At Williams College, Joe Cruz, chair of the philosophy department and the cognitive science program, challenges the widely held academic conviction that writing is the principal means through which college students develop critical thinking skills. Cruz argues that the emphasis on writing as the highest form of intellectual cultivation may be based on limited evidence and that other modes of engagement, particularly oral dialogue, deserve greater consideration in higher education.

The prevailing belief that writing fundamentally shapes how students learn to think has driven universities to adopt stringent measures against the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in student work. Institutions have implemented proctored essay exams, internet-restricted testing environments, and software to track edits in written assignments in efforts to ensure the authenticity of student writing. Faculty often view mistakes in essays as indicators of genuine student authorship, reflecting concerns over AI’s potential to bypass traditional writing assessments.

Cruz, however, questions whether writing truly cultivates thinking better than other methods. He traces this assumption to the writing-across-the-curriculum movement of the 1970s and the hypothesis proposed by educator James Britton in 1980, which suggested that the act of writing helps reveal one’s thoughts. Cruz notes this hypothesis has not been definitively proven, citing its largely anecdotal basis and inconclusive study results.

He also references Plato’s "Phaedrus," where Socrates critiques writing for its inability to defend or respond to ideas, proposing that genuine understanding arises from conversational exchange. Drawing from his own teaching experience, Cruz emphasizes the value of spontaneous, interactive seminars over scripted lectures, stating that real-time discussion can lead to deeper understanding and intellectual flexibility.

Last semester, Cruz allowed his students to use AI tools under specific conditions for their essays, supplementing written work with a 45-minute oral exam to evaluate their grasp of the material. He reports that students demonstrated strong conceptual understanding during these discussions, often performing better in oral assessments than in written assignments, and found no evidence that AI had produced substantive portions of the work without student input.

Cruz advocates for a reimagined university education model that integrates active participation through debate, oral defense, and group discussion as critical components of analytical thought, rather than relying predominantly on written assignments. He acknowledges logistical challenges but suggests that this approach could promote clearer thinking, better disagreement resolution skills, and strengthen collective intellectual engagement.

While Cruz affirms the enduring importance of writing as a tool for summarizing and preserving knowledge, he argues universities often conflate the functions of archiving and thinking. He proposes that increasing emphasis on oral communication and interactive learning could enrich student understanding and reduce isolation in academic environments, potentially redefining how critical thought is cultivated in higher education.