The Common Sense Advocate

I put my website, prismcopywriting.com, online today. It's not finished, but then again, never will be. I hope you will give it a look.

This page explores anything based on what we perceive as born from common sense. It utilizes critical thinking as an end as well as a centuries-old means of solving problems of any kind.

A Proposal for a Radical Change in Undergraduate Systems of Learning

When a university or college is chosen and the student is accepted, what do you actually expect that student to be able to do upon graduation? Get a good job and prosper? Get into a top-rated graduate program at a fine or even prestigious university and succeed? Absolutely, they should be able to function successfully in either scenario.

Then how is it that this is not happening as one would expect. In 2015 the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that students thought they were far better equipped for jobs than employers did. The idea of functioning successfully is in question, as is being well-equipped.

“When it comes to the types of skills and knowledge that employers feel are most important to workplace success, large majorities of employers do NOT feel that recent college graduates are well prepared,” the AAC&U report states.

“This is particularly the case for applying knowledge and skills in real-world settings, critical thinking skills, and written and oral communication skills – areas in which fewer than three in 10 employers think that recent college graduates are well prepared.”
Douglas Belkin of the Wall Street Journal wrote on June 5, 2017, that…
“Freshmen and seniors at about 200 colleges across the U.S. take a little-known test every year to measure how much better they get at learning to think. The results are discouraging.

At more than half of schools, at least a third of seniors were unable to make a cohesive argument, assess the quality of evidence in a document or interpret data in a table, The Wall Street Journal found after reviewing the latest results from dozens of public colleges and universities that gave the exam between 2013 and 2016.”

Basically, that indicates there are many recent college/university graduates in the workforce today who don’t think and reason very well.

When critical thinking was mentioned, I immediately realized what we are failing to do in our higher education system in this country, as well as high schools and even grade school. Frequently, we see rote-teaching, rote-learning of content, cramming for exams, and the subsequent loss of the content that 'sticks'. Students are told what to memorize (short term) instead of how to think critically about the information in the subject area.

One of the big problems is that many in academia today are using this term in their syllabi for courses, believe that that they are teaching their students to think critically, and assume their students are thinking critically. Then how do we get the results mentioned above?

What is critical thinking? Richard Paul and Linda Elder presented a brief (very brief) summary in 2008.

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.

The Result...
A well-cultivated critical thinker who:
raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
(Quoted from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008)

For the most part, we have a higher education system that is failing to teach our students how to think about how they think, especially in matters that require problem solving. How many among us can even comprehensively, coherently, and in a well-reasoned manner put forth WHY we hold our opinions and beliefs to be true?

I like Linda Elder’s formulation of the idea of critical thinking, written in 2007.

"Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically.

They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked.
They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking.

They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason.

They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest.

They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society.

At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others.

They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement.

They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living, because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world."

There are myriad elements that students must complete successfully before they will be awarded a diploma representing the attainment of an undergraduate degree. That diploma speaks loudly both for the ability of the graduate as well as the reputation of the university. It is, in a very powerful way, a significant marketing commercial for both.
So, what does that diploma really represent today? It is an academic passport confirming “successful” completion of a core curriculum, and courses related to a declared major (Business, Computer Science, Humanities, Music, etc.). Classes are taken, tests and other assignments are completed with passing grades, and the transcript shows the name of the course and the final grade.

Could there ever be a more “lame” and incomplete examination of the “true” educational experience that a student experiences in a university or college, not to mention what exactly this graduate can actually do?

Unfortunately, this only imparts the surface information and is all too common in higher education institutions. In reality, it tells us little about the classroom experience and the true ability of the graduate.

Obviously, there are multiple types of teaching taking place in various classrooms in any school.
As a former tenured professor I taught in a particular manner (the way I was taught actually) that put the responsibility in the hands and minds of the student. I favored a Socratic approach (questioning) coupled with analysis of answers to continual questions in a full-class discussion of discovery. We not only focused on the essential content, but also student responses and their ability to articulate precisely either questions or responses to questions from me or their peers.

One could not avoid paying close attention as students would frequently be called upon suddenly to speak intelligently about another student’s response to a question from me or another student. No one was excluded.

Even questions were examined. Learning how to think and how to speak articulately were vehicles of primary importance for learning the content. That included writing as well. The student had to think critically. Obviously, this atmosphere assumed that students had to be constantly engaged to survive, so to speak.

But, for the most part, I had no direct idea what sort of teaching was taking place in other classrooms. Neither did many department chairmen, academic deans, or presidents.

So, how could we evaluate content mastery, thinking processes, and whether or not the student had mastered the body of content at a deep level?

Unfortunately, rote-teaching and rote-learning was common.

What I came to see all too frequently was a graduate who could not demonstrate mastery of all the material covered in the four years spent “cramming” for exams. Many could not expertly write about it. They also could not speak coherently about it in a manageable way. Most importantly, they could not think critically enough to teach it.

This is unfortunately a typical scenario as many had never been required to do such things during their course work. They were simply taught and tested on the material for the course, using short term memory to pass the required tests, after which forgetting most of the content material.

Not acceptable! A pure recipe for failure.

But consider this.

Consider this alternative model (a business model perhaps). Note, many teachers would object, saying there just simply is not enough time. Teachers, by nature hate change.

I simply maintain that time must be utilized more extensively even if it goes beyond the norms. What I really mean is more time must be made available to accomplish the critical mission of true education: learning how to learn by learning how to think…critically think.

Lengthen the school year or utilize evening hours, thus increasing the “classroom” day. After all 18 hours per day in undergraduate work is quite normal. One can sleep in on Saturday. (I remember sleeping much less at my undergraduate institution.)

Establish a required freshman course in Applied Critical Thinking Skills.

Teach in a Socratic style, incorporating critical thinking skills in an atmosphere where all the students are actively engaged and inspired through speaking and questioning.

All major tests require a written component, as well as an oral component. The final exams for a course require a written test, an oral examination, and an extensive written report addressing the totality of the semester’s work.

All oral components are recorded.

Finally, the student must actually coherently teach an assigned topic or body of knowledge to a class of student peers. It is also recorded as a video.

The following may seem a bit outrageous, but having experienced it, my whole life changed significantly.

I would propose that a fifth year be established and devoted to an academic course of study abroad (in a country with a different language). The academic year would include a three-month specialized language course of study in that country during the summer prior to the Fall semester. This is in essence identical to the Rotary Fellowship program for study abroad. I would make it mandatory.

Upon return home and prior to graduation, the student must pass an oral examination with a group from the faculty. Finally, the student will be tested on all the material from the five-year experience through a written examination.

That would also require an oral session involving questions put forth by a committee of teachers.

Basically, this brings some graduate-level standards into the undergraduate environment. Some, perhaps many, would object, saying this sort of approach is totally inappropriate at the undergraduate level.
That presupposes that university students are not mentally capable of dealing with such standards.
I would object vigorously by proposing that it is because they were not taught to deal with them. Yes, they are as capable as is required.

I taught graduate-level music theory to undergraduate students. I just did not tell them. They were perfectly capable if they applied themselves.

The result from the use of the whole system becomes the record of the student, and it is most definitely included in detail on the student’s transcript.

In my opinion, that is a valuable diploma.

Do you know of any schools doing this sort of thing? I don’t. (But, I must add that I'm not familiar with every institution of higher learning in the United States.)

Statistics show that we are steadily slipping in our academic prowess on the international stage. This is certainly not happening by accident. It is also insulting to blame this on the pandemic. It began long before that.

Of course it will require some very creative thinking to devise an undergraduate experience as mentioned above. It will require an extraordinary redefining of the activity that takes place in our institutions of higher learning.

It will also, by default, place a microscope upon teaching.

If the professors are not trained to think and teach critically, even using the Socratic mode of teaching, they certainly are not going to be teaching in a manner that produces students who not only can think critically, reason well, and speak articulately and coherently, but have mastered the content at a far deeper level.

Unfortunately, we are also witnessing the politicization of institutions and there are cases where this 'development' has worked its way into the classroom.

Can you imagine classrooms where students are told what to think, and even worse, what to believe?

As a former tenured associate professor, my disappointment runs deep. When I think back to the way I was taught in all my classes in the US and Germany, I find these developments shocking and dangerous.

There is simply no excuse for a higher educational system that is obviously flawed to this extent. (Of course, I'm speaking in broad strokes.)

The fact remains, however, that other nations are doing it better than us.

Whatever it takes to reverse this process must be accomplished. Yesterday would not be soon enough. We are quite simply reaping what we sow.

Producing generations of students who cannot think critically or reason very well is dangerous in this day and age. Unfortunately, the results are clear for all to see.

By the way, what happened to Common Sense?

The Common Sense Advocate updated their business hours.