The first prompt presumes to pick what was important about the book, mandate the form by which the book will be analyzed, and set up a minimum amount of effort before the writer can quit.
The second prompt picks a very general bit of opinion and then demands an open-ended argument requiring original thought. In fact, it's even better if the reader liked the book, because it forces them to write as if they didn't, and opens them to the possibility of a satirical essay.
(Note that I am aware that an average modern student wouldn't like the second prompt any more than the first, but that has to more with the system than the prompt. I'm speaking about the pure act of teaching an interesting writer to write well.)
Critical thinking requires both the desire and ability to think outside of frameworks that were predetermined by authority. This is part of the reason that modern schools are so bad at "teaching critical thinking skills". The most basic form of critical thinking, in fact the first openly critical thought that students have about learning--"this is a waste of my time"--is suppressed for the convenience of the administration.
> Maybe the solution is more fluid classes, let people move at their own pace, pick their own areas of interests, even if that's directly going to a trade, etc.
I could not agree with this more. I believe that 'school' should be life-long, year-round, and optional. Ideally we'd go in and out of some type of formal education until we died. However, this level of societal flexibility is directly incompatible with modern school.
The first prompt presumes to pick what was important about the book, mandate the form by which the book will be analyzed, and set up a minimum amount of effort before the writer can quit.
The second prompt picks a very general bit of opinion and then demands an open-ended argument requiring original thought. In fact, it's even better if the reader liked the book, because it forces them to write as if they didn't, and opens them to the possibility of a satirical essay.
(Note that I am aware that an average modern student wouldn't like the second prompt any more than the first, but that has to more with the system than the prompt. I'm speaking about the pure act of teaching an interesting writer to write well.)
Critical thinking requires both the desire and ability to think outside of frameworks that were predetermined by authority. This is part of the reason that modern schools are so bad at "teaching critical thinking skills". The most basic form of critical thinking, in fact the first openly critical thought that students have about learning--"this is a waste of my time"--is suppressed for the convenience of the administration.
> Maybe the solution is more fluid classes, let people move at their own pace, pick their own areas of interests, even if that's directly going to a trade, etc.
I could not agree with this more. I believe that 'school' should be life-long, year-round, and optional. Ideally we'd go in and out of some type of formal education until we died. However, this level of societal flexibility is directly incompatible with modern school.