First, the instrument used in this study is no mystery. Take a look at the CLA and you'll see that they set the bar for critical thinking really fucking low.
Basically, if you can take a set of documents, make plausible inferences from them, and write them up in prose that an audience can understand, you're a bona fide critical fucking thinker.
That is an incredibly high bar. I have had many, really many, quite brilliant students who could not possibly score high on a test which set this criteria.
There is NO connection, NO connection whatever, between the ability to think and think clearly and pwerfull
That is an incredibly high bar. I have had many, really many, quite brilliant students who could not possibly score high on a test which set this criteria.
There is NO connection, NO connection whatever, between the ability to think and think clearly and powerfully and express those thoughts orally in fluent English on the one hand and the ability to write or read on the other hand. An estimation of public intelligence on the basis of writing and/or reading exhibits a real ignorance about the nature of human intelligence. I had a student who could not write a complete sentence; in three semesters he never handed me in a paper that was not written in fragments and utterly incoherent to boot. But he read Rabbit, Run, and sat in I had a student who could not write a complete sentence; in three semesters he never handed me in a paper that was not written in fragments and utterly incoherent to boot. But he read Rabbit, Run, and sat in my office and delivered a truly excellent critique of that novel. There is, that is, no necessary connection between the ability to read _very well_ and to _express_ one's understanding very well and the ability to write anything at all.
That test is utterly meaningless in reference to anything but the ability to take written or multiple choice tests.
Carrol