Teach Judgment, Not Critical Thinking
Most modern learning priorities emphasize critical thinking, communication, creativity, adaptability, and the other durable or “soft skills” that to me seem more difficult than the “hard” ones. Business leaders want them, and educators promise to deliver them. And people often agree that AI demands workers with stronger durable skills.
Except we don’t really know what those skills are. There's a massive gulf between recognizing the need for these skills and knowing how to develop them. Schools can't teach what they can't define, and they can't assess what they can't measure.
Nowhere is that more obvious than with critical thinking, a giant junk drawer of cognitive parts. Ask any teacher or administrator what it actually means, and you'll get hand-waving about "analyzing information" and "thinking deeply." The terminology is inappropriate if we can’t tie it clearly to ends and means.
What we’re really talking about I think is judgment skill. Maybe the word “judgment” has taken on too many negative connotations. But framing it as judgment, whether intuitive or deliberative, means being able to point clearly to meta-knowledge, learning experiences, and outcomes that most fields understand. It gives the compass a true north.
People often make bad judgments. If AI makes them better, then there’s much more risk it will displace people.
The Critical Thinking Mirage
Walk into most classrooms where "critical thinking" instruction is claimed, and you'll see students learning to identify different types of evidence or perhaps discussing current events. The assumption seems to be that exposure to analytical thinking will somehow create analytical thinkers. But this is like assuming that watching cooking shows will make someone a chef.
The issue is that critical thinking has become an umbrella term for dozens of different cognitive processes—analysis, inference, evaluation, reflection—that vary dramatically depending on context and domain. A medical diagnosis requires different thinking than a business strategy or an artistic interpretation. Yet education usually treats critical thinking as a monolithic capability that transfers seamlessly across all situations, despite many education researchers telling them otherwise.
This isn't just conceptually muddled—it's practically useless. How do you design curriculum around something you can't define? How do you measure progress toward a goal you can't articulate? The honest answer is that mostly, schools don't. They teach isolated analytical skills, hope for the best, and wonder why students can ace standardized assessments but still make terrible decisions.
Meanwhile, AI systems are already outperforming humans at many tasks traditionally associated with critical thinking. They can spot patterns in data, identify logical inconsistencies, and process vast amounts of information without fatigue. If schools continue focusing on these analytical capabilities, they're essentially training students to compete with machines—a competition humans will lose.
The Target Should be Judgment
The skills that remain distinctively human aren't analytical—they're judgmental. What students really need is the ability to make sound decisions, form reliable beliefs, and take appropriate action in complex, uncertain situations.
Unlike the nebulous concept of critical thinking, judgment has several advantages as an educational target. First, it's inherently contextual. Good judgment in a medical emergency looks different from good judgment in a business negotiation or a classroom discussion. This context dependence forces educators to be specific about what kinds of judgment they're trying to develop and in what domains.
Second, judgment encompasses both deliberate analysis and rapid intuition. Experienced professionals often make excellent snap judgments that would be impossible to replicate through step-by-step logical analysis. A seasoned teacher can sense classroom dynamics shifting before conscious thought kicks in. An experienced coach reads the game at a level that transcends rule-following. This tacit knowledge is crucial but gets marginalized when education focuses narrowly on explicit reasoning.
Third, judgment includes values and goals, not just logic. Real decisions involve trade-offs, competing priorities, and value judgments that can't be resolved through pure analysis. Should a doctor prioritize patient quality of life or duration of it? Should a business leader choose short-term profits or long-term sustainability? These aren't logic problems—they're judgment calls that require wisdom, experience, and an understanding of consequences.
Most importantly, judgment can be improved through practice, feedback, and reflection—but only if education creates the right kinds of experiences.
Some Fields Already Focus on Judgment
Professional schools have figured out what K-12 education has missed: judgment develops through experience with real problems that have real stakes.
Medical schools don't teach abstract "critical thinking"—they develop clinical judgment through case studies, simulations, and supervised practice. Students work through patient scenarios where they must synthesize incomplete information, consider multiple diagnoses, and make treatment decisions under uncertainty. They see consequences, get feedback, and gradually develop the pattern recognition that enables sound medical judgment.
Law schools follow a similar approach, building legal reasoning through case analysis and mock courts. Students must argue both sides of complex issues, anticipate counterarguments, and adapt their reasoning in real-time. The Socratic method isn't about teaching facts—it's about developing judgment under pressure.
Business schools use case competitions and real-world consulting projects where students must navigate ambiguous situations without clear right answers. They learn to weigh incomplete information, consider multiple stakeholders, and make strategic decisions with incomplete data.
The common thread across these successful approaches is variation and authenticity. Students encounter diverse scenarios within their domain, each requiring slightly different applications of judgment. They practice, receive feedback, reflect on outcomes, and gradually develop what professionals call "having an eye" for their field—whether it's an eye for art, an eye for business, or an eye for teaching.
The AI Acceleration Opportunity
This shift from critical thinking to judgment isn't just pedagogically sound—it's strategically essential. If humans continue demonstrating poor judgment skills, AI systems will eventually replace those functions too.
But there's also unprecedented opportunity here. AI can now generate sophisticated learning environments that provide the varied, authentic experiences that judgment requires. Instead of relying on static case studies, educators can use AI to create dynamic simulations that adapt to student decisions. AI can generate scenarios, provide feedback, and create the iterative experiences that build judgment skills.
A game about managing a city budget can present students with realistic trade-offs between competing priorities. A simulation about climate policy can require balancing economic and environmental concerns. AI can create these experiences at scale and customize them to individual learning needs—something that was impossible with traditional educational methods.
The tools for developing judgment are finally becoming accessible and affordable. The question is whether educational institutions will embrace them or continue pretending that abstract instruction in "critical thinking" prepares students for a world where judgment matters more than analysis.
The path forward requires abandoning comfortable illusions about what education is trying to accomplish. Instead of teaching critical thinking as an abstract capability, schools need to focus on developing judgment skills through experience-rich environments.
This means prioritizing meta-knowledge—not just what to think, but how to think about thinking. Students need to understand when to trust their intuition versus when to slow down and analyze systematically. They need to recognize the domains where their judgment is reliable and where it needs support. They need to develop habits of seeking feedback, updating beliefs when evidence changes, and learning from both successes and failures.
The learning environments that support this development share common features: they present authentic problems with real stakes, provide rapid feedback on decisions, encourage iteration and improvement, and expose students to varied scenarios within specific domains. Case studies, structured debates, simulations, and games all serve this function when designed thoughtfully.
The choice is stark: education can continue teaching the shadow of thinking, or it can start developing the substance of judgment. With AI systems growing more capable every month, the window for making this transition is narrowing fast.
©2025 Dasey Consulting LLC
This is an important conversation every educator needs to be having right now. Thank you for posting your insights here.
As a former law review editor, where our job was to analyze judgments, and as a former reporter, who quizzed innumerable sources on their and others' judgments, and now as a teacher who tries to make the pressure of the Socratic method fun but intense enough to serve as meaningful practice, I appreciate this post. Poor judgment is the mere expression of opinions about others; good judgment combines facts and background knowledge to support actions that benefit everyone.