I have been scraping away chapter by chapter of the book The Big Test. So far I do not see how (if not told) the first chapter is about the SAT being 'thought up by parents'. Then the next chapter was it being born. I have found some of the facts about the history of all the testing interesting. Is it just me or do you find the book sort of repeating the same facts over again? I think that it is interesting that someone thought it necessary to push for testing, but they didn't know why society needed it.

Hi Lindsey, I, too, have been reading The Big Test. I am having a hard time keeping all the names together with their particular jobs and their importance in testing. Henry Chauncey was the president of the Educational Testing Service, and seems to me to be the "main" character in the book. I am understanding that the SAT was a test developed to separate those that have the aptitude or ability to perform at a college level and those that don't. Hencefore, developing a "national aristocracy" of people that can become leaders or hold the best and highest paid jobs and positions in society based on the fact that they scored high on the SAT (or other test) and were able to get into college and gain a good education which prepared them for a "high position," and more potential possiblities in life, than someone who was a low test scorer.

I would like to find out what others are understanding from this book.[/u]

I'd really like to know what qualified me into the track in high school I was on. I was in the AP classes but do not remember having taken tests to "classify" me. We have all of our 3rd graders in the spring take an IQ test which helps us determine their needs. I think it is helpful, but I feel badly for those who do not test well--not testing well, I feel, invalidates the scores. I felt complete and utter shock when the military toyed with the notion of only allowing those with lower IQs to fight for our country. Had that played out, there would have been a loss for all. It was as though those with lower IQs were thought to have less to live for and less to lose--so untrue.

I didn't pay attention to the names--I got too overloaded with information that way. I focused on the facts and enjoyed learning how our current system came to be.

Lisa, it is probably the best thing to do to not pay attention to the names. At the beginning I was so focused on figuring out who did what when I wasn't focused on the book. It is interesting all of the different people who helped to create this test that has shaped our society and schools.

I agree with you all--reading for the facts is more important than trying to keep up with the names. It was very scary to me to read thatthose with low iq would be the ones to fight. Not all talents can be tested, you know, and that idea would have devalued everything but intelligence. Later on in the book though, I found this quote interesting, "Sometimes I lie awake nights wondering about whether we've been kidding ourselves into taking a lot of brainy kids who are too egocentric ever to contribute much to society....." p. 147 Art Howe He continues that these candidates have also just read the "hw-to-get-into-college books, listened to their counselors, and learned to take tests and give the right answers to interviewers..." He provides a very interesting prospectiveand a nice discussion question. Do you all agree or disagree?

I've enjoyed finding out what the ACT was actually all about. I knew it existed but didn't really know what it was.

I took the SAT for college...then the college I applied to required the ACT, so I had to take that, too. Pretty much the same sort of thing, if I remember correctly. I know that I was irritated b/c I wanted to take an algebra course (because I like algebra) and was told no by my advisor because my ACT math score was 7 points too high. (Oh, and the scores weren't in the thousands like the SAT.)

I was also bothered about the Military thinking about having persons with lower IQs fight for our country. Everyone might not be test smart but everyone can be a contributing member of society. No life is expendable no matter how low the IQ. When there are high expectations for all and a good education everyone can suceed in some way. That is one of the reasons I like the idea of GI Bill for those who have served our country, they certainly deserve it. The tickets home, low mortgages, and a college education. Because too many vetrans were using the GI Bill to educate themselves Conant & Chauncey were against it. This was not what they wanted, the common man attending universities. They wanted only the very intellegent and elite section of society to attend universities. If only they were the only ones admiitted to universities it would be a hudge injustice. Our country would miss out on so much that our lower scoring SAT or IQ test takers could offer. I am not oppossed to testing. However, I feel they should not be used to weed out people with lower scores from futhering themselves.

I agree with anyone being able to attend Universites to further themselves even if there IQ or testing abilities say otherwise. I started reading A Hope In the Unseen and Cedric did not get a great SAT score, but he certainly is very intelligent. He wouldn't have been able to attend Brown if they based it solely on test scores.

Also speaking of the test scores and military. I had a friend who wanted to be a Marine his whole life and worked hard, but didn't do well enough on his tests. So he had to rethink his life choices.