C’mon, as said, not all private schools do it right. One could apply critical thinking to your assumption. There is no one profile of a private hs graduate.
late add: this was directed at eiholi’s post 30.
This can vary depending on the school. One Catholic school in my old NYC neighborhood was known for being as strict…and it happens to be the one both yours truly and an older neighborhood kid were expelled from just a few weeks into first grade. I ended up attending another Catholic K-12 which was far less strict and more amenable to students who weren’t amenable to conforming to strict conformity or rule following.
Ironically, both of us ended up at the same STEM-centered public magnet and went on to graduate from respectable/elite colleges.
A respectable LAC in my case and Annapolis as an engineering major after turning down full FA to MIT in his case so he could have a much better shot at joining the then highly popular submarine force. If that older neighbor’s still in the Navy, he’d be coming up to the 30th anniversary of commissioned service in the US Navy in a few years.
@Dustyfeathers , I’m wondering what inspired you to write:
“But not a single critical thinker. Must be the lack of IB programs. That must be the difference.”
Why the sarcasm? Did anyone say that the only way to get critical thinking from HS is to be in an IB program?
Why is it, on this forum, that posters see someone make a point, and then remake that point into incomprehensible rhetoric?
It baffles me that it’s not called out here more than it is.
I mean, who said anything like that? We call all play that game. See here - why do you hate IB kids? What did they do to you?
See what I did there?
PS: I doubt seriously that there are only two IB programs among NYC public schools.
It’s a joke. Not a good joke, I admit, as I’m not such a great thinker as you, but a joke.
There are like 2 IB programs in the City–I think. I have to look through the about 600 high schools, but yeah I think about 2.
There are a lot of other programs though . . . .you know oyster farming on Governor’s Island, the finest arts program in the country (AKA the FAME movie school), several other arts programs that have produced artists that have literally transformed the way we think; several of the top science programs like Bronx Sci, Brooklyn tech and Stuy. A school known for studying mainly American History in the Bronx. One that focuses on film, also in the Bronx. One for gay kids who can’t stay in their current situations (Harvey Milk School). A lot of different schools. A lot a lot a lot of different kinds of schools. but yeah, just 1-2 IB programs.
We do okay anyway.
Somehow.
Well, I got the point @Dustyfeathers made, ha.
IB is not the only way. I can cite IB kids who can do the work, within that frame, but without what I’d call a commendable level of critical thinking. It’s its own skill (and mind set.) Take any collection of kids in any school or program and you will find some who get it and some who don’t. It’s far too simple to assume some one way works better and produces uniform results. So again, we could examine our own thinking.
Btw, the Jesuit hs do a pretty good job. This isn’t about the presence of religion.
We could all take a breath.
@Dustyfeathers , oh, ok. Got it. 
I think we’re on the same side of this debate. I offered up IB because it’s what we took advantage of and thus what I know. But, of course, there are a lot of ways to pursue a rigorous HS experience almost anywhere. And among American public high schools, there are myriad options. IB is one, and I used it also because of its tendency to focus on precisely what the OP was asking: critical thinking. IB is all about depth and quality of understanding, and it tends to not shine as much on kids who have really good academic skills - the kids who know how to do well in school - but who lack intellectual curiosity.
Of course, they are often the same kid. But not always. We know a lot of kids who had the school thing “wired” and who nonetheless blew up in IB.
I’m shocked that NYC offers only two places to pursue IB. How ironic - such an international and global city.
“Btw, the Jesuit hs do a pretty good job. This isn’t about the presence of religion.”
That’s all I’m saying about the kids who see the IBD program all the way through. Nobody is making any categorical claims.
When I think of the critical thinking skills I want my DC to have I think along the lines of what David Brooks writes in his column today, “The Enlightenment included thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant who argued that people should stop deferring blindly to authority for how to live. Instead, they should think things through from the ground up, respect facts and skeptically re-examine their own assumptions and convictions.”
As PPs have noted, there is no monopoly on critical thinking. As with most things, critical thinking begins at home. The more a parent says, “Because I said so,” rather than “Why do you think?” or “Why do other people disagree?” the less likely their children will be critical thinkers. If you raise a child that questions why, then the school environment may be less important.
In my case, I attended an ordinary suburban public school where comformity and classroom management were paramount. It made me want to be different and rebel in all sorts of ways. I chose to send my DCs to private schools that are committed to developing independent critical thinking. Their approach is apparent from trivial things (like calling adults by first names) and important things (like curriculum and reading lists). The small class sizes make serious discussions and extensive writing assignments possible to practice and develop those skills. And, the schools’ values attract (some) teachers who want to encourage different ideas and develop thoughtfulness in how students question tradition and authority (and peers).
Kids shouldn’t learn critical thinking in highschool. Critical thinking is a life skill that you start learning from birth. The older you get the better you should get. Best way for child to strengthen their CT skills is to live life make mistakes fall on their azz and learn from it. The best thing you can do as a parent to help this process is let them. Don’t be a helicopter parent and don’t run to their rescue all the time. If your kid is just learning how to critical think in high school, private, public, AP or IB you already behind the ball.
CT is also learning to be mindful of assumptions, whether that’s that a private school does it better, or so much of what swirls around us. If you can recognize your assumptions, then you can explore deeper (of course, you need the will to, not just go with the herd thinking.) It’s not just about more strenuous coursework, expectations to use resources some way, or making mistakes. It’s as much how you think and process, in general.
You’re right @MiddleburyDad2, I live in the flyover country and our school doesn’t offer IB. Maybe I should follow @MaineLonghorn 's example and give the school a call as IB sounds much better than AP.
With enough posts I now see why @blossom thinks my “public vs private” is a “false dichotomy”. Lots are at play. I’m sure @lookingforward agrees with blossom on that one. When I say public vs private I think of good schools not poor or tops. We do have many programs @jonri mentioned in post #33.
Thank you for these definitions. I was never certain what exactly means by critical thinking even thoguth I hear the phrase a lot.
I think a lot of poor reasoning and common fallacies is the result of not understanding statistics, so I would rate an intro to statistics course as one of the most important someone could take. Here’s some concrete examples.
- Fallacy - My relatives or friends or neighbors demonstrate …
Truth - Your sample size is too small to make a generalized statement. - Fallacy - Surveys of college students show X% of college students experience …
Truth - If the survey respondents aren’t selected randomly or the response rate is low, then the survey is biased. - Fallacy - Students from group A are admitted at a higher rate than group B, therefore the process is biased in favor of group A.
Truth - The difference isn’t statistically significant and hence could be attributed to chance.
At higher levels, you would want to examine whether the underlying statistical assumptions of a particular test hold or whether a different statistical test might be more appropriate, but that and more advanced concepts could be saved for college.
But the point is, your premise is false-- or at least wholly unsupported by evidence – so there is no “how” unless you first address the “if” part.
So what is the basis for your belief that private schools are doing better than public on the critical thinking front?
While all you said is true, and I’m not sure why IB isn’t offered, as I said, maybe that’s because there are so many other options? No one’s really interested? And precisely because it’s so international?? A huge portion of the kids at the most prestigious and competitive schools are first-gen immigrants. Int. travel is common.
High schools offer:
- Early college programs with Bard
- Advanced airplane technology-- http://www.aviationhs.net/
The advanced years are on the tarmac at Kennedy Airport - Aquaculture
- Architecture and building
- Top science and tech programs in the countryu/ perhaps world.
- Agriculture (believe it or not)
- Marine engineering and tech
- Aquaculture
- Drama
- Music and performance
- Vocal arts
- Theater tech -
- Graphic and fine arts and commercial arts
- Fashion – in the fashion district – with internships there
- Dual language Chinese from K-12
- The Special Music School where you’re taught by NY world-class musicians from K-12
- Tech school that takes you through grade 14 and an internship with tech cos
- Software specialized schools
- Culinary
etc.
etc.
etc.
600 high schools. They run the gamut.
^ You may be right in that in the unique setting of NYC, the international standard isn’t all that novel a concept.
No doubt there are an embarrassing number of choices for a parent in NYC from which to choose.
NYC also has a commuting infrastructure that allows high school students to get to various schools without either driving a car or needing parental assistance, although some students have quite long commutes to get to distant schools. I.e. commuting issues appear to be less limiting on school choice in NYC than they may be in other places (but long commutes may still be undesirable enough that some students pass up an otherwise desirable school that is a long commute away).
That’s a great quote. Would that Brooks himself were truer to it.
Part 1
Okay, this might get a little long, sorry. My thoughts on “Critical thinking” and especially pedagogy aimed at inculcating it are somewhat inchoate–I’ve thought about this a lot for a long time partly in context of my own teaching but also in context of schools with which I’m familiar, but I’m still working it out. I’ll share my current thoughts here.
First of all, that quote posted by @DMVParent22 is pretty good in my opinion. I see CT as a continual and perpetual effort to identify our assumptions and examine them, coupled with a commitment to openness if they prove faulty or unsubstantiated. It’s also that same process for the assumptions of others, especially in written and spoken discourse (I’m not saying that CT requires us to run around and argue with all our friends who haven’t examined their own assumptions). I believe this second function (examine others) is the best way to produce the conditions of learning that might lead to the first function (examine self). It’s also important to mention that I don’t believe this is merely an exercise in mastery of logical reasoning. Logical reasoning is a crucial ingredient in what I consider CT, but feelings (especially empathy) cannot (and should not) be cast aside, in my opinion.
An example might be, when reading someone like David Brooks, to think about what his investments are, what values he holds, why he might hold them, what they might mean for the rest of us, how they fit into the context of society and history, who they empower and disempower, how they might affect people with of different demographics and value systems, what he might be overlooking. If one does this, one might come to a conclusion that he’s essentially a traditionalist and, less generously, an apologist for white bourgeois culture at the expense of members of the working class or ethnic and sexual minorities. Of course there are other valid conclusions, and my point here is not to attack Brooks–I use him here for illustration only and because he’s already been brought up in the thread and I expect many of you are familiar with his columns.
Another example might be to examine, for example, NYTimes language columnist William Safire’s opposition to efforts to make English more gender-equal (the title Ms., “he or she,” “you guys,” [male-based generics](http://www.alternet.org/story/48856/why_sexist_language_matters)). In doing so, you might encounter (or think on your own, even better!) something like Douglas Hofstadter’s parody [“A Person Paper on Purity in Language,”](https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html) in which he plays the role of Safire in an imaginary US where our linguistic focus on gender is replaced by an emphasis on race (instead of “freshman,” “freshwhite.” Instead of “you guys,” “you whiteys.”), and you might come to a conclusion that such a society would be horribly racist, then take the next step and realize that much of what we take for granted in English might be similarly sexist. Of course, you also might disagree, but to do so, you’ll need to enter the discourse with the same (or greater) intellectual rigor as people like Sherryl Kleinman and Hofstadter. You can’t just throw up your hands and say “well, whatever, I still disagree”–that’s the opposite of critical thinking.
Part 2
As for teaching CT, well, that’s tougher. Pedagogues often make the distinction between collateral learning and explicit learning, and I suspect that most of what we think of as CT comes collaterally; that is, it’s a side effect of a good, rigorous education. That said, I do think there are things educators can do to encourage its development.
One of them is exposing students to complex issues with competing voices on multiple sides. A simple version might be to assign an excerpt from [Samuel Eliot Morison](Samuel Eliot Morison - Wikipedia)'s biography of Christopher Columbus, in which he (briefly) admits that Columbus led a genocide but primarily concludes that Columbus should be lauded as a brilliant seaman. Now, Morison was no ghoul–he was one of the greatest, most decorated historians of the 20th century and literally any examination of Columbus must start with his multi-volume biography.
But if you stop there, you’re just teaching information and a single interpretation and ignoring decades of re-interpretation and more nuanced examination. So you might, then, assign an excerpt of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, in which Zinn goes to primary sources (diaries from members of the Columbus expedition, among others) and then directly addresses Morison, saying he wasn’t malicious, he used the strongest word possible (“genocide”), but he downplayed it and selected other qualities to emphasize. Then, in a bit of eye-opening historiography, he writes:
Followed, a few paragraphs later, by this:
It’s hard to imagine students exposed to both readings failing to perform at least some CT, whether they want to or not. And if you have time or inclination, Zinn isn’t the last word–there are plenty of other historians with nuanced views on Columbus that might undercut Zinn, in fact (of course!). In history, part of CT involves the realization that the more you know and understand history, the more complex things become and the more impossible it becomes to justify simplistic “good/evil” narratives.
Here’s an example of a small unit I used to teach that I thought catalyzed some CT:
- Read a 1969 NYTimes article on Robert McNamara (“Robert McNamara’s New Sense of Mission”), a piece that praises him as a brilliant, innovative leader as he embarks on a new career at the “helm” of the World Bank. Discussion, of course.
- Read Noam Chomsky’s “Robert McNamara,” a scathing attack that goes so far as to call McNamara a “dull, narrow technocrat who questioned nothing” and accuses McNamara of “moral blindness.” Discuss in relation to the previous reading.
- My initial impulse was to stop there. Expose students to two competing views and let them draw their own conclusions. The problem with that (as with a 2-piece Eliot vs. Zinn unit) is that students are like the rest of us and tend to take the side of the more recently read piece. This recency bias is nearly unavoidable, and I didn’t want the class to be a moralistic “McNamara’s a baddy” indoctrination. That’s not particularly CT, imo.
- So to avoid that, I screened The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, a documentary by Errol Morris. This film is extremely morally ambiguous, with McNamara alone, talking to the camera for nearly its whole duration. He’s very intelligent and articulate, and he expresses regret at times and justifies his choices at other times, actually cries at points, and in one scene even suggests that he was a war criminal (or would have been if the US had lost). He comes across as circumspect, compassionate, and devoted, and he doesn’t sugar coat the atrocities that his military decisions unleashed and even directly caused.