<br>
<br>
<p>Easy solution to that pesky problem … All that is needed is working more hours, more weeks, more months within the four corners of the school. Try the 2,000 hours most people have to work without counting overtime for starters.</p>
<p>Bay, you read it one way, some of us read it another way. You said, you immediately recognized the intent. I believe others of us felt we did, too- so, how do we know, from an important public document, which was the actual intention, without having to go research? Without them having to clarify a month or so later? Why isn’t it written clearly, in the first place? Munisteri concedes it was a bad choice of words…</p>
<p>For me, this is central to the conversations on this thread about the ablity to write well, not just “ok, we wrote it and we get it and we hope others get what we mean.” </p>
<p>If the party meant only OBE (which has many detractors, of many sorts,) that’s what they should have said, not lumped in “critical thinking” because “some places…” I’ll stop there, for now.</p>
<p>Lookingforward,
You are asking me to explain why so many people misinterpreted a passage, when I easily read it correctly. I cannot know the answer, but my theories are that they either did not take the time to read it carefully, did not use their critical thinking skills when interpreting it (as in, "does it really make sense that critical thinking is being opposed - no), and the most likely scenario, that most people never actually read it, but rather read and relied upon secondary sources that have a political agenda to find ways to make the Republican Party look bad.</p>
<p>Bay, those of us who read it (yes, did read it at the source) did in fact use our critical thinking skills. Yes, our interpretation may have been colored by our experience with the Republican Party, but so was yours. The statement was poorly written, and open to interpretation. One of the skills students should be taught is to write clearly and concisely. </p>
<p>If you don’t opposed critical thinking, then don’t suggest that you do. If OBE is sometimes disguised as CT, then it is still OBE. The way the statement is written can be interpreted to mean the CT as a concept was created for the purpose of disguising OBE, and that CT is generally just OBE in disguise, rather than something different. Do you oppose critical thinking because sometimes it is OBE, or do you oppose OBE when it is disguised as critical thinking? There is a world of difference, and that platform suggests the former, not the latter.</p>
<p>You can rest easy now, CTScoutmom. Texas is apparently not planning to eliminate critical thinking skills anytime soon.</p>
<p>Anyway. The damage was done. That’s more than a matter of a few of us on CC saying so.</p>
<p>When it comes to public education, the damage has been done. And for the past six decades of allowing the corrupt and the profiteers control the educational system. </p>
<p>A silly political excerpt will not chanGe anything, except fueling the rabid fans of the blogosphere who live from their daily kos doses of hatred. </p>
<p>Battles of triviality obscure the deep problems of a system that increasingly relies on the poorly educated, the untrained, and the politically brainwashed to educate the generations to come. All one needs to do is look at the abject displays of confrontation in Madison and Chicago to understand what is important to our academic “leaders” and why the.education of children counts for … NOTHING.</p>
<p>So, corrupt and profiteers doesn’t suggest a slant?
Xiggi, what is your involvement in education? Do you feel educated adults, adults who somehow care or can offer guidance/mentoring, should reach out? Or, just use our own polished abilities to critique. I am not attacking you, but wondering just how far each of us is willing to go, to support the opportunities we think kids should have, once we recognize they do not have them.</p>
<p>What I find is that the “s” always wants to roll downhill and folks tend to pick their target- it’s teachers’ faults, it’s URM parents, it’s parents who (somehow, we just know) put their kids in front of tv for 5 hours, some subcultures that make it impossible for the bright kid to escape. The finger pointing not only obscures the breadth of the issues, but seems to release us (the general “us”) from any impact we could have personally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. And I also agree with Bay’s posts in this thread.</p>
<p>What is really frightening to me is how the conception of what is critical thinking is becoming, which is conclusions that align with a very rigid set of views about our economy, our education system, our power structure. And it isn’t just k-12. The higher education complex in our country is very much a perpetrator of the same agenda.</p>
<p>My younger one is a freshman at Princeton. She’s in a freshman seminar on what could be a highly interesting topic (I won’t disclose it in the interest privacy) that is being taught in an utterly biased and truly repressive manner. The students in the class are essentially competing with one another over who can parrot back the precise views of the professor, who is completely intolerant of any view but her own, which is basically in lockstep with prevailing thought in our society at this moment.</p>
<p>My DH and I often struggle with the need to support our kids in their educations, not just to enable them to earn a living, but also to expand their thinking and knowledge. But more and more we feel that whatever educational institutions they land in they are fed a constant, one-dimensional, “outcomes based” intellectual diet.</p>
<p>By its very nature, critical thinking is NOT conclusions that align. It is the ablity to view from various perspectives, adequately weigh with enough breadth and depth for that particular issue, and come to personally defensible positions. It is the opposite of parroting. It involves questioning, which does threaten some. But should not.</p>
<p>^ Well, of course, Lookingforward. But that is very, very frequently not at all how “critical thinking” curricula is implemented – from reading lists, to class lectures, to the grading rubric. </p>
<p>The notion of what constitutes a “critically thought out” conclusion that is “right” is what is being very much skewed within our schools.</p>
<p>I know, I know. Those of us who came of age in the 60s and are just so sure that we are the rebels are now very often the repressors of thought.</p>
<p>CC is not the place to get into this and I’m going to leave this discussion.</p>
<p>The students in the class are essentially competing with one another over who can parrot back the precise views of the professor, who is completely intolerant of any view but her own</p>
<p>I see this on the shoulders of the students as much as the prof.
I was talking to a prof who teaches in the five college consortium, at both Amherst & at the university of ma- Amherst, and he was saying that the students at Amherst are more focused on grades than they are on learning. The U of M students ask far more questions, and are more willing to explore outside of the box.</p>
<p>My D’s Yale prof sent her a personal email instructing her how to vote in the last election. After she graduates next Spring, I will happily post it here for all to see and evaluate.</p>
<p>Did he think she wouldn’t be able to research the issues herself?
Maybe Yale should raise their admission standards.
;)</p>
<p>It is fascinating how the 60s college kids who rioted on campuses are now running universities and imposing extraordinary controls on free speech for their students.</p>
<p>But even beyond the question of free speech, there is the greater issue of deeming a certain perspective is “right” or “truth” and anything that should deviate is wrong. Sure, sure. The kids are focussed on their grades. But good grades open doors to positions of authority in adulthood and by penalizing the kids who do not stay in lockstep with the politically accepted perspective on campuses, these professors and university administrators are perpetrating something more far-reaching than just lower gpa’s for the students who openly disagree with their opinions.</p>
<p>It’s deliciously ironic. But truly sad. And it’s going to be very hard to stop it. I think it will have to become so egregiously extreme that even the reluctant media will have to eventually report on it. Maybe not, though.</p>
<p>The prevailing views on campuses and throughout k-12 are morphing quickly into unassailable “truths” and to question them is to be stupid or evil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think he was under the misimpression that she is from Texas. ;)</p>
<p>I would agree that there are profs who advocate a certain mindset, and may even reward those who follow them like sheep.
I have not ever attended a four yr school however, and can’t speak to how prevalent that actually is. Although I have taken many social science classes ( psychology, philosophy,anthropology,economics), and while the prof often made their viewpoint on the subject very clear, rather than neutral- I didn’t see that as a negative. It gave a point of reference. (The profs were also from the full range of the political spectrum as far as I could tell.) Also, a huge advantage to attending a community college, IMO, is the fact that the students are often much older than 18, and have a variety of life experience which makes them less intimidated by the classroom setting and gives them a different perspective which contributes to class discussion.</p>
<p>Community College can be wonderful college, I think. Not always but often.</p>
<p>Here’s a really interesting piece about a liberal thinker who is very concerned with repression of free speech on campuses:</p>
<p>[The</a> Weekend Interview with Greg Lukianoff: How Free Speech Died on Campus - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578115440209134854.html]The”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578115440209134854.html)</p>
<p>What’s an example of outcome based education, relabeled or not?</p>
<p>Hey guys, I can see that what (some of) you really want to do is rant about shenanigans in Texas, but just remember this: the K - 12 educational systems that Shirley Tighlman, the president of Princeton University, thinks are better than ours are those of Finland, Singapore, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Israel, etc.</p>
<p>If your rebuttal against Shirley is that our kids are more creative, better critical thinkers, and more non-conforming, besides being just generally wonderful and special, please quote some facts and data. That’s what it takes to refute her.</p>
<p>And if you agree with Shirley, it would be constructive to hear what we need to do to get our system to be as good as those of Japan and Finland (her standards, not mine).</p>