That Morthos Stare writes:
After the success of the last Public Service Annoucement I've decided to direct your attentikons to the following Adult Education course at the University of Auckland. Mr. Dentith, sometime transpersonal entity, is teaching a version of the accolade-garnering, award winning Stage I Critical Thinking course, and some of you should probably be thinking of coming along. Details follow:
Critical Thinking
Tutor: Matthew Dentith
When: 6 sessions, Tuesday 17 April - 22 May, 10.30am - 12.30pm
Course Description: Critical thinking is a skill we all like to think we have, but how often have you found yourself wondering just how critical your reasoning is? In this course we will uncover many of the basic skills a good thinker requires and then put them to use in analysing arguments you might come across in newspapers, on television and in everyday conversation.
You can find out more about it here.
3 comments:
I took the Massey Critical Thinking paper because people kept on telling me it was the easiest paper EVER.
They bloody well lied. It was the only paper in which I got a bad assignment mark from (C+, I almost DIED). Sure A's are easy in everything else, but I really didn't seem to grasp the structure required for that paper.
Then I went crazy and bombed out of uni, and I partly blame the shock of getting a assignment back with something other than an A.
As such I now feel that critical thinking is evil and refuse to engage in it.
There is a common misconception that Critical Thinking papers are easy. They are not (when taught properly (this is an example of a fallacy in itself)); informal argumentation theory is complex, messy and probably what Objectivists think Logic is (or meant to be; you can't tell with that bunch of loonies). When I've been involved with the undergraduate version of that course we have often had to massage the marks up to get a satisfactory bell curve that will satisfy the Faculty.
I'm surprised. I honestly thought it was meant to be easy because of word of mouth recommendations, and the lecture structure. For every lecture we got little multi-choice clicker thingamabobs and it all seemed so simple. Every time I hit my clicker I got the answer right. But when it came to the assignment I dropped the ball somewhere. I suspect partly because you look at the content and assume that it's easy.
But it really wasn't. And I must admit I got a little frustrated because I wasn't being asked to present an argument as such. I think that I only excelled in essays because I was required to present an argument, and I like having opinions.
Without opinion I'm a bit lost.
I should have probably gone with my gut instinct; that I don't have a particularly philosophical mind.
Post a Comment