This article describes a holistic, discourse-based method for assessing the critical thinking skills of undergraduate senior-level finance majors. Rejecting a psychometric assessment approach in which component features of critical thinking are disaggregated, this study is based on a holistic scoring of student memos. Students were asked to recommend and justify a course of action to a lay client facing an ill-structured finance problem. Analysis of student memos reveals critical thinking weaknesses that may be ameliorated by changes in assignments or instructional methods. The memos reveal four kinds of critical thinking problems: (a) failure to address the client's problem, (b) random rather than purposeful application of finance tools and methodologies, (c) inability to translate finance concepts or methods into lay language, and (d) inability to construct rhetorically useful graphics. The curricular implications of this study are discussed. (Contains 3 figures.)