwin, John Milton, Thomas Hardy, Henry James,  F. Scott Fitzgerald, Dickens, Chaucer, Donne, Tennyson, Browning, Byron, Socrates, Plato, Leibniz, Kant, Wittgenstein.  In French, Balzac, Flaubert, Proust, Sartre, Camus, Voltaire, Hugo, Prevert, Apollonaire, Stendahl . . .

<<My perception, which may not be entirely correct, is that many institutions of higher learning are resorting more to teaching revisionist literatire and "culturally relevant" literature . . .  instread of the classics. >>

I'm not sure I know what "revisionist literature" is, but I don't see the harm in introducing some more culturally relevant literature into the curriculum and dropping some of the less culturally relevant stuff.  I doubt very much that all the classics would have been dropped, although some of them may certainly have been weeded out.  It's like cleaning out the attic - - you can't keep everything same as it's always been, there's always new stuff, and every so often there has to be some housecleaning.  But I'm sure some stuff will never get thrown out.  Chaucer, for example, will be on undergrad Eng Lit courses for the next ten thousand years.

[kimba1]

do forget folks liberal thinking has nothing to do with the political term for liberal.
nowadays any word has multiple meaning
note in our debates we keep falling for that trap.

[The_Professor]

I concur, kimba.

And, MT, my view is that Greek & Roman literature should be more important than the others, but whatever. NOt terribly important.

[Lanya]

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

http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1302

[sirs]

<<While this may be true to an extent [that colleges will give students better English language skills than they got from AP English in high school]  what colleges don't say is that their classes also teach students to think much more liberally.>>

Probably more accurate to say that the colleges teach higher-level English skills and expose students to more liberal thinking.  Probably better to expose students to more liberal thinking than to zealously shield them from it.  I thought college was about opening up minds, broadening them.

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