Please help me not fail my final?

Did it. Good luck! But what did you mean by "good degrees"? Or was that part of the psycology? To be depended on *our* thoughts of a good degree?

Done. I wish you success in your finals. GBATemp has smart people, so I think this is the correct place to ask!

Have a good day.

Filled it out

I did it too! We all know you can do it! Keep at it and don’t give up!

@VinLark aye, it was a matter of "does having a good degree equate to having good critical thinking skills" in your opinion, and the like. I probably should have phrased it positively, but eh.

And thanks everyone for doing this! Not sure how many responses are needed, but I've got 10 so far so that's not nothing. Ya'll count as a convenience sample X'D

I have submitted my response

No info about you is collected beyond what level of education you have/are working on.

Click to expand...

I tried to help out but about half way through the questions seemed to start assuming that I was studying? If this survey is aimed only at students then you should probably make that clear. If it's not, then you need to rethink questions like "I will get higher grades if I think critically" and "I think critically in lectures".

filled dat out.

Responded. Good luck.

"What's the highest level of education you've received or are currently attempting *"
The answers are the US versions of the concept by the looks of things (in the UK postgraduate is anything leading to a masters on up through the various flavours of doctorate. Post doctoral is also a thing). No great issue but might wish to be noted.

Also "Critically thinking is particularly important in psychology *
Strong disagree"
You missed ly in that one. I suppose technically not a grammatical error but if you are marked on form...
Similarly is this a question most can reasonably answer? See also the linkedin problem -- how is one supposed to assess the competence of someone if they have no knowledge of the field themselves. To many I am a magic computer botherer but all I see is how much there is that I don't know.

"I am good at weighing up both sides of an argument *"
In the very rare occasion there are two sides... all sides, or indeed degrees, of an argument on the other hand.

Anyway that caused something of a dissonance within me depending upon whether the psychology aspect was going to be used or the engineering aspect would be used -- righteous is righteous but physics is physics and the former has no bearing on why the bridge fell down.
On the flip side https://www.dictionary.com/browse/critical-thinking says "disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence" and that is all encompassing. Trying to get said same person to do a psychological/psychiatric assessment of someone and that is a radically different set of skills (see also why engineering and marketing hate each other).
Alternatively I can doubt the accuracy/calibration of your machine or maybe the relevance of your results -- p-hacking (choice video for those that never heard the term before) is more of a research science thing but still understood. It is however a rather different approach to that which a historian might be using to consider sources -- trying to figure out the world view of the author of your book on some aspect of physics is rather less useful than doing the same to a first hand war diary of a mid ranking soldier before contrasting it with the account of a random passing tourist that witnesses the same conflict.

"All relevant information should be presented in lecture slides"
A curious question. Relevant to what would be a question that gets immediately asked, and then probably dismissed as the answer is boring (especially if "relevant to the exam" is going to be the answer -- I was once watching a lecture given by someone teaching things and he noted in the US that one of the first questions asked by almost all classes he taught was "is this graded on a curve?" and from where I sit that is almost antithetical to the idea of higher education). Looking at my periodic table there are maybe 20 important elements to current human engineering and even of those most pale before iron, however all those with a use extremely relevant to something is "all those that nuclear physics gives with half lives measured in standard human scales, and a couple of those that aren't". Volume of data wise that is impossible to include so necessarily you have to give people the tools to sort it, said volume of data only increases when you start mixing things as well. Of course looking at psychology its whole premise is "the mind is rather complicated, try to do something useful in spite of that".

"When designing experiments I can readily eliminate extraneous variables"
That will depend upon the field. I quite like Freakonomics and they cover some of the lengths they go to when controlling variables or accounting for them. Such things I see there are considerably harder than making sure my forces are at 90 degrees or as near as does not matter any more and things are uniform, before being able to repeat 50 times if I want, and then having someone do the exact same thing the other side of the world tomorrow. Gets a bit harder if you go up the scale of non destructive testing (you typically can't vaporise evidence to get its chemical composition) or have to do accelerated testing (if I have to build something that lasts 100 years, or maybe just 3 but has to do it at 2000 degrees, that might be unviable to test on my budget) but still quite far from some of the stuff I saw from said Freakonomics people, to say nothing of ethical issues.

"I can rephrase the arguments of others in my own words easily"
Does maths need rephrasing?

"Critical thinking develops as you progress through your degree *"
Hard question that one.
Sticking with the engineering thing then
On the one hand "show your working" is something most kids are taught in school from a very young age. Similarly while you may not appear on day one being able to quantify the typical results of delamination in composite materials the ability to note a change in material and begin to speculate upon its effects, and construct force diagrams, is something you can reasonably be expected to have and from there the rest is a matter of finesse and calculation.
On the other hand while such things are taught beforehand they are not always internalised and beating into your students the trouble with assumptions and deviating from reasoning at any point is a big part of the training (see engineering failures).
For something like psychology then I probably need to do no more than *points at developmental psychology*, and possibly contemplate some ethics (almost nobody objects to me teaching an 8 year old some hardcore aspect of physics if they can handle it, you will probably face more opposition for a lot of aspects of psychology).

Might as well finish with a potential upending of things wherein I compare rhetoric and critical thinking, also a video

I wish you luck for final

Done. Good luck with the PhD, man.