Universal Intellectual Standards

Universal Intellectual Standards
by Linda Elder and Richard Paul

Universal intellectual standards are standards which must be applied to thinking
whenever one is interested in checking the quality of reasoning about a problem, issue,
or situation. To think critically entails having command of these standards. To help
students learn them, teachers should pose questions which probe student thinking;
questions which hold students accountable for their thinking; questions which, through
consistent use by the teacher in the classroom, become internalized by students as
questions they need to ask themselves.
The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in the thinking of
students, forming part of their inner voice, which then guides them to better and better
reasoning. While there are many universal standards, the following are some of the
most essential:
CLARITY: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in
another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example?
Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether
it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet
know what it is saying. For example, the question, "What can be done about the
education system in America?" is unclear. In order to address the question adequately,
we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question
is considering the "problem" to be. A clearer question might be "What can educators do
to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function
successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?"

ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if
that is true? A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300
pounds in weight."
PRECISION: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific?
A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight."
(We don’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)
RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the
issue?
A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at
issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course
should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the "effort" does not
measure the quality of student learning; and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their
appropriate grade.
DEPTH: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are
you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most
significant factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but
superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement, "Just say No!" which is
often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate,
precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely
complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It
fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.
BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to

look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What
would this look like from the point of view of . . .? A line of reasoning may be clear
accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either
the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only
recognizes the insights of one side of the question.)
LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does
that follow? But before you implied this, and now you are saying that; how can both be
true? When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When
the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination,
the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is
contradictory in some sense or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical.
FAIRNESS: Do I have a vested interest in this issue? Am I sympathetically

representing the viewpoints of others? Human think is often biased in the direction of
the thinker - in what are the perceived interests of the thinker. Humans do not naturally
consider the rights and needs of others on the same plane with their own rights and
needs. We therefore must actively work to make sure we are applying the intellectual
standard of fairness to our thinking. Since we naturally see ourselves as fair even
when we are unfair, this can be very difficult. A commitment to fairmindedness is a
starting place.
For a deeper understanding of intellectual standards and their relationship with critical
thinking, see the Thinker's Guide to Intellectual Standards.
(Paul, R. and Elder, L. (October 2010). Foundation For Critical Thinking, online at website:
www.criticalthinking.org)

Universal Intellectual Standards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universal Intellectual Standards

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universal Intellectual Standards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universal Intellectual Standards

by Linda Elder and Richard Paul

BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to

FAIRNESS: Do I have a vested interest in this issue? Am I sympathetically

You might also like