(this is a living comment until the first reply. Sorry.)

I have four major points:

1. You can assess even major-agnostic, general skills in content-specific ways. Such assessments are far less likely to have the negative externalities of more generic tests (e.g. first or last semester "Literature" courses which are basically CLA et al. boosters. These most definitely exist). But even still, I think this is a bad idea and too ripe for abuse.

2. Generic "Critical Thinking" is often not all it's cracked up to be, and some experts claim it is not statistically correlated with the sort of critical thinking purported to be mastered in science and mathematics courses. (Oh, CLA really likes hedge words. They mean you're smart... I mean... that "you've likely acquired transferable critical thinking skills" [1].)

3. Higher Ed shouldn't be responsible for filling in gaps in High School and even Elementary education. Also, grammar!? I rest my case!

4. The CLA is computer-graded (no, really, it is [1]).

--

1. A Problem with Generic Critical Thinking

Generic "critical thinking" is often nothing more than "the right kind of sophistry". The author of [1] agrees with this sentiment w.r.t the CLA (although, it should be stated, not in general. See the source; what follows are my own opinions, not those of the author of [1]).

In addition to pointing out that any answer along the lines of "IDK" is treated as sufficient, he also notes that the model answers provided for the CLA are full of logical fallacies.

But the author of [1] really hits the nail on the head in this paragraph:

This is exactly the kind of instruction and practice students receive in a dedicated critical-thinking or informal logic course. Critical-thinking skills are not statistically significantly enhanced by content-specific courses like introduction to philosophy or chemistry, or by content-independent courses such as symbolic logic.

I argue that the what the CLA measures is not what colleges and universities are or should ever be intended to teach. Instead, it measures a tortured form of "critical thinking" that is somehow not statistically significantly improved even by courses in the hard sciences and mathematics. Not even by courses in formal logic! Only by courses in informal logic. If science and math don't improve "critical thinking", I'm not sure what "critical thinking" is supposed to mean. Except, of course, the right kind of sophistry+.

Ergo, it's likely that if performance on the CLA significantly improves, it will be because colleges and universities are teaching to the test in the guise of "Critical Thinking and Informal Logic" (although I'm sure universities will have better names for their mandatory freshman CLA courses).

I'm very concerned that the true humanities -- one place where actual critical thinking is taught -- will be gutted in order to cover the costs of such instruction (I already know of one instance where this has happened).

2. Higher Education Should Assume the Basics

As for grammar and mechanics, things are even simpler. Colleges and universities are absolutely not responsible for those sorts of basic skills.

[1] http://www.assessmentupdate.com/sample-articles/a-fatal-flaw...

+ My use of the word sophistry is definitely intentional. It's worth noting that the sort of persuasion rooted in a combination of informal logic and careful rhetoric ("always use hedge words" is a modern equivalent) is exactly the sort of thing that the Sophists were known for!

Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of assessment-driven education. I just don't think it's right for institution-level assessment at the higher education level. Not unless it's content-specific.