Technical courses steeped in analytical problem solving offer little room for opposing views. If you question the validity of a conclusion, you need only use mathematics to see how the conclusion was derived and to verify that it is in fact correct.

Alternately, soft sciences, collectively known at this university as ‘perspectives on the human condition’, sometimes encourage debate. But even though the phrase “there is no right or wrong answer” pervades these classes, there is material presented that students are expected to accept. However, unlike concepts built on the robust language of math, this material is a flexible agglomeration of ideas. Since the material’s truth can be so much harder to logistically defend, students are prone to take its validity for granted on blind faith alone.

Further, disagreeing with some of the material might not only be frowned upon, but articulating the merit of your disagreement is as difficult as it is for the prof to defend the material’s validity, similarly due to the absence of mathematical reasoning.

The punchline to all this is an assault on the seldom-spoken-of assumption that someone who received a good course grade agreed with all the material presented. The reality is that the student may have suppressed their reservations about what was being taught and completed the coursework in a manner that they knew would give them good marks.