Three Ways to Improve your Critical Thinking Skill in College
December 12, 2009 by admin
Filed under College And University
Chris Stout asked:
College is mental gymnastics at its finest. University campuses are alive with ideas, some scientifically provable, others entirely arguable. When you exist in this sphere of swirling minds you can’t help but feel energized by the exchanges you encounter. People all around you have something to say. Positions and postures come in all sorts of varieties. Questions are answered by questions that prompt more questions.
In this intense minefield of knowledge and half-knowledge, you need to have your wits about you. You need to be confident in your critical thinking abilities, and you have to be passionately willing and able to improve them.
Here are five ways to exercise your brain and stay academically athletic.
1. Discuss ideas outside of the classroom with intelligent people who enjoy a good debate.
College is a place for spirited arguments. When else are you going to have the opportunity to drink and discuss philosophy, economics, metaphysics, religion, politics and history on a nightly basis? Molten minds are forming all around you, and as the cerebral rocks cool, everyone wants to share. Get in on the debate, put in your two cents, no, better yet say a nickel’s worth. College is an open forum for any an all topics. Take advantage of it while you can.
.
2. Take classes that intrigue you.
Nothing spurs analysis like interest. If you want to trick your brain into thinking that it’s in hobby mode, not study mode, and then you better be passionate about your subject matter. There must be something that you find fascinating. Whatever it is, enable that curiosity. Tap into genuine interest, and school work will start to feel instantly rewarding. By following your personal preferences, you’ll be able to delve more deeply into the material you study.
3. Take notes like your life depended on it.
Seriously. When you try to create a written historical record of your lecture, in real-time, the results are amazing. You focus more one what’s going on in the moment. You associate the information you process with audio and visual imprints. You have a concise record of everything you were exposed to, and you can review this material quickly and completely. Don’t forget to take notes as you read, and write all over your books!
Do your homework like you’re supposed to and come to class prepared. Subject-specific critical thinking is all about recalling information. The more ways you imprint, the more you retain. Make sure you like your classes, because you’re going to be asked to digest mass quantities of whatever material you’ve signed up to absorb. Talk about what you’ve learned with friends and classmates, but don’t get in fights over the periodic table. Respect everyone else’s opinion, but express your own. Realize that no matter what, there’s always more to learn
College is mental gymnastics at its finest. University campuses are alive with ideas, some scientifically provable, others entirely arguable. When you exist in this sphere of swirling minds you can’t help but feel energized by the exchanges you encounter. People all around you have something to say. Positions and postures come in all sorts of varieties. Questions are answered by questions that prompt more questions.
In this intense minefield of knowledge and half-knowledge, you need to have your wits about you. You need to be confident in your critical thinking abilities, and you have to be passionately willing and able to improve them.
Here are five ways to exercise your brain and stay academically athletic.
1. Discuss ideas outside of the classroom with intelligent people who enjoy a good debate.
College is a place for spirited arguments. When else are you going to have the opportunity to drink and discuss philosophy, economics, metaphysics, religion, politics and history on a nightly basis? Molten minds are forming all around you, and as the cerebral rocks cool, everyone wants to share. Get in on the debate, put in your two cents, no, better yet say a nickel’s worth. College is an open forum for any an all topics. Take advantage of it while you can.
.
2. Take classes that intrigue you.
Nothing spurs analysis like interest. If you want to trick your brain into thinking that it’s in hobby mode, not study mode, and then you better be passionate about your subject matter. There must be something that you find fascinating. Whatever it is, enable that curiosity. Tap into genuine interest, and school work will start to feel instantly rewarding. By following your personal preferences, you’ll be able to delve more deeply into the material you study.
3. Take notes like your life depended on it.
Seriously. When you try to create a written historical record of your lecture, in real-time, the results are amazing. You focus more one what’s going on in the moment. You associate the information you process with audio and visual imprints. You have a concise record of everything you were exposed to, and you can review this material quickly and completely. Don’t forget to take notes as you read, and write all over your books!
Do your homework like you’re supposed to and come to class prepared. Subject-specific critical thinking is all about recalling information. The more ways you imprint, the more you retain. Make sure you like your classes, because you’re going to be asked to digest mass quantities of whatever material you’ve signed up to absorb. Talk about what you’ve learned with friends and classmates, but don’t get in fights over the periodic table. Respect everyone else’s opinion, but express your own. Realize that no matter what, there’s always more to learn
Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up
James William Smith asked:
The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.
Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.
While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.
So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.
Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.
In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.
As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.
However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.
Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?
Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.
The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.
Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.
While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.
So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.
Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.
In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.
As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.
However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.
Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?
Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.
