Hello everyone,
After reading Book 1 of The Big Test, I hope I am understanding the book. My interpretation seems to be that Chauncey came from a rather poor family. He grew up wanting to serve the public. He went on to create a testing system that he hoped would help plot the course of everyones life. Chauncy wanted to help the public but book 1 leads me to believe that the public often had a hard time with this "theory" and they spent a lot of time defending themselves to the public realm. I completely understand the public upsetting over the high scores on tests because it appeared to be the only way to get an education at its "best." --Very dishearting to me because I struggle with the test taking process. My thoughts seem to go back and forth with the turn of each page. I am very anxious to read Book 2 -The Master Plan. I would love to hear some of your comments on the book.

I have been reading the book and trying to decipher the main points. I found it interesting that so many people worked on the testing process. The test changed hands many times in the creation process. Also it was interesting how there were so many formats for this test. They used the army as a tool to 'test' the test and with each change of history there was a change to the test. Including the parts of test and who it was given to.

History facinates me, so the very subtle yet significant ways the SAT (and other tests) developed seemed unbelievable. I find it so difficult for a small group of people who hold such influence as the College Board did was able to completely transform the way a nation functioned. We take it for granted that testing is part of life. In elementary school, we took the Iowa tests every year for an entire week in April. In high school, I took both the SAT and ACT for college. To get in the college of ed, ETS required us to take and pass the Praxis tests, as well as when we completed our schooling. And now, our kids are required to take the EOGs to demonstrate proficiency.

I agree that testing does help hold us accountable, but I just cannot fathom that such an idea took hold and completely changed the functioning of our education system over the past 70 or so years.

I deal with the IQ tests "tracking" kids all of the time into certain segments. Getting kids to qualify for the EC program requires looking at their abilities (IQ) verses achievement (academic testing scores). This process is a blessing and a curse--kids who do need help and fall in that "borderline" range don't qualify for services, so they struggle and we essentially have to say, "Oh, well. That's how it is." While it does help us educators determine how best to deal with kids, it isn't fair for those who need the additional help to have to suffer by the sidelines.

I had no idea until I read this book, The Big Test, that testing in our country developed over a long period of time. The SAT, I realize has been in place to test how well people desiring to go to college would do once they are there, IF they do well enough on the SAT to get there. I never even dreamed that testing in this form was originated to "weed out" the ones that did not perform well on the test, and allow those that did score high to be educated so as to take a prominent place in society, as well as, in the government and job market.

I know testing does have it's place, but I still do not believe that it should be the main or only way to "rank" a person in society. I have seen it too many times...persons that did not score very high on the SAT (or other aptitude tests) who are responsible, contributing citizens, employees, and hold high ranking positions in society.

Elizabeth,
I agree with your comment about people not scoring very high on the SAT and yet they are still able to socially and academically make it in society. In high school when I took the SAT it made me so nervous that I did not perform well on the test. My education would have ceased to exist after high school if I'd lived several decades ago.

I haven't really enjoyed this book very much. I definitely disagree in the purpose Chauncey had for the SAT. In high school, I had no desire to go on to college-therefore I didn't take the SAT. After a few years of working I decided to go back to school. I first enrolled in a community college, where I didn't need the SAT and from there I went on to a four year school. I would hate to think after I have received a Bachelor's and Master's degree in nursing and a licensure in Elementary education and working on my Master's that I, evidently, am not intelligent enough to go to college because I didn't take the SAT to show that I qualified. And if I would have taken the SAT, I doubt I would have scored very high--but I have been very successful in college.

Mimi. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I did take the SAT in high school because I did want to go to college. I knew that I wanted to become an elementary school teacher. I scored probably an average score on the SAT. I remembered that it terrified me to take it! I, also, was determined to do well in college, and I did do well, because I was motivated and determined to graduate with my BA degree. My SAT scores did not, in any way, affect my abiltiy to do well in college. I think it is very sad to place so much merit on SAT scores when there are a good number of high school students that want to go to college and are highly motivated, but are, like me, afraid of not doing well on the SAT.

I found this book to be very hard to follow. It seemed to jump around in circles. I do agree that testing should not be the only factor that is looked at when determining successful adult contributions to society.