Or
The criteria for the study is/was weighted and flawed to begin with.
Questions about:
1......at the time of and during the developing stages into the existing structures manifest in todays institutions it is/would be natural to meet the the demands for whatever standards required. i.e.. math skills ( 50 yrs. ago I could play with calc. Don't even ask me to do a simple algebraic equation off the top of my head now)*
Word lists; really? When last the last time you've used a various non related word list for anything in the last 50 yrs.?
Point being; the first criteria are definitions of 'products' fresh in mind for what was NEEDED to maintain and get through at say 25 yrs. of age. Where as 50 yrs. down the road how much of those pointed skills were called upon or were needed through out that 50 yr time span?
2......the third category is/was highly subjective all around. How'd they put it? higher-level skills...........say what!!!!!!!
What does that even mean? At 75 yrs. I'll put my life long learned higher-level skills against any 25 yrs old today no matter how many math formulas or how many unrelated words they can remember for the short term. So what is and who defines these higher-level skills?
And thats the fundamental flaw in the 'study' from beginning to the end.
It is the WHO that's trying to define what is important and what is not important for a desired end result that is the much larger far ranging question the initial study charitably was trying to address. What skills are being stressed? And how are they important? i.e.. how do they relate? How many of those skills do you use everyday to build on and hone? How much calc, trig, geometry or algebra do you use on any given day? Square roots anyone? Or how about the first five digits of PI?.............what is fundamental? It depends. If balancing the difference between when a payroll check is deposited and when those monies are available then the first five digits of PI are probably are not really that important to you.................and you'll forget them.
Like wise with word lists which are even more useless in life. How are they important?
Finally; a link to the original study/s would be the minimum for any substantive conversation into any field involving the intersection of the neurosciences and sociology. Instead of taking at face value that this action simplely leads to that when coming at it from another direction works just as well how does it be relevant?