How to write and think- what Universities and higher education demand today

for many students who are busy cramming for GCES or A levels or to get into one of the elite universities, IB for

example. Um you sort of try try trying

example. Um you sort of try try trying to get together all these uh theory of knowledge things.

The the old method was to collect information to collect facts and I think increasingly that is not working.

And there is particularly in in the age of AI and chat GPT uh I can't remember how Boris Johnson says it but it's so much more

entertaining than the way I said it there there's this quite revolution taking place in education. It's not

about subjects. It's not about grades.

It's about something far more fundamental. It's about how we think and

fundamental. It's about how we think and how we express that thinking. And the

moment you get it, then you've got it.

And it and it it informs every form of presentation. For years, students were

presentation. For years, students were trained to produce answers, polished essays, memorized arguments, perfect conclusions. But that model is now

conclusions. But that model is now breaking down because frankly you can put the information into chat GPT or I I

think there are other is Claude another one. I I there are other uh uh programs

one. I I there are other uh uh programs like this uh and and and and you will get some sort of response and uh I I I'm still teaching and I'm teaching at

almost every level and it is fascinating to see the same sort of answers turning up where the children are 11 years old or 18 or seven and you think yeah not

all of these things have been produced by the individuals I'm looking at. There

there is a there is a hidden hand uh or hidden tool that is being accessed. And

so how do you as a teacher how do you get around that? You get round it by trying to trying to grab on to the process of

thought. You get round that by

thought. You get round that by challenging the student in the middle of an essay or in the middle of a presentation and saying, "What do you think about this?" and just reversing flipping it. And they can't they often

flipping it. And they can't they often can't do that. And that of course is one of the keys.

Uh so knowledge no longer not knowledge is still important but it no longer matters as much. Knowledge is

simply a tool for processing this method because knowledge without method is empty. A student who cannot explain

empty. A student who cannot explain their reasoning doesn't understand their own conclusion.

And so the rules are changing in essays, in exams, in interviews, especially in places like the University of Oxford or Cambridge.

The focus has shifted. Not what do you know, but how do you think, not what answer can you give, but how do you arrive at that answer? And that's a

central principle. Thinking must become

central principle. Thinking must become visible. So in mathematics, we call it

visible. So in mathematics, we call it showing your workings. In the

humanities, we often pretend the rule disappears. It doesn't. It's now bubbled

disappears. It doesn't. It's now bubbled right to the surface. That is what you are expected to be providing. And it

simply it it it's changed form in English, in law, in theology, in history. You are still being marked on

history. You are still being marked on your workings. Only now those workings

your workings. Only now those workings take the form of reasoning, structure, and judgment analysis. So let me let me

let let me give you a little tririccolon uh that runs through everything I say.

First order your thinking. Second test

your thinking and third show your thinking. Order test and show. That is

thinking. Order test and show. That is

the method. And if you start for example with my with with with my subject which is theology. Theology is at its best um

is theology. Theology is at its best um uh it it has never been about repeating doctrine. And it's always been about

doctrine. And it's always been about reasoning under authority. Think of

Thomas Aquinus. His great work, The Suma, doesn't present conclusions first.

It begins with objections. Its stage is an argument. It sets out competing

an argument. It sets out competing views, refineses them, and only then arrives at a position. The structure

itself teaches the mind how to think.

And we we we could well do with taking Aquinas as an example or Augustine of Hippo in his confessions. He doesn't

present a finished system. He wrestles.

He questions. He revises. His theology

is not a static answer. It's a process of intellectual and spiritual movement.

Um and and that is the lesson. Theology

rewards a student who can hold tension, faith and reason, authority and conscience, scripture and interpretation,

uh orthodoxy and uh heresy. A a weak essay lists

uh heresy. A a weak essay lists doctrines. A strong essay shows the

doctrines. A strong essay shows the struggle between them and explains why one line of reasoning carries more weight than another. Now turning to law.

Law is perhaps a clearest example of this principle. A barristister who walks

this principle. A barristister who walks into a court with a conclusion but no reasoning will lose. The entire legal system rests on structured argument as

well as memory. Um so uh for for example take take take interesting cases like for example does a manufacturer does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to

someone they've never met the answer would not be obvious what matters is the reasoning uh there was a fellow called Lord Lord Atkin developed the neighbor principle step by step who is my

neighbor who is affected by my actions where should responsibility lie the power of the case is not the conclusion it's the method The law student who writes the court

held this misses the point. The law

student who explains how the judges move from principle to application shows the real reasoning or or consider um the uh

the Brown case consent versus harm, freedom versus protection. The judges

disagree, the case is still debated.

Why? Because the reasoning exposes a clash of values. A good answer doesn't pretend there is a simple solution. It

weighs competing principles and explains why one prevails or why the tension remains unresolved. And with the passage

remains unresolved. And with the passage of time, maybe what what worked then will not work now. And that is what examiners reward. Not certainty but

examiners reward. Not certainty but structured judgment and analysis. If if

you come to history, history is often taught or used to be taught certainly when I was little, it used to be taught as chronology, dates, events, sequences.

Dates are still important. They're

wonderful way of anchoring an idea, of anchoring a moment. But no serious historian is interested in a timeline alone. They're interested in the

alone. They're interested in the interpretation of events and what motivates people. Take the English Civil

motivates people. Take the English Civil War. A weak essay tells the story.

War. A weak essay tells the story.

Charles the first parliament war execution. A stronger essay asks the

execution. A stronger essay asks the harder question. Was the conflict driven

harder question. Was the conflict driven by religion, by finance, by political theory? Now the student must think. They

theory? Now the student must think. They

must order their material into themes.

This is religion. This is economics.

This is ideology. And they must test each explanation. Does the evidence

each explanation. Does the evidence support it? Where does it fail? They

support it? Where does it fail? They

must show their reasoning as they weigh one against the other. and chronology is less important than

the themes and the analysis. Or take the glorious revolution. Was it a revolution

glorious revolution. Was it a revolution or a conservative settlement? Again, the

mark doesn't come from the label. It

comes from the argument. The student who evaluates competing interpretations rather than reciting events demonstrates control.

the the the the the student who can write a write an essay recommending Brexit or recommending that Brexit is bad is going to get a who can write two

competing essays from the same material is going to get a really high high grade. Unfortunately, the student who

grade. Unfortunately, the student who did that in the past then became prime minister.

Um now it's the same principle again order test and show and that takes us to the deeper issue.

Why does this matter so much now?

Because of cognitive offloading I think that's the term. When a student uses a tool to produce an answer without engaging in the process something is

lost.

not time, not efficiency, something more serious which is the depth of thought. And research has has shown that when we rely on external

tools or or generate information, we process the information less deeply. We remember

less. We understand less. And the danger is not the students cheat. Who cares if students cheat? The danger is they don't

students cheat? The danger is they don't learn. they don't learn how to do

learn. they don't learn how to do something.

The danger is they stop thinking, they stop processing. So if a student if if a

stop processing. So if a student if if a if if a student at the age of 11 or 12 is relying on chat GPT,

they're not doing that processing and the the synapses are not flashing around. uh a a student

around. uh a a student who submits an essay that they didn't mentally construct has not trained their

mind and they bypass the very activity that education exists to develop.

So, so we need to be clear the essay is not the point. The thinking is the point. I I'm not I'm not suggesting that

point. I I'm not I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't construct a clear essay.

You should. And the best way to construct an essay, I think, is still the five paragraph paradigm.

Paragraph 1, introduction, paragraph 5, conclusion, paragraphs two and three, reassuring the reader that you know what you're talking about. Paragraph four,

your crunch, the major paragraph where you put forward a particular view. Maybe

you're attacking one of the views you've already put forward in paragraphs two or three. Maybe you're advancing an extra

three. Maybe you're advancing an extra view, but that is the decisive bit of information and the decisive opinion that anchors your essay

and then the conclusion follows automatically from that. Um and and so paragraph 4 is the paragraph where your

thinking is made clear.

Doesn't need in a sense to have a very concrete conclusion. it it next week you

concrete conclusion. it it next week you can write another essay which takes exactly the opposite point of view from the same information. If you can do that, if you can practice doing that,

then you are doing the right thing. The

thinking is the point.

And this applies at every level. At

primary school, it begins with explanation. Don't ask a child only for

explanation. Don't ask a child only for the answer. Ask how they know. Ask why

the answer. Ask how they know. Ask why

they choose that method. ask what they considered and rejected. At secondary

school, it becomes about structure.

Teach children, teach students to break a question into parts, to identify themes, to organize paragraphs around arguments, not events. So when you're

looking at Shakespeare, Shakespeare wrote a play in acts and scenes.

A director is looking at the units within those acts which are not necessarily um identified by the by the author but

they are very much the the moment where events occur.

An actor is possibly looking at beats, little little half second uh glimpses into character where

where where the moment changes. It's

about making decisions.

We assume everybody knows how to remember the words, but how to motivate those words, what to do at a much deeper level.

And so so you have to uh and how how do you get to the point where your unit is moving forward? You ask it questions.

moving forward? You ask it questions.

How do we why is the character doing this? And and and you're asking those

this? And and and you're asking those questions all the time. What is the character's arc? It's very Stanislavski.

character's arc? It's very Stanislavski.

I'm sorry. Uh and and the same thing is true of students. You teach students to break a question into parts to identify

themes. If you've got a word how, you

themes. If you've got a word how, you have to be answering that question at the end. Why? You have to answer that

the end. Why? You have to answer that question at the end. Your introduction

and your conclusion should cohhere even to the point where you write them afterwards to organize paragraphs around event around arguments rather than events.

That is something that at secondary school is a major process. But I think it should start really in primary school or at least in the in in those in those

lost years um what is it year nine and your year your year your eight year nine where where you're in many ways just repeating what you did in

primary school. No, those are the years

primary school. No, those are the years where you can learn how to structure an essay instead of spending all your time

writing ghost stories and detective fiction, which are important, but you can learn how to how to record

your ideas because you were always having ideas. At university level, it it

having ideas. At university level, it it moves slightly further and you move into judgment. Students must evaluate. They

judgment. Students must evaluate. They

must weigh competing claims. You do a little bit of this in A level, but so much more in university. They must

defend a position while recognizing its limits.

At interview level, it becomes performance, thinking under pressure, adapting in real time, holding a line of reasoning while responding to challenge.

And the same skill runs through all of it.

I I I actually that that that that thing about about um holding a line of reasoning is exactly what should be happening in the

uh in in prime minister's questions.

It's one reason why I focus on prime minister questions every Wednesday if I possibly can and why I'm so disappointed in chemok

because she doesn't adapt.

And the same skill, the same skill set runs through all of this.

And recognizing that this is what is being examined, this is what is being tested. This is why, for example, the

tested. This is why, for example, the Oxford Cambridge interview process has now gone into a sort of oral interview.

Um because nobody can trust whether these essays were written by you. uh and

nobody can trust that your mind is really processing or have you just been very well trained to remember what chat

GPT wrote for you.

So returning to my tricolon, what is that about? It's about ordering the thinking. It means breaking the

the thinking. It means breaking the question open, identifying key terms. Can you find those key terms to start with? Then can you use them? Can you

with? Then can you use them? Can you

build a structure? Test your thinking.

It means challenging your own argument.

Your argument can always be reconstructed, dismantled, built in a completely different way. introducing

counterarguments, refining your claims, show your thinking.

That means articulating the process as clearly as possible, letting the examiner or the interview see the movement of your mind, how the cogs are working. And if a student can do those

working. And if a student can do those things, they will succeed not only in exams but in interviews and beyond.

Because what universities are selecting for is not knowledge alone. And they can teach you the

alone. And they can teach you the knowledge.

Knowledge changes anyway. Facts become

outdated. Information becomes automated.

What endures is method and the ability to take a problem, impose order, test assumptions and reach a reasoned judgment. And it is method

which underpins the the the training for the future.

Because in the past we might have trained for one particular skill. This

is the job I'm going to do for the rest of my life. Today we have to show adaptability, an ability to adapt to changing demands.

And that is what for example theology trains when done properly.

That's what law demands at every stage.

That's what history reveals when studied seriously.

And that's what education at its best has always been about. So you can say, "Oh, studying theology, Mickey Mouse degree. Why why would anybody want to

degree. Why why would anybody want to want want to study theology? Do you

believe in this?" It's about training the mind. About training the mind. I I I

the mind. About training the mind. I I I remember I had a wonderful tutor at one point in Oxford who said to me uh theology is about holding two irreconcilable

uh truths at the same time.

And I thought that was a wonderful description uh contradictory truths at the same time. So um we're back to the six seven which um which which is such a

wonderful idea um introduced into primary school and primary school children think this is funny actually this is the basis of all intellectual

pursuit and that is what 67 that is what education at its best has always been about. So the next time a student sits

about. So the next time a student sits down to write an essay or walks into an interview, they shouldn't ask what is

the right answer. They should ask something far more powerful. They should

ask how do I know or how do I show them what I am thinking or how I am thinking because in the end that ability to show the process of thought is what will earn

the mark. That is what will win the

the mark. That is what will win the place. That is what will build the mind

place. That is what will build the mind worth having. That is what will set the

worth having. That is what will set the reputation. That is what will get the

reputation. That is what will get the applause. That is what will make one

applause. That is what will make one look like a serious contender in the house of parliament. Um and the absence of that will simply make you look like a

twit.

And the training now in the past we would have said the training started in university. The training now starts now

university. The training now starts now in primary school. The training is expected now and we need to change the way we do education. We need to we we we

we need to we we've been doing this with mathematics for a very long time. We now

need to be doing it with English and with history and with geography and and and religious studies or PhSE or

whatever what whatever acronym it's got at the moment. And it's about it's about

inviting the examiner into your mind.