Fr Z on defunding academia

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very well put. I think we do tend more nowadays to start with our personal worldview and either praise or dismiss what we read and hear based on that. However, I don’t believe that normal thinking has ever been in a vacuum without some initial perspective as a reference point. And that perspective is usually quite difficult to change.
 
I’ve been glowering over this “defund the police” B as in B, S as in S. It’s patent leftist agitprop aimed to tear apart the fabric of society. The chaos that will ensue will be the pretext for the next wave of howls that some other thing has to be dismantled, as the dangerous dope Rep. from Minnesota called for lately.

This sort of extreme language has little prospect of persuading others with whom you disagree but does built loyalty among uncritical followers.

Also he makes a claim I have repeatedly seem people on CAF make about Gramsci. Does anyone have a source for this claim (about ‘controlling the schools’)?
 
Adamek said:
Thbolt:
Well, as someone who has worked in education for a long time, I teach my students to think.
Click to expand...
Most teachers will claim that, but the unfortunate truth is that too many teach their students what to think and not how to think. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
But again, what’s the evidence for this claim?
 
We have certainly made progress in critical-thinking education over the last five decades. Courses dedicated to the subject can be found in the catalogs of many colleges and universities, while the latest generation of K-12 academic standards emphasize not just content but also the skills necessary to think critically about content taught in English, math, science and social studies classes.

Despite this progress, 75 percent of employers claim the students they hire after 12, 16 or more years of formal education lack the ability to think critically and solve problems – despite the fact that nearly all educators claim to prioritize helping students develop those very skills.

www.insidehighered.com

Teaching students to think critically (opinion)

We in academe must do more to ensure today’s students become tomorrow’s skilled thinkers. Fortunately, we are in a position to do so without having to overturn the current higher education system or break the bank, writes Jonathan Haber.
www.insidehighered.com www.insidehighered.com
 
Thbolt said:
Yes, there is a difference. I teach my students to think. If you don’t, get out of education. You are making excuses for your ineptness by claiming that most teachers don’t teach students to teach. The field doesn’t need you. Find another career.
Click to expand...
So if you don’t like an opinion other than yours, you cancel the person expressing it? Great example of critical thinking.
 
I’m not sure the intention is to persuade. I think his and others’ intention is to seek validation from like-minded people.
 
This is exactly what he would say about schools filling students’ minds with left wing propoganda and charging exorbitant amounts for the privilege.
 
Thbolt said:
Maybe Fr. Z would benefit by not filling his mind with right wing garbage and then regurgitating it.
Click to expand...
If you don’t have a counter argument, just call somebody names. A classic example of critical thinking.
Your response is the best illustration of the point he is making.
 
Last edited:
Critical thinking requires a kind of humility antithetical to demagogues such as Fr. Z. Part of what it means to think critically is having an openness of mind to ideas that risks challenging beliefs that are in-borne, pre-conceived, and taught. Anti-intellectualism is a close-minded, emotional reaction to the danger critical thinking imposes on dogmatism. What anti-intellectualists mean by critical thinking is being open only to beliefs and ideas that reinforce and confirm their own worldview. If we are to grow in wisdom and love for other people, we must be open to listening to and engaging people of all cultures and be willing to learn from our shared humanity and the particular struggles and triumphs of individuals.

You can hold to your beliefs while still respecting others for their own beliefs. What is gained when there’s nothing but antipathy for higher education that happens to disagree with you? Polemics create a divide that drives us farther apart and, thus, farther away from solidarity and truth. The answer isn’t to defund academia, depriving it of the very support it needs for its mission and ensuring the destruction of higher education. There must be greater acceptance both for what others believe (as long as it does no harm) and where everyone is on their journey to the truth. Meet others where they are and walk with them. Be the first to acknowledge that there’s far more for you to learn, and listen to those who have dedicated their lives to study. You don’t have to form an opinion right away or agree with them, but you cannot arrive at the truth, either, by refusing to learn or denying that there is anything more to learn or that another is incapable of imparting truth of some sort.

The truth is all around us. We have nothing to fear from truth. We should, instead, be afraid that we make ourselves deaf to the truth when it’s been speaking to us all along.
 
Last edited:
RogueSemicolon said:
Critical thinking requires a kind of humility antithetical to demagogues such as Fr. Z. Part of what it means to think critically is having an openness of mind to ideas that risks challenging beliefs that are in-borne, pre-conceived, and taught. Anti-intellectualism is a close-minded, emotional reaction to the danger critical thinking imposes on dogmatism.
Click to expand...
Your “opennes of mind” is on full display here when your argument is reduced to a close-minded emotional name calling.
 
Wow. If that is the way you teach your students to handle discussion, with ad hominems because you feel yourself threatened, you probably should not be quick to commend your skills and deride others.
 
Adamek said:
OK. Which part of father’s article seems “over the top” to you?
Click to expand...
As others have already pointed out- his extreme language, for starters.

I attended public high school as well as a large, secular university, and I was indeed taught how to think. Sure, things sometimes skewed in a slightly liberal direction, but I had professors on all sides of the political spectrum who encouraged us to think critically about major issues.

The way he talks about both public and Catholic schools leads me to believe that in the end, homeschooling would be about the only adequate option left in his eyes, which I strongly disagree with.
 
Sure. Your response to Adamek, “at least I teach my students to think unlike you, apparently.”
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Most college professors try to teach both: critical thinking and “stuff.” The focus today is on critical thinking, maybe a little too much.
Click to expand...
Maybe… I think it depends on the degree. I would expect an engineering program to emphasize the pragmatic, while the philosophy, arts or social sciences fields would lean more towards an emphasis on critical thinking.

On a related note, I think it’s interesting that most doctoral degrees are called ph.d’s regardless of the field.
 
mythbuster1 said:
Is it inaccurate?
Click to expand...
Given the frankly shocking state of the US education system I’m entirely unconvinced that a budget cut is a good idea. Cutting education budgets will reduce social mobility, increase inequality, and cause damage to US based innovation.
mythbuster1 said:
There is something messed up when taxpayers will provide a Pell Grant and subsidized loans to pay for academic programs that would never be approved for an ROTC cadet/midshipman.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what most of this means I’m from outside the US. However what I can gather is that you’re complaining that someone earning a degree doesn’t have certain paths open that a civilian with some kind of government assistance does? If that’s the case it’s at least in part because the military are putting you through university and they’re looking for something they can put to direct use. On civvy street however the ROI is somewhat more vague and is about showing that you can achieve a certain thing that can then be demonstrated to prospective employers.
mythbuster1 said:
Why are the taxpayers paying for Grievance Studies?
Click to expand...
Which university is offering that course, and how much government subsidy does it get?

Characteristic 11
 
Are you sure you want where this is going? I think you might not like the destination.

Characteristic 11
 
How can Fr. Z’s post be taken as anything other than an anti-intellectualist diatribe? Halfway through his rant, realizing that everything he has written criticizing public schools amounts to baseless generalizations, he tells the readers, “But bear with me. You know that I’m right.” He gives no proof for any of his assertions. He’s telling his readers the social upheaval we are witnessing at present is “coming from our classrooms,” churning out students apparently too stupid to think for themselves, and that we must therefore stop sending money to universities, take our children out of public schools, and “be wary of Catholic schools.” We must defund “the entities that are causing damage to society.” This is nothing but an emotional appeal to agree with everything he says and to shield your children from a public educational system that disagrees with him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top