That philosophy is (usually) in the humanities does not rescue most people in the humanities.

There are some standards even in the humanities (fairly high in history and journalism, fairly low in communications and pick-your-favorite-group studies), of course, but you can get a very long way by being charming, witty, erudite, friends with the right people, and so on, without being correct (inasmuch as there is an objective standard by which to judge being correct). This does not reinforce critical thinking skills, but rather social skills.

The most widespread flaw in critical thinking that I observe, which is especially acute among those with a humanities background, is excess affinity for narrative over data. An "anecdote" is now not merely a "case study" but "lived experience". "Opinion" is now "sharing my truth". I imagine this drives philosophers even more up the wall than it does STEM types, but this stuff isn't coming from the sciences....

Obviously, the content of my reply is itself subjective, so one should take it with a healthy dose of skepticism. I wasn't able to find any study that seemed to address the point. But, anyway, it seems that my perspective differs from yours, and I have a suspicion that this is due to a selection effect: the humanities people who take philosophy from you are already interested in philosophy, whereas the STEM/business people who do are just trying to get their requirements done and picked something that seemed more "crunchy" where maybe their existing skills would be of more use.