This paper describes a flaw in the teaching of issues related to market economics and social justice at American institutions of higher learning. The flaw we speak of is really a gap, or an educational disconnect, which exists between those faculty who support market-based economies and those who believe capitalism promotes economic injustice. The thesis of this paper is that the gap is so wide and the ideas that are promoted are so disconnected that students are trapped into choosing one or the other position (or neither) and are left unable to link the two sides of the discussion. Such an educational process is not one that produces free and reasoned discernment. In this paper, we briefly relate how we came to be aware of the disconnect and its harms. We present evidence that a pedagogical gulf exists within the teaching of markets and capitalism at American universities – faculty interviews, course syllabi, portions of the corpus of material generally referred to as Catholic Social Thought, as well as references to traditional, mainstream economic theory. Further, we give evidence of the confusion and frustration among students this gulf causes. We suggest possible reasons for the gulf–primarily through an investigation of the differences in underlying assumptions and misperceptions that exist between two divisions within universities. We conclude by suggesting a set of curricular changes designed to improve teaching. The authors’ aim is not to change people’s minds. It is to change their teaching. The authors believe that these curricular changes will leave students less frustrated and better prepared for a life of significant service – with improved critical thinking skills. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006business school, Catholic Social Thought, critical thinking, humanities, market economics, social justice, welfare theory,

This article investigates the critical thinking difficulties of finance majors when asked to address ill-structured finance problems. The authors build on previous research in which they asked students to analyze an ill-structured investment problem and recommend a course of action. The results revealed numerous critical thinking weaknesses, including a failure to address the client's problem, use analytical tools systematically, construct rhetorically useful graphics, or translate finance concepts and methodologies into lay language. The present research aims to understand more deeply why students struggle with ill-structured problems. Using think-aloud protocols, audiotaped interviews, and other strategies, the authors explore causes of finance students' difficulties and suggest strategies for addressing them. The results suggest that the homework tasks typically given them, such as quantitative problem sets using algorithmic procedures, do not prepare them to confront ill-structured problems requiring disciplinary arguments aimed at specified audiences. Research further suggests that teaching audience adaptation-especially for nonexpert audiences-is helpful in promoting critical thinking.

This article describes a holistic, discourse-based method for assessing the critical thinking skills of undergraduate senior-level finance majors. Rejecting a psychometric assessment approach in which component features of critical thinking are disaggregated, this study is based on a holistic scoring of student memos. Students were asked to recommend and justify a course of action to a lay client facing an ill-structured finance problem. Analysis of student memos reveals critical thinking weaknesses that may be ameliorated by changes in assignments or instructional methods. The memos reveal four kinds of critical thinking problems: (a) failure to address the client's problem, (b) random rather than purposeful application of finance tools and methodologies, (c) inability to translate finance concepts or methods into lay language, and (d) inability to construct rhetorically useful graphics. The curricular implications of this study are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract