There has been considerable debate recently on how the academy is responding from the prevailing neo-liberal, new managerialist ideology that is shaping the discourse within which the outcomes of university education are increasingly being measured. The trajectory described by Apple (2006) as a process of conservative modernisation instead of reuniting higher education with the emancipatory potential of higher education has exacerbated the unequal hegemonic social relations. Attempts to be more explicit about the purpose of higher education has often resulted in the economic imperative being prioritized above on beyond the boarder social remit of the university. The increasing participation rates in higher education have changed the profile of the higher education student; increasingly this diversity in the student body has created imperatives for teaching and learning in universities. Instead of responding to this in a proactive, developmental  way through a critical examination of the practice of teaching and learning in the academy,  there are some who seek to locate the cause of what is described as a falling standards among university graduates with widening participation and the inclusion of nontraditional students (see Leathwood and O Connell 2003). This paper focuses on critical thinking as both a core outcome of a university education and one the key mystification practices of the academy (Broadfoot 2000). A key issue here is the manner in which critical thinking functions as part of the cultural capital of dominant groups and part of the implicit arsenal of resource that specific social groups of students bring to university.  Central to this argument is the idea that critical thinking is most often recognised when present rather than a competence or skill that is specifically taught (Stables 2003; Hughes and Barrie 2010). As a result of this Critical thinking becomes part of what is expected of university students as a matter of course but not explicitly taught.

Barrie S. (2006) Understanding what we mane by the generic attributes if graduates. Higher Education 51 pp 215-241 Barrie S. (2007) A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes. Studies in Higher Education 32(4) pp 439-458. Barnett R. (1997) Higher Education: A critical business. Open University Press, Buckingham. Davies W. M. (2006) An ‘infusion approach to critical thinking; Moore on the critical thinking debate. Higher Education Research and Development 25(2) pp 179-193. Jones A. ( 2007) Multiplicities or manna from heaven? Critical thinking and the disciplinary context, Australian Journal of Education Vol. 51, No. 1, 84–103. Jones A. (2007) Looking over our shoulders: Critical thinking and ontological insecurity in higher education, London Review of Education. Jones A. (2009) Generic attribute as espoused theory: the importance of context. Higher Education 58 p175-191. Maton K. (2009) Cumulative and segmented learning: exploring the role of curriculum structures in knowledge-building in British Journal of Sociology of Education 30(1) pp 43–57 Pithers R.T & Soden R (2000) Critical thinking in education: a review. Educational Research (42)3 Pitman T. & Broomhall S. (2000) Australian universities, generic skills and lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 28(4) pp 439-458.