Thoughts about UBI Undermining Itself via Inflation, Justifying STEM with Appeals to Scientific Literacy, and Regan Arntz-Gray's Defense of University Endowments
Agreed on the need to limit Dunning Kreuger on steroids. Would there be a satisfactory middle ground in keeping the STEM but seeing a pedgaogy of critical thinking starting at a young age? I feel as if we must be getting close to the point that the memory test model starts eroding and disappearing? Your memory will work fine to recall things you've done 100x. We don't need education to fake this effort when our phones can recall all these facts in an instant. What we do need is much better critical thinking around the information we encounter and the ability to curate more easily.
Improving cognitive skills would be preferable to solely procedure/info memorization of irrelevant material, but my understanding is that the data if fairly discouraging on how much minor schooling differences matter for something like that: If "teach-you-how-to-think" programs worked, then presumably liberal arts students would be in higher demand. If we were committed to expanding the STEM population, then yes, I'd hope we could temper that strain of do-your-own-research overconfidence somehow.
The liberal arts point is very salient. Ironically I think it's they who power a lot of the do your own research crowd. I'd bow to your reading of the relevant research as I've not done a deep dive myself. That said, my liberal arts education went to a masters degree and there was very little teaching about how to think. The effort was directed towards remembering what X said about Y, and having some criticism of that position. Provided you could read widely enough the arguments made themselves and could be parrot fashion repeated. It's part of why I think those programmes have so badly let us down with the thinking they've produced. So I'd be interested in any papers you could recommend on why critical thinking programs don't work. Would be depressing reading but it's important to acknowledge the work being done.
It's a fair point that the liberal arts could just being doing a poor job. I'd argue that philosophy and economics can often involve a healthy dose of critical thinking, but maybe other subjects don't. I'm triangulating my pessimism towards (basically) any major ed/pedagogy innovation from a few different angles, but I'd recommend Freddie deBoer on the subject: https://www.econtalk.org/fredrik-deboer-on-the-cult-of-smart/
If someone tries to tell you that X causes inflation [if X ≠ the Fed], just move away from his barstool and let him continue to rant. :)
Agreed on the need to limit Dunning Kreuger on steroids. Would there be a satisfactory middle ground in keeping the STEM but seeing a pedgaogy of critical thinking starting at a young age? I feel as if we must be getting close to the point that the memory test model starts eroding and disappearing? Your memory will work fine to recall things you've done 100x. We don't need education to fake this effort when our phones can recall all these facts in an instant. What we do need is much better critical thinking around the information we encounter and the ability to curate more easily.
Improving cognitive skills would be preferable to solely procedure/info memorization of irrelevant material, but my understanding is that the data if fairly discouraging on how much minor schooling differences matter for something like that: If "teach-you-how-to-think" programs worked, then presumably liberal arts students would be in higher demand. If we were committed to expanding the STEM population, then yes, I'd hope we could temper that strain of do-your-own-research overconfidence somehow.
The liberal arts point is very salient. Ironically I think it's they who power a lot of the do your own research crowd. I'd bow to your reading of the relevant research as I've not done a deep dive myself. That said, my liberal arts education went to a masters degree and there was very little teaching about how to think. The effort was directed towards remembering what X said about Y, and having some criticism of that position. Provided you could read widely enough the arguments made themselves and could be parrot fashion repeated. It's part of why I think those programmes have so badly let us down with the thinking they've produced. So I'd be interested in any papers you could recommend on why critical thinking programs don't work. Would be depressing reading but it's important to acknowledge the work being done.
It's a fair point that the liberal arts could just being doing a poor job. I'd argue that philosophy and economics can often involve a healthy dose of critical thinking, but maybe other subjects don't. I'm triangulating my pessimism towards (basically) any major ed/pedagogy innovation from a few different angles, but I'd recommend Freddie deBoer on the subject: https://www.econtalk.org/fredrik-deboer-on-the-cult-of-smart/
Thankyou... Interesting that a Marxist would make that point! I'll take a listen.