Many Colleges Fail to Improve Critical-Thinking Skills: WSJ (wsj.com) 203
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. From a report: 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 (Editor's note: the link might be paywalled; alternative source), 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. At some of the most prestigious flagship universities, test results indicate the average graduate shows little or no improvement in critical thinking over four years. Some of the biggest gains occur at smaller colleges where students are less accomplished at arrival but soak up a rigorous, interdisciplinary curriculum.
So? (Score:1)
Critical thinking skills don't make one rich. Social skills and connections make one rich.
There are a few exceptions, but generally speaking one climbs the executive ladder via connections and social skills, and that's where the money is.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Also Daddy's money and connections are what enables one to graduate from a business school and yet be unable to read, write or speak in complete sentences. Critical thinking skills aren't even in the same universe.
Subsequently, one can then become president without the need for daddy's money. For advice on whether to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement, call on a Fox News reporter for advice. I didn't even know she was an eminently qualified foremost
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying the president is not one of the world's top billionaires. That is probably true. He may not have what he wants you to think he has. It's one good reason to keep his taxes hidden in order to conceal how tiny the hands really are.
You do not have to be pretty to suck your way a bit higher up the ladder.
Re: (Score:2)
The words top billionaires are not stupid people
Citation Required.
This is as bad as CNN, ABC, NBC, WSJ, Fox (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
CNN doesn't just make things up and call it news.
CNN calls it BREAKING NEWS.
By design (Score:1)
A populace capable of critical thinking would not be easily herded into reactionary mobs. Only a few of us actually want that. Many others talk about critical thinking, but just claim that anyone who disagrees with them hadn't learned critical thinking.
Wish I could say I was surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this, but it saddens me at the same time.
Corporations, Rich People, Governments, organized religion -- they don't want people learning how to 'think'. They may allow them to learn certain things so they'll be productive and useful workers, and so they can afford the Bread and Circuses that keep them occupied when they're not making thei
Because (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just understanding the laws of physics gives any STEM grad a huge advantage over a liberal arts students in bullshit detection.
Critical thinking in liberal arts schools is just another indoctrination. Test is how well they agree with the teachers opinions.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because those physicists who search for elusive particles and then say, "Isn't God grand?" aren't spewing bullshit.
Critical thinking in liberal arts schools is just another indoctrination. Test is how well they agree with the teachers opinions.
Except the opposite is true. Those who graduate from liberal arts schools, on the whole, have better critical thinking skill [kansas.com]
Re:Because (Score:4, Insightful)
So your evidence is a blog and people (business and nonprofit PHBs) claiming the same education they have is the best?
Doesn't speak well of your critical thinking skills.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have you seen a liberal arts major accept obvious bullshit because they don't understand 'conservation of energy' (just picking one example). It's rife.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't often do this on SD because there's no images but: No. [giphy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The average liberal arts student take no non-remedial math and no math based science in college. That's been true for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not STEM anymore, it's STEAM now... Because apparently you can't focus on the technical stuff without pissing off all the artsy folks.
Re:Because (Score:5, Insightful)
Critical thinking is not a part of STEM.
I hear this a fair amount, and am puzzled. As a physics professor, I'm trying to teach students problem solving skills (usually the engineering and science students). As an astronomy professor, I'm trying to teach students (usually the non-scientists taking the survey astro courses) how to apply the scientific method to figure out what's going on up there and have a functioning BS detector when it comes to pseudoscience.
The definitions I've heard of this "Critical Thinking" meme seem to indicate that these are the sort "top of the learning pyramid" skills that go with "Critical Thinking", but somehow science remains a mindless technical skill in the eyes of many.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I cringe every time that I see a scientist on TV talking about how "the science shows we need to act on climate change". Now the science shows climate change is real, and can forecast large parts of the earth becoming uninhabitable (or at least non-arable) if it is not addressed, but to argue straight from 'is' to 'ought' is a classic illogical blunder of the sort that should have been laid to rest by Hume's work in the 18th century.
Well, it kind of goes without saying that we only have to act on climate change if we want to stick around, and those of us who do don't much care what those who don't think about the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Shakespeare is not part of STEM and high school crams that down people's throat. It does not help one write code any better.
Fail to improve is radically different than fail. (Score:5, Insightful)
The article I read did not give enough specifics (I skipped the paywall one).
So you can't tell if a good school merely failed to improve rather than had their students fail.
Everyone should have critical thinking skills, and if you don't have any, then college should teach you that skill. But that is NOT the only thing a college should teach. Once you have that skill, there are many other skills you need, from pure knowledge, to creativity, to social skills (beyond drinking), pattern recognition, basic computer usage, among other things.
In particular, I would be SHOCKED if Ivy league schools showed significant improvement in critical thinking. It's exactly the kind of thing they love their incoming students to already have, and the ivy league schools have gotten so selective that they can pick the students that already have that.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't taught critical thinking at college. In my day, if you weren't capable of it you didn't get it. See also: belt, onion, Morganville.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone should have critical thinking skills....
And yet it remains quite the rarity in humans, including those spat out from expensive universities with highly coveted reputations. What is common rather than rare? Self-delusion is commonplace. It crowds out critical thinking, since the two cannot coexist. Tribalism is comorbid with that self-delusion, and nurtures it to the detriment of critical thinking. The so-called top universities actually nurture tribalistic thinking. Critical thinking goes out the window more often than not; it's simply not
Taught at "top tier" college (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, for my exams, I tried to focus on applying concepts we've learned in class, yet many of them had noticeable difficulty doing anything that wasn't directly regurgitated from class.
Well, analogies seem much easier when you know the answer. For example, take a basic feedback loop. I can understand what it means in an electric circuit, or in social economics (wages drives costs drives prices drives wages), nuclear physics (one fission reaction becomes two become BOOM), learned behavior (have a doggy treat) and geopolitics (we provoke, they counter provoke, actually it's just BOOM too) but if you haven't really tried to see the parallels it's pretty hard. A lot of students feel overwhelm
Re: (Score:2)
I remember this one TA session where a student and a TA (pretty sure it was a TA) were discussing the marks this kid was given. He was absolutely flabbergasted that the marker took off one mark for the wrong answer. Saying in high school his teacher would always give him 100% no matter the correctness of the answers that he gave.
I was just sitting their in awe that he got any marks for a question with the wrong answer.
And I remember this one professor who stated upfront. "I will remark anything you ask me t
Re: (Score:2)
I remember like 3rd week of freshman physics for engineers. We had the hard TAs, that was already well understood. But we got this one question that the entire class absolutely failed. It was rather embarrassing because it was explained the next day and it was just a slightly unorthodox mesh of stuff we all knew. But we do go to like 6 other classes, and that was like the hundredths question we had been asked to solve that day alone. Basically Humans are not computers, if you want to ask us to do thousands
It's because college is vocational now. (Score:3)
The original medieval concept of a liberal arts education was that it prepared you intellectually to perform the duties of a gentleman. This is why mathematics played a major part in the liberal arts. First you mastered grammar, logic and rhetoric, then you tackled the mathematical disciplines: astronomy, music (theory of harmonics mainly so that counts as another dose of math), arithmetic (Books V - X of Euclid) and geometry (Books I - IV, XI - XIII).
Only after you'd mastered all that material were you considered prepared to go onto specialized advanced studies (sadly, your choices were limited pretty much to theology, law or medicine).
Now from my geekish perspective this medieval curriculum looks a hell of a lot more rigorous than anything any modern American university offers. I'd update the math curriculum, add some basic courses in physical and social sciences and finance and you'd be graduating people fully prepared to be kick-ass citizens.
But universities act more like vocational schools. Even if you major in art history, they train you as if that's going to be be your job. And employers treat universities not as educational institutions, but as certifiers of social class.
It's no wonder that universities don't improve critical thinking skills. You're supposed to pick them up by osmosis.
Re: (Score:2)
Only after you'd mastered all that material were you considered prepared to go onto specialized advanced studies (sadly, your choices were limited pretty much to theology, law or medicine).
How do you overlook philosophy, the most central and general of the post-quadrivium disciplines, out of which all of the modern disciplines split, which is why terminal degrees in all the modern fields (besides those old specialties you list) are called "Doctor of Philosophy", or "PhD".
Going off on a tangent here but this is a pet interest of mine and you mentioned it: if I were to update the medieval curriculum, I would:
- keep the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric)
- complement it with a mathematical an
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my point isn't that the medieval curriculum was perfect. Only that it was more rigorous.
Now as for philosophy, sure, but probably nothing highly technical until more basic skills have been acquired. Surely some epistemology and ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
The long second part of my post was just a followup to your comments about how you'd improve upon the curriculum. I didn't think you were saying it was perfect, I was just joining your discussion on how it could have been even better.
But the main thrust of the first short point was just that, in your list of things people would study after finishing the trivium and quadrivium, you skipped the main thing people usually went on to study, which was philosophy, which is why all the different things people go on
If only we had chapter 11 and 7 for student loans (Score:2)
If only we had chapter 11 and 7 for student loans then the banks would force the schools to lower costs / time and teach real skills with less fluff and filler.
Should be taught early on (Score:3)
College would be great but it's important to teach this as early as possible so that kids can also learn to properly grasp the concept and use it effectively, and to be taught how to argue without fighting early on.
Is critical thinking needed? (Score:2)
Ah, nice to see a study validate my saying (Score:2)
"College-educated, still dumb as a box of rocks."
Re: (Score:2)
How Can It Be? (Score:2)
Can we all agree that the vast majority of colleges? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Can we all agree that the news reports have very frequently been talking about how Trump voters are less educated?
So, now we see that all of these more educated people are lacking in critical thinking skills. Oh, the irony!
Almost (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the better generalization would be that Colleges are teaching students "What" to think, and not "How" to think. Since cognitive dissonance is painful, and it feels good to belong to something you believe is important, it's easy to get people to go along with the game.
When you consider that the people with political power on the left are pushing for more "free" college the prospect 10 years down the road could look much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Almost (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, as they became more the norm bachelor degrees have transitioned to be closer to the job market instead of preparation for masters & doctorates.
Translation: The quality of the bachelors degree is defined by the fact that it is now the new high school diploma.
Oh, you wanted a quality education instead of just a piece of paper to hang on the wall? Then shell out another $100K for the masters degree.
Gotta love capitalism.
Re:Almost (Score:4, Interesting)
Translation: The quality of the bachelors degree is defined by the fact that it is now the new high school diploma.
Oh, you wanted a quality education instead of just a piece of paper to hang on the wall? Then shell out another $100K for the masters degree.
Gotta love capitalism.
It's the exact opposite of capitalism on display. The federal government has thrown so much (taxpayer) money at almost any student who asks for it that the colleges have dumbed down to be able to accept and pass them all in order to grab all the subsidy money.
it's all about the loans that just about any one c (Score:2)
it's all about the loans that just about any one can get.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's supply and demand, a concept which while assumed to be a virtually ironclad economic law by capitalist thought is not actually capitalist.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's supply and demand, a concept which while assumed to be a virtually ironclad economic law by capitalist thought is not actually capitalist.
Selling something that is not worth nearly the asking price tends to capitalize on the gullibility of a society who has been convinced that the cost is worth it.
Perhaps we ask the "gig" work graduates who are forced to move back in with Mom and Dad about supply and demand. I'm sure they'll have a few choice words to say about capitalism as they struggle to find how $100K worth of educational debt was worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to go look up the meaning of the word. Government subsidy money is far from it. But then, you probably were "educated" at one of these schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, Great response! There is hope for /.. I'm out of mod points. Some dumbass moded you down and I don't understand why they would do that other than they really have no clue.
Now if we could just get a guy like you in the white house. Someone that could put a twitter tweet out that isn't just a rough thought. Sometimes really rough.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither your comment nor the comment you are replying to have shown what capitalism has to do with any of this.
Under capitalism, the most important thing is to be economically productive, rather than well educated for it's own (or other people's) sake. So colleges are churning people out with apparently relevant/useful degrees in things like Business Studies that do not actually teach critical thought.
If you have to borrow tens of thousands to get your degree, your primary concern is making sure you pass it so that (a) you haven't got into doubt for nothing and (b) you have a certificate to show employers.
Now,
Re:Almost (Score:4, Informative)
Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, wrote a neat book called Wealth of Nations, and he included an appendix where he explains why higher education does not follow the supply/demand model and can't reasonably be capitalist.
It boils down to, nobody shops around and buys a slightly lower quality education than they think they can afford; everybody buys the education with the strongest reputation that they can afford, and so there is no price feedback. The cost is related to reputation rather than value, so the units don't even translate directly to Capital.
Re: (Score:2)
However Adam Smith probably didn't assume that any government would be willing to give out 'free' money to anyone with their hand out with which to then turn around and pay the purveyors of higher education or that the annals of higher education would include things like 'sports schools' and 'party schools'.
Re: (Score:2)
Youth sports and party schools date to ancient times, so that one was easy.
He proposed just paying the schools directly, I don't think he would care if you used vouchers. That's the point, not everything follows a market. Not everything has the right feedback loops. Read the book.
Capitalism is the government regulating business to impose access and trust, which then allows Capital to move freely. But that doesn't work for education. If you want increased access, you pay for it via government because they're
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: The quality of the bachelors degree is defined by the fact that it is now the new high school diploma.
Oh, you wanted a quality education instead of just a piece of paper to hang on the wall? Then shell out another $100K for the masters degree.
Gotta love capitalism.
How the hell is this capitalism? State universities have the prices set by the government, which is the total opposite of capitalism. Only private universities that set their own prices would count as capitalist.
Obviously your degree is a paper one.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: The quality of the bachelors degree is defined by the fact that it is now the new high school diploma.
Oh, you wanted a quality education instead of just a piece of paper to hang on the wall? Then shell out another $100K for the masters degree.
Gotta love capitalism.
How the hell is this capitalism? State universities have the prices set by the government, which is the total opposite of capitalism. Only private universities that set their own prices would count as capitalist.
Obviously your degree is a paper one.
And when exactly did I exclude private universities in my statement? Perhaps we should look to see what your degree is printed on.
I'm looking at the entire business of higher education. Society practically now demands every job require a 4-year degree, which pumps a metric fuckton of money into that business. And now that everyone has a bachelors, it's really no more of a "wow" factor than a high-school diploma. This, along with a constricting job market, pushes employers to be even more selective, whic
Re: (Score:2)
And when exactly did I exclude private universities in my statement? Perhaps we should look to see what your degree is printed on.
Ok now that you're done splitting hairs, even if you're including them, this applies mostly to public universities, which seem to have the same problem. No matter how you try to spin this, you can't pin it on capitalism if a very non-capitalist system is exhibiting the exact same problem, making your argument completely moot.
Besides, I've seen your posts before and you pin many things on capitalism (or alternatively greed or some rant about corporations) that have nothing to do with either. If two of your c
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a non-paywalled version of the article [msn.com].
There is nothing in TFA that indicates that this is a "new" problem. Sure people are generally pretty stupid, but that has always been true, and this is not evidence that "things are getting worse".
BS Meter pegged (Score:2)
Nothing in TFA to show it's a "new" problem, but the massive amount of degrees, student debt, and money going into a massive number of institutions sure is. At least agree that the scale of the problem has grown massively.
To be a bit more fair with your minor point, even 30 years ago when I was going to college people in the administration attempted to keep people from learning Philosophy, Ethics, and Logic. For a 4 year degree, we were required at least 1 year of Philosophy though (and my degree is in Ma
Re: (Score:2)
Well, like Richard Feynman described; he took a required philosophy class and only understood, "Ugga wugga wugga, wugga wugga ugga," but he still passed the class.
And philosophy majors usually agree that is what non-philosophy majors are likely to remember at the end.
Lots of people agree that students would be better off if they learned some philosophy, but that doesn't necessarily translate into useful dictates.
Or like my dad (a philosopher) said about Feynman's experience, "At some schools that's actually
Re: (Score:2)
Well, like Richard Feynman described; he took a required philosophy class and only understood, "Ugga wugga wugga, wugga wugga ugga," but he still passed the class.
Yes, but there's also Analytical Philosophy which is more about the clear thinking aspect. I've heard it described as an excellent bullshit detector.
From Wikipedia: "As a philosophical practice, it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
Re: (Score:2)
""What if we don't start a war with Spain?"
Interesting. But then we know how that same philosophy worked out for Chamberlain.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think the point is that you have to consider it on a case-by-case basis; sometimes your neighbors are plotting to invade, but most of the time they actually aren't.
In the case of Spain and England, Spain didn't want to invade England but they were willing to if they thought England was going to invade Spain. As long as everybody reads Herodotus' version of the Peloponnesian Wars then was becomes unavoidable, but if consider the issue from base principles they might realize that often it is unnecessa
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest (as a Cold War vet) that the Cold War is a bad example. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) likely kept things from getting out of hand for many years until the Soviets imploded economically. w
Re: (Score:2)
Grampy, that was part of the Cold War.
You don't get to argue with me when you're agreeing with me.
Re: (Score:2)
At least agree that the scale of the problem has grown massively.
I agree that tuitions and student debt have gone up dramatically, and that is a problem.
I do NOT agree that students today are worse at critical thinking than in the past. I have seen zero evidence for that.
Re: (Score:2)
" I have seen zero evidence for that."
Is this exam "zero evidence"? Or are you claiming that it's inaccurate?
Re: (Score:2)
The exam is evidence of how things are right now, not how they were ten years or so ago.
degrees are theory loaded with limited real usage (Score:2)
degrees are theory loaded with limited real usage of the skills. So people may know alot of theory but have a hard time working on thinking / using them in an day to day setting.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard it said many times.
I don't agree though. I think most people who earn a degree are very practiced at the hands-on task of writing a paper including the keywords that the professor emphasized.
The claim that people "only" know the theory seems to imply that the theories are wrong. I favor the idea that many of the theories are actually useful, and if the students had bothered to actually learn the theory they'd have an easy time applying the knowledge. But instead, they've only practiced talking ab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the better generalization is that colleges are being used as prep for employment, and teaching us the loads of data required to function in a corporation in a particular discipline. Most of that work is not creative or intellectual at all and requires knowledge to perform, but not necessarily make judgement calls. I guess thinking is optional, being the right cog is required.
In reality very few people even would be allowed (funded) to use critical thinking in anything more than a trivial capacity, t
Hmm (Score:3)
I think the better generalization is that colleges are being used as prep for employment, and teaching us the loads of data required to function in a corporation in a particular discipline.
Seems to match what I stated.
To your second point, critical thinking is essential all the time every day. People in power have historically attempted to keep people from learning the skills, because their bullshit is easier to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there's a vast conspiracy among the rich and privileged to keep you peons from invading their kingdoms. But seriously, please point to any evidence you might have of actions taken by those people so we can all revolt.
Re: (Score:2)
I base my opinions on my observations and the overall impressions I get from various news sources. I'm not writing a White Paper here, I'm no
Re: (Score:2)
So, you admit to having nothing, but were a big enough asshole to make an unsubstantiated claim. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that's worth mentioning, you must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, a whole 50k newer than you :P
Re: (Score:2)
Usually I only say "you must be new here" to people with a lower UID than mine, but I figured you were close enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the better generalization is that colleges are being used as prep for employment
Vocational schools, maybe. Four year institutions are populated by people who have spent their entire lives in academia and a side effect is they tend to prepare students for research and grad school more than anything else.
But getting into the next level of academics usually involves passing standardized tests (the GRE, subject GREs, MCAT, LSAT, qualifiers, etc.) and even moving up year to year involves securing the previous year's worth of foundational knowledge, and of course the more contents you can p
Re: (Score:2)
For the employees in academia, yeah, it is about professional teaching, or research if they're good.
And for students it is about job training.
Vocational schools are treated by both groups as remedial job training, not an alternative for people who could pass "normal" classes.
This disconnect ensures a mediocre result for all.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen little evidence of this as an engineering hiring manager, or while listening to what my daughter went through in business school just a couple years ago. We hire new grads frequently, and they hardly ever have the skills we wish they had. But I see your generalization here frequently, and wonder what it's based upon.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the better generalization would be that Colleges are teaching students "What" to think, and not "How" to think. Since cognitive dissonance is painful, and it feels good to belong to something you believe is important, it's easy to get people to go along with the game.
When you consider that the people with political power on the left are pushing for more "free" college the prospect 10 years down the road could look much worse.
I'm not sure how you're trying to connect "schools aren't teaching critical thinking" with "it's the fault of politicians trying to make education more readily available." I think there are ways that the two could be connected, but it's not clear from your post what you have in mind.
Either way, I think part of the problem is that colleges and universities are increasingly motivated by profits. There ends up being a lot of focus on having a fun 4-year summer camp, complete with minor league sports teams,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you're trying to connect "schools aren't teaching critical thinking" with "it's the fault of politicians trying to make education more readily available."
This is exactly what they're talking about when they reference a lack of critical thinking skills. No, they're not trying to connect the different ideas. Yes, that is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I think you'll have to explain that a little more. Again, "schools aren't teaching critical thinking skills" and " politicians are trying to make education more readily available", how are these two things supposed to be connected? I could make up an argument to connect the two, but neither you nor s.petry have really explained how you think they're connected.
Or are you saying that s.petry's argument is a result of schools not teaching critical thinking?
Re: (Score:2)
The mistake you make is worrying about what you think I might have meant, instead of just reading what I said and applying critical thinking.
Find the meaning that parses to something true. If you found it, great. If you didn't, then you might go into the meta-analysis of worrying about if you need more information, or maybe I'm just full of shit or fucking nuts. But if you can find a meaning that parses true, you're in error to have even gone meta at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great! We have established that there is a shortcoming in our education system (ignoring colleges here) how about we do something about that like IDK teach that?
It's something like giving a set of students that just graduated from 4 years of french language classes a test over how well they understand nuclear fission. Of course they are going to do badly on it they weren't taught that!
Evergreen College... (Score:2)
Evergreen College fits this to a T [washingtonpost.com]
For more fun go to Youtube and search Evergreen College and watch the spectacular fail by SJW Students and one Jabba the Hut teacher in particular.
Be sure to bring Popcorn.
Cognitive dissonance isn't painful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I attended a college that pushes classes on Critical Thinking, and we had to have credits from a list of classes purporting to teach it. Having been through those, I just don't think it is doable. The student has to want that part, and if they don't understand it going in, they'll just memorize what you ask for and get an A in the class.
This might be more doable in elementary school than college.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, critical thinking really starts with clarity about what you're talking about. This kind of emotional argument about "safe spaces" is a perfect example of how not to go about it.
"Safe space" refers to two very different concepts. The first sense is inclusive: it's about minority or disparaged groups being free from intimidation or threats of violence in a community. The second sense is exclusive: "Safe space" can also refer to clubs and societies reserved for minorities to discuss their particul
Re: (Score:2)
I am cool with anyone making a private safe space, so long as they don't try to extend the rules of their private space to public safe spaces. Both have legitimate functions but mixing them up is bad.
As for hate, that's a moot point. Some people are natural haters. I draw the line at intimidation -- things a reasonable person would find threatening. If someone can maintain a hateful opinion under conditions that subject that allow others to subject that opinion to critical scrutiny, then they are unlikely
Re: (Score:2)
I am cool with anyone making a private safe space, so long as they don't try to extend the rules of their private space to public safe spaces.
There is no such thing as a "public safe space" and no such thing as an inclusive safe space. Safe spaces are by design places where certain thoughts and their thinkers (and through stereotyping, people who are expected to think such things) are excluded. It is an environment of exclusion. It is most obvious when dealing with women's issues' safe spaces, where being a man automatically disqualifies one from participating. Or any of the "cultural centers" on college campuses which serve as "safe spaces" for
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can win any argument if you get to redefine the words other people are using. I made it clear what my definitions were, so at best you're just making an unrelated point.
As for the reasonable person standard, it is a long-established legal concept in the United States which you clearly don't understand -- or have again redefined to make your job easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can win any argument if you get to redefine the words other people are using. I made it clear what my definitions were, so at best you're just making an unrelated point.
No. I read your "definition" that tried to claim that there were inclusive safe spaces, and that's specifically what I replied to. Your "first sense" inclusive safe space truly is not. It is as exclusive as any other "safe space". Here's how you defined it:
The first sense is inclusive: it's about minority or disparaged groups being free from intimidation or threats of violence in a community.
Being "free from intimidation or threats of violence" requires excluding those who they fear from their "safe space". This exclusion applies not only to people who are true threats because they intend violence, it includes stereotypes that they see as opp
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're being stupid about it.
My house is a safe space in that regard, in that I do not tolerate intimidation or threats of violence and will enforce that as necessary (yeah, I'm willing to break the rule to enforce it). This doesn't mean I have to exclude people preemptively based on what they are. I've hosted liberals, conservatives, the odd anarchist (very odd, to be honest),
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I agree that you shouldn't have to be a minority. However to designate a place specifically safe for LGBT students does not violate the principle that it should be safe for all. It's a specific application of the general principle.
Just to be clear, I haven't lived on a campus in 35 years; I don't speak for anyone but myself. I'm simply stating what I believe safe space advocates are talking about. But that doesn't mean that that every last one of them has fully worked out the consequences of what,
Re: (Score:2)
"You dropped 150 grand on a fuckin' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!"
- Will Hunting
Re: (Score:2)
If someone wanted to start their own business, you are much bette
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Been to a college class lately?
I sometimes wonder how interesting it would be to 'audit' some of the freshman level sociology and 'soapbox' courses as an adult student, so that the teachers wouldn't have exclusive access to these earnest little tabula-rasa sponges to deliver their anti-white, anti-western, anti-male screed unobjected. I have to imagine they wouldn't like having another adult in the room (especially one not inclined to their flavor of kool aide) at ALL.
Then I realized that
1) raising ANY obj