Meh. Critical thinking skills, yes. The vast majority of the rest of philosophy, no. We don't want to reach peak Kierkegaard.
I'm not a big fan of him but I find his view about politics pretty interesting and actual (from an online translator):
Two powers govern the crowds: jealousy and stupidity. Those who govern know how easy it is to win the flock to his views.
In politics, the public is at stake and no matter to have the truth with him. What counts is winning ground. It flatters the lowest desires.
The majority rules as if truth was a matter of numbers. For Kierkegaard, democracy is a danger because the mass does not try to understand, has no ideal and follows one that flatters most.
Against Hegel, he does not believe that moral virtue can be found only in the state. The individual is, however, constantly under threat. The crowd is lying when the individual is the awakening of the spirit.
This is obviously true in law and politics, and certainly other professions like engineering. But what surprises people is that it's also true within academia - if you don't conform, you don't get tenure.
The people who are successful often come from higher income households where children are made to attend numerous extra-curricular activities so as to give them an early exposure to "gaming" the political structure of a hierarchical organisation.
Two days ago at a welfare office, I said to a 21yo guy: "Take your free time and read! Learn new things!" and he asked me why...
So many lifes wasted just because you have to only be efficient in a broken system.
(I was at that office because of my too much critical thinking label)
Criticizing and critical thinking isn't the same thing.