+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: General Rant! (/showthread.php?tid=3984)
General Rant! - dmama - 28th June 2011
toby, give it a bit longer and you'll be like the rest of us old lags. older, poorer and non the wiser!!!! jibber jibber :p
General Rant! - Odinn - 28th June 2011
Doug Wrote:How do you define "critical thinking"?'The intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action' <http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm>
Definitely worth reading more at that link.
Quote:Could it not be that between your 1st and 2nd yrs the difference is not thinking but that they have had a whole year to adapt to the system.I would hope they are adapting to the system!
Quote:That what they are producing is not so much critical thinking as a rehash of what you teach them being spoken/read/presented back to you only more polished then before.The evidence for critical thinking is the discussion and questioning that takes place in seminars and the arguments put forward in essays. it is not the content as much as it is the way that content is presented to produce a solid argument.
Quote:Also, it is when most students leave home and strike out on their own. Could those experiences not be driving their changing in thinking? Could this be a hidden variable that makes it seem like people are growing at university but really to teach critical thinking we just need to kick people out of the home?I'm not sure how that would work for most people. It might work for some but the majority would probably continue with their normal, rather muddy thought patterns rather than embracing new ways of thinking.
Quote:Again just :face-stir:Nothing wrong with questioning things. That is what critical thinking is about! So, what evidence do you have for the view that you have expressed? You have questioned what I have written and I have thought in some detail about it, but I would be interested in seeing evidence that disproves my contentions on a broader level. }
:face-stir:
General Rant! - Doug - 28th June 2011
Odinn Wrote:Nothing wrong with questioning things. That is what critical thinking is about! So, what evidence do you have for the view that you have expressed? You have questioned what I have written and I have thought in some detail about it, but I would be interested in seeing evidence that disproves my contentions on a broader level. }
Challenge accepted.... oh if it was only that easy. I will lay out the problems I have with university teaching and why I question its claims of effectiveness.
First, I know you have define critical thinking but the problem is you can not quantify it, which means you can not measure it. It you can not measure it then how much do you know what is gained or lost?
Qualify it, yes very possible and something you did above with your discussion of you classes. MY problem is that most universities try to use qualitative data as quantitative}
to say they are good. The second problem I have is that universities get to choose who their students are. I'll use a futbal analogy, the coach conundrum. Yes, like teachers, there are some really good coaches out there who do make a difference on their team but for the vast majority they don't make a difference or you can not prove that difference, at the top levels.
I could be made coach of Man United and it probably would not make a difference to their winning. NOT because I am a good coach BUT because they bought the best players in the world who would do well no matter who was coaching.
A oversimplification of a complex event that could easily go wrong- egos, I piss off players so they dont play, I bench the best players etc. but for the most part the coach is interchangeable on the team because the skill is all in the players. Especially, when you reach the top level and most players have had years of coaching and have learned most of what there is to learn Still saying some coaches make a difference just not the majority, maybe 90-10.
Universities work the same way. Oxbridge graduates are not the best because they went there, they are the best because they will be successful no matter what school they go to but they believe they must go to those schools.
Case in point- George W. Bush went to Yale. He did not become president because he went to Yale. He did not even get into Yale cause he was smart. He got into Yale because he comes from a long line of rich americans and because of his already created status he would have been successful not matter what- though being president was a bit of an achievement for him.
The "top" universities choose the very rich and very smart- two groups of people who will do well in life.
I am not saying universities don't teach or improve skills. What I am saying is that the game is rig so that we can never test that assertion.
I guess you could say then that I am highly skeptical of anyone who claims a fact that can not be measured and even if it could is rig to return a positive result for them.
General Rant! - P Prentice - 29th June 2011
Doug Wrote:I think I will be the voice of decent on this idea that degrees should not teach commercial archaeology.
I will join this decent and for the following reasons:
i contend that archaeology is fundamentally concerned with interpretting the past
the vast majority of archaeological interpretation is undertaken in the commercial sector
ergo - to study / understand archaeology one needs to understand the commercial sector and to do this students of archaeology should be required to work/learn and interpret in the commercial sector
and then they might become an archaeologist
can you tell how bored with this i am
General Rant! - deadlylampshade - 29th June 2011
Ah...the Descent (decent) of Man}
...or did Doug actually mean dissent??:face-thinks:
Perhaps there is something to say for a degree education in the classics after all.
(And no, P Prentice, I am not having a go at you.. or anyone...
. I've been editing all day and needed a break LOL)
General Rant! - P Prentice - 29th June 2011
@ deadly - Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have died of conformity in our lifetime.
General Rant! - Marcus Brody - 29th June 2011
Doug Wrote:I think I will be the voice of decent on this idea that degrees should not teach commercial archaeology.
I'm not sure how far Doug is in the minority on this. I was certainly under the impression that I'd been arguing that universities shouldn't just be churning out staff for working in the commercial sector, but possibly I've not made my points sufficiently clearly!
General Rant! - kevin wooldridge - 29th June 2011
Surely the way to keep both sides of this discussion content would be the creation of a Post-graduate Certification scheme, not unlike that which exists to train teachers. Those who didn't intend to go into archaeology as a career could depart after 3 years and those who wanted the extra kudos of getting their hands and minds dirtied by contact with the soil could stay on for a further 6 months to gain some professional training. Universities that do not have an attached or nearby commercial unit might like to make arrangements with those able to provide the training. Not unlike the opportuniites provided by the current IfA intern scheme...
Some archaeological employers might see it as a way of condensing training and would be happy to sponsor students (probably a long shot in these cash-starved days though...)
General Rant! - Dinosaur - 29th June 2011
Wouldn't that just leave the people who actually wanted to be archaeologists in the first place even more in debt before they can go out and get an underpaid job?
General Rant! - Wax - 29th June 2011
A six months work experience place after graduating would be great, even better if it was paid ( minimum wage would do). Other industries manage serious work placement so why cant archaeology. Or is it too much to ask Universities and commercial outfits to work together :face-crying: