Why wait for college to teach critical thinking skills? My father is a prof at a major university and we grew up discussing ideas, but high schools can teach critical thinking skills and problem solving. My high school was owned by the university and we did a lot of critical thinking.
Jewish religious schools (Yeshivas) teach critical thinking skills by studying the Talmud [1]. A number of Yeshiva students take the LSATs and skip college altogether to go directly to law school so powerful is the process of learning Talmud.
Basically Talmud is full of (often) legal arguments and stories and a lot of time is spent on thinking through/arguing edge conditions (e.g., a piece of property is found overlapping public space and private space).
The point is that college is absolutely not necessary to teach critical thinking skills and in my opinion this should be started at a much younger age.
Incidentally, I have found even graduates of Ivy League schools seem to not understand basic fundamentals. For example, in Economics, they don't seem to understand why housing is so expensive in certain cities and don't seem to have the analytical skills to understand why prices are high.
I agree that critical thinking should be taugth sooner. A 12 years old can perfectly handle it.
I got the most jewish name ever, however, I can't agree with you on the Talmud. Just like the Bible and the Coran, it's full of things that goes exactly in the opposite direction of critical thinking. And religion, while helping with a lot of things like holding communities and sharing values, is definitly using a huge number of arguments that are totally in opposition with critical thinking. Starting by the fact that all of it is based on the assumption you believe in Yahweh.
However, since the Jewish community itself is pretty well educated, it's easy to be biased.
I have learned Talmud without being religious and it is very, very educational in my opinion and very interesting. If you study it you will see that it is full of critical thinking and different ways of looking at the same issue.
It has been translated into Korean and a number of Koreans study it to help them to be better at thinking [1].
Check out an Artscroll Talmud which has a good English translation. There might even be something on-line.
Also, much of critical thinking in my opinion is cultural. In some cultures, children "are to be seen and not heard." In the Passover Seder (The Last Supper was a Passover Seder) the youngest child at the Seder asks "The 4 questions" (memorized ahead of the ceremony of course).
Well, speaking from a secular point of view, studying the Talmud in and of itself makes you religious regardless of the education you are getting from it.
You are funny. You are basically orthodox for whats considered Jewish around me and yet you don't even think of yourself as ,"very religious".
Well, I'm glad you find me amusing. Using your logic, studying Physics makes me a Physicist. Studying Mathematics makes me a Mathematician.
Also, I think that the Koreans who study Talmud might not think that they are religious.
Honestly, anyone with intellectual curiosity I feel would find the Talmud interesting, regardless of being non-religious or of an ethnicity other than Judaism.
Koreans and others studying the Talmud are sort of one off rarities. Nearly everyone who studies the Talmud is a Jew doing so for reasons related to religious or cultural identity.
Physics makes me a Physicist
Thats not what I said. Thats comparing apples and oranges.
I would bet my bank account your are Jewish, and you are religious in the eyes of this Jew, regardless if you are as religious as your father. I dont doubt the talmud is intellectually interesting, but the reality is those that are studying it ARE religious. Even the koreans you keep referencing; even if they aren't religious at all, they are in the minority for those studying the Talmud that way.
> the reality is those that are studying it ARE religious. Even the koreans you keep referencing; even if they aren't religious at all, they are in the minority for those studying the Talmud that way.
"All those who study it are religious, except those that aren't, but they don't count anyways"
Keep in mind that the Talmud is different from the Torah.
As I understand it, the Torah are the five books allegedly inspired by God; the Talmud is that, plus all the commentary, which is where all the critical thinking and analysis takes place.
> Starting by the fact that all of it is based on the assumption you believe in Yahweh.
Keep in mind that it's totally possible to apply critical thinking skills while starting out with totally different axioms.
Strictly speaking, The Old Testament or Jewish Bible (Tenach) is made up of three parts 1) the 5 books of Moses [Genesis, ...], 2) 5 scrolls [Ruth, Ester, ...], and 3) the 12 prophets [Isiah, ...]. A Torah Scroll is the 5 books of Moses.
In Jewish tradition, there is the written part of the law (Tenach above) and the oral law which was given to Moses by God, but not intended to be written down but be passed down orally from generation to generation. By tradition, Moses told it to Joshua. As Judaism became more spread out and Jews more dispersed, they started to write down the Oral Law which with many commentaries became The Talmud.
The Talmud helps to explain passages written in Tenach. For example, "an eye for an eye" does not literally mean an eye, but rather the monetary value of an eye for an eye.
The Talmud is a book of process and ones learns the critical thinking skills by studying the Talmud. There is also of course the content which is learned.
You ever studied Talmud? Or even seen a page? Doesn't seem like you know what it's about. It's mostly case law. Some of the law is religious, much of it is not (torts, civil, criminal law).
Critical thinking isn't a subject, it is a framework. It seems foolish to allow a framework of non-critical thinking to take root for 13 years then expect a few classes to tear down and rebuild those habits of thought.
Further, arguing edge conditions and inserting plausible falsehoods that must be discovered or synthesis of ideas into unfamiliar areas is just more engaging and fun then accepting happy-path truths as a given and reciting them or performing well understood synthesis.
Honestly, it begins in math education, and very early. Math is a field entirely founded around and dedicated to solving problems. Yet, its foundation concepts are often taught as formulas and rules. It's the perfect place to start introducing problems and allowing / leading students to work through them. I'll copy-paste another comment I made a while ago:
"This is the consequence of not teaching domains of problem-solving through actual problem-solving. You see the same thing in math. I had an excellent practitioner of this method for AP calculus. I learned limits by attempting to find the area under a curve using ever-shrinking rectangles, until we got to pushing them to zero width. And now, 15 years later, I still remember the concept. I don't necessarily remember how to do any particular problem involving limits, but I know what limits are and when they apply to a problem."
The best introduction to logic and critical thinking I ever experienced was in a high school english class. In particular, understanding the various informal fallacies (hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad populum, etc...) was extremely influential in turning me into a young rationalist.
I've read that many yeshiva students in New York City Orthodox communites [1] lack English skills. What is the percentage of yeshiva students who are well-prepared enough to just skip college and take the LSAT?
Jewish religious schools (Yeshivas) teach critical thinking skills by studying the Talmud [1]. A number of Yeshiva students take the LSATs and skip college altogether to go directly to law school so powerful is the process of learning Talmud.
Basically Talmud is full of (often) legal arguments and stories and a lot of time is spent on thinking through/arguing edge conditions (e.g., a piece of property is found overlapping public space and private space).
The point is that college is absolutely not necessary to teach critical thinking skills and in my opinion this should be started at a much younger age.
Incidentally, I have found even graduates of Ivy League schools seem to not understand basic fundamentals. For example, in Economics, they don't seem to understand why housing is so expensive in certain cities and don't seem to have the analytical skills to understand why prices are high.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud