David Bodovski

November 3, 2017

RCL 137

Rosenberg

SATTACA

The formation and later criticism of standardized tests as a metric of intelligence and aptitude

In 1997, a science fiction film called Gattaca was released. The movie was, by all

accounts, a flop in its time, earning barely a third of its budget back at the box office. Since then,

Gattaca gained notoriety for its unique premise, and has become a staple in high school biology

classrooms across the country. Its plot was centered around the concept of personal DNA

sequences becoming readily available for anyone to view. The idea was intriguing, both as a

simple sci-fi premise, and given its predictions in technological improvements that occurred after

the movie’s release. But at its core, Gattaca was about more than just genetic code. The film

offered a more fundamentally chilling premise: the idea that a person could be defined by a

simple set of data. That that data could be used to define you, and to discriminate against you. Of

course, no one wants to be transcribed into a tight little box— it’s dehumanizing. We all want to

believe that we’re special in some way, and being described by a number (or numbers) takes that

away.

On the other hand, classifications are often necessary. It’s much easier to take a simple

set of data than a list of vague, qualitative features, and so we often use them for efficiency’s

sake. And, in situations where sorting and classifying a large number of people is necessary,

simple numbers often represent the easiest go-tos. For these reasons, many researchers have
attempted to quantify the abstract quality of “intelligence” for years, with institutions jumping at

the first possible chance to make use of them. However, as time went on, our understanding of

intelligence, and social views on how to assess people, have expanded significantly, and using

these “simple numbers” has gradually fallen out of fashion. However, other applications for

intelligence testing (such as those used in the college admissions process) have persisted, albeit

in a lesser capacity. In this way, the development of intelligence testing has reflected broader

trends in social ideologies, as well as pertinent discoveries in fields of social science.

The Intelli-Gents

In classical psychological theory, intelligence in classified under two main categories:

“book smarts,” and “street smarts,” (forgive my use of jargon). In 1905, this all changed. A man

by the name of Alfred Binet, decided to make a test quantifying intelligence. Binet, along with

colleague Theodore Simon, released a study in 1905, which compiled various established tests

for intelligence with some new ones that they came up with (Boake 385). In Binet’s view, none

of the individual tests mattered too much; rather, “the important information contributed by

intelligence scales was the subject's average performance over various tests” (386). Binet

believed that by compiling an individual’s results on a variety of specific tasks, he could

ascertain their “mental age.” Later revision by psychologist Lewis Terman, modified the test,

replacing the “mental age with the intelligence quotient (IQ),” and, “supplementing the Binet-

Simon test with arithmetic reasoning items.” Following these changes, the new Stanford-Binet

assessment, released in 1916, “quickly became the dominant measure in American intelligence

testing” (388). Further revisions to the Stanford-Binet test added “a point scale format,” and,

“extended scales using similar items and activities” (Becker 2). The latest version of the

Stanford-Binet also seeks to measure eight different abilities, including quantitative reasoning,
visual-spatial processing, and verbal/non-verbal IQ, while the original only measured “general

intelligence” (4).

However, all of the intelligence testing up to that point did have a drawback: namely, the

extreme emphasis placed on verbal skills made the test unsuitable for many candidates. In

intelligence testing done on immigrants arriving at Ellis island, it was discovered that “the task of

mental screening was complicated by the fact that many immigrants spoke no English and had

little or no formal education.” For this reason, “the Ellis Island physicians rejected the Binet-

Simon scale as inappropriate for testing” (Boake 388). In response to such criticisms,

psychologist David Wechsler seeked to create a scale that measured intelligence as “the global

capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his

environment” (qtd. in Cherry 1). Wechsler divided intelligence into two subcategories, the

“verbal,” and “performance” sections, which had already been the standard for some other tests

at the time. His Wechsler-Bellevue scale (the latter name being the psychiatric hospital in which

he worked), featured “fewer verbal subtests (Information, Digit Span, Arithmetic, and

Comprehension) than performance subtests… and does not include any memory tests” (Boake

397). The ability to distinguish between verbal and performance results, rather than having one

score comprehensively denoting intelligence, meant that Wechsler’s tests had more nuance.

Around the same time (after Binet but a little before Wechsler), some other scientists

attempted to quantify intelligence for different uses. In 1926, the College Board, a group of

universities in the North East, commissioned a team led by psychologist Carl Brigham to create a

test predicting the academic success of individuals based on intelligence. This assessment was

known as the SAT, or Scholastic Aptitude Test (“Brief History of the SAT”). Like other

intelligence tests of the time, the SAT had a verbal component which was integral to its overall
result. The 1926 SAT contained “nine subtests: seven with a verbal component… and two with

mathematical content” (Lawrence et al. 1). However, colleges didn’t necessarily see this as a

flaw: after all, most institutions would prefer students with good verbal skills, even if those don’t

necessarily factor into the traditional concept of a general intelligence factor.

Aside from the obvious need to distinguish between verbal and quantitative ability in

intelligence testing (failure to do so results in non-native speakers being classified as lower

intelligence than those that are), some assert that intelligence is broader than just those two

categories. Howard Gardner famously outlined his own theory on the topic in his 1983 book

Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Gardner’s theory redefined intelligence in

a more specific way than Wechsler’s view, and he was able to identify nine categories that fit

this definition (“Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences”). While this idea does

provide a more expansive view of the concept than previous schools of thought, it has received

some criticism, namely for Gardner’s failure to provide a way to actually measure the categories

he discussed.

Uses and Abuses

The purpose of Binet’s original research was for use in dealing with Children. The

French government commissioned Binet to determine which students required more assistance in

schools (Cherry 1). While the French government was mainly concerned with their students, the

US had other interests for these assessments. The earliest uses for domestic intelligence testing

was done in the US military. Psychologist Robert Yerkes developed a test, “designed to uncover

recruits with intellectual deficiency, psychopathic tendencies, nervous instability, and inadequate

self-control” (qtd. in Carson 284). These tests were widely used on soldiers during WWI, as a

way to identify suitable army candidates, and measure the mental capacity of officers (286).
 Naturally, college-relevant tests, such as the SAT, and later the ACT, were used to

measure college readiness and candidate quality among applicants. After all, “the SAT was

intended to assess aptitude for learning rather than the received knowledge tested on the College

Boards” (“The History of the SAT”). One important fact to recall is that:

“The development of the IQ test in 1905 would eventually cause the College Board to

rethink its approach to the evaluation of university applicants. World War I-era U.S.

Army experiments with the IQ test led directly to the creation of the SAT” (1).

This means that the same criticisms that can be applied to other IQ testing of the time, can also

be applied to these tests as well (given that they use similar methodology, and have basis in the

same research). And what is this criticism, you may ask?

Critical Mass(es)

For starters, it’s worth noting that the army testing was abandoned pretty much

immediately after World War I. Part of the reason being the nefarious roots of said programs. As

Carson writes:

“it is important to note the invisible hands of American Progressivism and American

eugenics throughout this story. For the army even to have entertained the notion of

adopting "intelligence" as a criterion of evaluation demanded a significant change in the

way in which human beings were conceptualized” (307).

The adoption of army intelligence testing did, in fact, coincide with the rise and fall of certain

movements. “Although social Darwinism was highly influential at the beginning of the 20th

century, it rapidly lost popularity and support after World War I (1914-1918).” (Bannister 1).

The ties of intelligence testing to eugenics-related ideology led to its quick downfall.
 While fascism hasn’t necessarily had a hold in the practice for a while, IQ testing has

come under fire in the modern day for consistent error in outcomes among races. In a meta-

analysis of studies on intelligence testing, it was found that “reviews of the empirical literature in

the area focus on the Black-White differences, and the reviews conclude that the mean difference

in cognitive ability (g) is approximately 1 standard deviation” (Roth et al. 1). The problem of

minorities scoring lower on IQ tests has been evident for decades, but the issue came to a head in

1994, with the infamous release of The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve, a book written by Charles

Murray and Richard Herrnstein, examined the variation in intelligence of the American

populace, as well as its effect on various components of life. The book sparked a large

controversy, with criticism that it implicitly asserts minorities are of a lower innate intelligence.

This criticism persists into today, as Eric Siegel writes in an article published this year:

“The Bell Curve” endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the

book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a

reason… the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful

indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities” (1).

While Murray’s observations of the existence of a black-white achievement gap are legitimate,

there are reasons for its existence. In his book Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from

Myth, Jefferson Fish writes that, “Cultural content, values, and assumptions are an inherent part

of IQ tests. Formal schooling teaches people ways of thinking that are then measured by the

tests” (xii). In this way, innate intelligence is inseparable from education. Any intelligence test

that takes place after a certain age, will necessarily have results influenced by environmental and

developmental factors. In other words, an objective measure of “genetic intelligence” is near-

impossible to formulate, as it’s simply not feasible to fully control for all exogenous factors.
 So where do college assessments fit in? Well, the same discrepancies that are common

for IQ tests in general are found to hold for college test (including the SAT) as well

(Roth et al. 1).

Recall that the original intent of the SAT’s creators was to form a test that would be able to

quantify intelligence, with the theory being that a higher measured score would correspond to

better performance in-university. But if the SAT is similarly unable to account for external

variables, then this use is non-sensical: how can we employ an estimator known to be biased for

purposes of trying to discern natural intelligence? This problem pointed to a fundamental flaw in

SAT testing which administrators had pretty much no choice but to address.

The Stable Label Fable

In response to this argument, the rhetoric of the SAT has changed significantly. The

College Board's own website now reads that its test is “focused on the skills and knowledge at

the heart of education,” measuring, “what you learn in high school,” and, “what you need to

succeed in college” (“Inside the SAT”). The change in language implies that the newest version

of the test does not attempt to measure “natural” intelligence, but rather, skills and knowledge

that are generally helpful for college curricula. This change in language is in line with a

suggestion made by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips in their book, The Black-white

Test Score Gap, in which they write, “testers should be able to rebut most charges of cultural

bias by labelling their products more accurately” (59). The idea of flawed labelling changes the

main point of criticism for tests like the SAT, by reframing the argument altogether. The new

language asserts that the tests are not psychometrically flawed; rather, their validity is simply

limited to measuring a specific skill, and not some greater innate quality.
 Of course, regardless of how you define the SAT’s purpose, the actual scores matter far

more to those individuals taking it. In this respect, the test’s racial bias is harmful to minority

applicants. After all, lower scores mean lower chances for college admissions. This bias presents

itself in two ways: internal problems with the test, and larger, societal flaws. To the former,

certain portions of the SAT have been found to unfairly discriminate against certain races. For

instance, the previous versions of the “writing” portion had a vocabulary section, in which

participants were asked to identify the meaning of relatively obscure words. In an analysis of

questions which exhibited differential item functioning (meaning that they showed different

results between subgroups, in this case races), it was discovered that:

“Some of the easier verbal questions… favored white students. Some of the most difficult

verbal questions... favored black students… easier questions are likely reflected in the

cultural expressions that are used commonly in the dominant (white) society, so white

students have an edge… the more difficult words are more likely to be learned, not just

absorbed” (Jaschik 1).

Recent redesigns of the test have attempted to rectify this issue, but there’s no evidence that the

problem has been completely solved.

To the latter case, studies have found that, “large gaps reflect the inequities in American

society -- since black students are less likely than white students to attend well-financed,

generously-staffed elementary and secondary schools, their scores lag” (1). But even if this fact

removes some of the blame from the test itself, it doesn’t really help solve the larger issue. If

minority candidates are being adversely affected by environmental factors which limit test

performance, the practical outcome is that they’re still at a disadvantage in the applications
process. To fix this, some universities have employed policies to “even things out.”

Specifically…

Take Affirmative Action, take Advil

The NCSL defines affirmative action as policies “in which an institution or organization

actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American

society.” The most common form this takes is the lowering of specified admissions standards

when considering minority candidates. In theory, this makes perfect sense: going off of the

assumption that races are pretty much equal in terms of innate intelligence and exhibit similar

capacities for learning, then all AA does is correct for a fundamental error in testing. In fact, the

widespread adoption of affirmative action could be seen as a paradigm shift in and of itself. That

same article explains that since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed an executive order

requiring affirmative action, more and more colleges have begun to use it, leading to increased

minority enrollment (“Affirmative Action Overview”).

Of course, not everyone benefits from affirmative action. In a book called No Longer

Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life, author

Thomas Espenshade presents data stating that Asian applicants are effectively penalized 140

points on the SAT relative to white applicants, and 3.4 points on the ACT (qtd. in Jaschik 1).

Using whites as a “baseline,” this implies that Asians are actively discriminated against in the

college admissions process. This problem is the root of an ongoing “lawsuit accusing Harvard of

discriminating against Asian-Americans by imposing a penalty for their high achievement and

giving preferences to other racial minorities” (Hartocollis and Saul 1). This throws the purported

“fairness” of affirmative action policies into question, as while certain groups may be put in

better positions, others may find themselves in worse ones.

 Imperfect Systems, Imperfect Solutions

In trying to quantify something as abstract and nebulous as intelligence, one runs into the

fundamental issue of either trying to account for various extraneous factors, or simply ignoring

them in testing and acknowledging their presence after the fact. In either case, whatever

measurement is reached does not accurately represent any semblance of innate human

intelligence. Interestingly enough, the solution to the problems posed by intelligence testing is

simple: ignore them. By disregarding intelligence tests, we can easily curb their use. And this has

happened: since the court cases of the 70’s, traditional IQ tests have been rarely seen in schools,

and are pretty much never mandatory.

Unfortunately, the college dilemma is not so simple. While schools have shifted away

from using SAT scores as a primary metric for acceptance, the benefits of a standardized

assessment are almost too good to give up. After all, a 1600 on the SAT in the wealthiest

Massachusetts prep school is the same 1600 in a poor urban school in Chicago. Conversely,

other parameters for applicant evaluations (transcript, GPA, extracurriculars, achievements) vary

significantly by school. In a sense, these other measurements could be seen as generally more

discriminatory than the SAT itself, specifically because they put poorer (and, by extension,

minority) students at a greater disadvantage. Regardless, it’s unlikely that college assessments

will go anywhere in the near future, even if the emphasis on them gradually diminishes. That

being said, things could certainly be worse: going by Ethan Hawke movies, maybe it’s better to

have a Gattaca, than say, The Purge.

 References

Boake, Corwin. “From the Binet-Simon to the Wechsler-Bellevue: Tracing the History of

Intelligence Testing.” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (Neuropsychology,

Development and Cognition: Section A), vol. 24, no. 3, Jan. 2002, pp. 383–405.,

doi:10.1076/jcen.24.3.383.981.

Cherry, Kendra. “Alfred Binet & the History of IQ Testing.” Verywell,

www.verywell.com/history-of-intelligence-testing-2795581.

Becker, K. A. (2003). History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales: Content and

psychometrics. (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment Service Bulletin

No. 1). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

“A Brief History of the SAT.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service,

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/where/history.html.

Lawrence , Ida, et al. “A Historical Perspective on the Content of the SAT.” The College Board,

Oct. 2003,

http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-03-10-Lawrence.pdf

“Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences.” Northern Illinois University,

https://www.niu.edu/facdev/_pdf/guide/learning/howard_gardner_theory_multiple_intelligences.

pdf
Bannister , Robert. “Social Darwinism .” Social Darwinism, Microsoft Encarta Online

Encyclopedia,

autocww.colorado.edu/~toldy2/E64ContentFiles/SociologyAndReform/SocialDarwinism.html.

Carson, John. “Army Alpha, Army Brass, and the Search for Army Intelligence.” Isis, vol. 84,

no. 2, 1993, pp. 278–309., doi:10.1086/356463.

“The History of the SAT.” Test Prep for GMAT, GRE, LSAT, SAT, ACT, TOEFL by Manhattan

Review, Manhattan Review, 27 May 2016, www.manhattanreview.com/sat-history/.

Fish, Jefferson M. Race and Intelligence : Separating Science from Myth. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc, 2002. EBSCOhost,

ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nle

bk&AN=63483&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

“Inside the Test.” SAT Suite of Assessments, College Board, 31 Jan. 2017,

collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/inside-the-test.

Jencks, Christopher, and Meredith Phillips. The Black-White Test Score Gap. Brookings

Institution, 1998.

Roth, Philip L., et al. “Ethnic Group Differences In Cognitive Ability In Employment And

Educational Settings: A Meta-Analysis.” Personnel Psychology, vol. 54, no. 2, 2001, pp. 297–

330., doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x.
Siegel, Eric. “The Real Problem with Charles Murray and ‘The Bell Curve.’” Scientific

American Blog Network, Scientific American , 12 Apr. 2017,

blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/.

Jaschik, Scott. “New Evidence of Racial Bias on SAT.” Inside Higher Ed, Inside Higher Ed, 21

June 2010, www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/21/sat.

Hultin, Brenda Bautsch Suzanne. “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION | OVERVIEW.” Affirmative

Action | Overview, 7 Feb. 2014, www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-

overview.aspx.

Jaschik, Scott. “Inside Higher Ed.” A Look at the Data and Arguments about Asian-Americans

and Admissions at Elite Colleges, 7 Aug. 2017,

www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07/look-data-and-arguments-about-asian-

americans-and-admissions-elite.

Hartocollis, Anemona, and Stephanie Saul. “Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-

Americans.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Aug. 2017,

www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/affirmative-action-battle-has-a-new-focus-asian-

americans.html.