Studying philosophy does make people better thinkers, says new research on more than 600,000 college grads

Philosophy the majors rank above than all the other majors on verbal and logical reasoning, according to our new study published in the Journal of the Philosophical Association American. They also tend to display more intellectual virtues such as curiosity and open -mindedness.

Philosophers have long said that the study of philosophy sharpens his mind. What distinguishes the philosophy of other fields is that it is not so much knowledge as an activity – a form of investigation. To do philosophy consists in trying to answer fundamental questions about humanity and the world in which we live and to submit proposed answers to a critical examination: to build logical arguments, attract subtle distinctions and follow ideas to their ultimate – often surprising conclusions.

It is therefore logical that the study of philosophy can make people better thinkers. But as a philosophers ourselves, we wondered if there were solid evidence for this assertion.

Students who specialize in philosophy work very well on tests such as the examination of graduates files and the admission test for law faculties. Studies, including ours, have discovered that people who have studied philosophy are, on average, more reflective and more open -minded than those who have not done so. However, this does not necessarily show that the study of philosophy means that people are better thinkers. Philosophy can simply attract good thinkers.

Our latest study was aimed at solving this problem by comparing students who specialize in philosophy and those who did not do it at the end of their last year, while adapting to the differences present at the start of their first year. For example, we have examined students’ performance on GRE, which they take towards the end of the university, while controlling the SAT scores, which they take before the university.

We did the same during the analysis of the survey data collected by the Research Institute on Higher Education at the start and the end of the college. These surveys asked students to assess, for example, their ability to engage with new ideas or have their own disputed ideas, and how often they explored subjects raised in class by themselves or have evaluated the reliability of information.

All in all, we have examined the test and investigation data of more than 600,000 students. Our analysis revealed that the majors in philosophy obtained a higher score than the students in all the other majors on standardized tests of verbal and logical reasoning, as well as on the self-assessment of good habits of mind, even after having counted the differences of first year. This suggests that their intellectual capacities and traits are due, in part, to what they learned in college.

Why it matters

Public confidence in higher education has reached record hollows in recent years, according to the surveys of the Lumina and Gallup Foundation. Meanwhile, the rapid progress of the generative AI threatened the perceived value of a traditional university diploma, because many skills in previous white collar are threatened to be automated.

However, more than ever, students must learn to think clearly and critical. The AI ​​promises efficiency, but its algorithms are only good as the people who direct them and examine their production.

The issues are more than personal. Without citizens who can reason with complex questions and discern good information from bad, democracy and civic life are in danger.

Which is still not known

Although our results indicate a real growth in students’ intellectual capacities and provisions, they do not capture all that philosophers mean by “intellectual virtue”. Intellectual virtue is not only a question of possession of certain capacities, but to use these capacities well: at the right time, for the right reasons and in the right way.

Our measures do not tell us if the majors in philosophy continue to apply their new capacities in the service of truth and justice or, conversely, for personal gain and glory. The adjustment of this question would require gathering another type of evidence.

This article is republished from the conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.