Oh, I phrased that ambiguously-- this textbook is well-written, and is tearing Planning apart as a discipline. It is successfully convincing me (and I already largely thought this) that Planning does a pretty bad job of the things it wants to do. There was a long chapter on the theory of planning that basically concluded "we have still not figured out, on a philosophical level, what planners should do and how they should do it." People do better if they have free reign than if things are planned completely, but not as well as if there were some guidelines, but whatever guidelines you make are going to distort things and only create new problems. The problem of planning is that different people want different things, and you kind of have to pick who gets what they want. If you try to avoid picking, the default is "poor and possibly also middle-class people lose."
Also, planners don't actually have that much power to decide things, and mostly implement politicians' decisions. I had thought about these problems before, but reading hundreds of pages about it was discouraging even if it was interesting.
But yeah, we did that a lot when I was a cognitive science major-- read papers and talk about what was wrong with them. It is definitely a great way to learn.