The ABCs of SATs

THE COLOR OF THE INK on the book jacket says it all. It shrieks; The Testing Trap: How it can make or break your career and your children's futures, and, in case the message isn't clear enough, the word "break" is printed in red.

Such-tactics unfortunately typify The Testing Trap--unfortunately, because Andrew J. Strenio, Jr., has something important to say, and is probably on the right side, if there is a right side, of the complex standardized-testing controversy.

He passionately believes, at at time convincingly argues, that the mushrooming network of ERB's, SAT's. MCAT's, GRE's and other standardized, computerized tests are less "fair, scientific and objective" than their supporters claim; that the machinelike, precise and efficient image they project creates disproportionate "test worship" in the general public; and that schools and employers at all levels should rely far more on other criteria in evaluating applicants. He contents the tests close more doors than they open, and gives a knowledgeable and compassionate attack on test anxiety and the psychological "branding" of the child.

Though far from certainties, all these points are plausible and arguable. In recent years, controversies such as the Nader-propelled "Truth in Testing" research have focused debate on standardized tests. The subject, then, seems perfect for a provocative book: public interest is high, the experience of taking such tests is almost universal, and the whole topic offers countless points for stimulating discussion.

The Testing Trap, however, does not discuss. It asserts. Everything about it is combative, from its chapter headings ("Branding Children--Closing College Doors--Narrowing Graduate Opportunites--Blocking Access to Licensed Professions") to its singsong polemical style. Strenio writes in a conversational second-person manner laced heavily with rhetorical devices. ("You've heard of setting the fox to guard the hens?") and breaks frequently into first-person to stress-a point or tell a sad little story about a friend ruined by low scores--sprinkling his pages with "I think" and "It seems to me" in the fashion that English teachers work for years to drill out of expository essays.

The style reflects the content and organization of a book eveidently intended to support a position, not weigh a question. Reading it is something like reading Erik von Daniken on the visits of spacemen to Earth during the Stone Age--enjoyable and enlightening if you already believe, irritating if you don't, amusing and not particularly illuminating to the neutral reader. It is impossible to deny the sense in much of what Strenio says; it is equally impossible, though, to miss the shallowness, oversimplification and inconsistency that often flaws his logic.

Strenio argues his handful of strong points mainly by repetition, piling up examples and appending endless strings of quotations--mostly the testimony of notables (e.g. Walter Lippmann) who share the author's view. Similar "arguments" characterize his treatment of the complex question of cultural bias. He presents examples galore of confusing questions; yet one of them, closer inspection reveals, Strenio wrote himself as an illustration, and for several others he neglected to find out the test's accepted answers. The reader can not but wonder how complete the author's understanding can be of tests that he never even saw corrected.

The most bizarre tribute to Strenio's anxiety about cultural bias--and his sense of proportion--is his anecdote of a researcher who administered an IQ test to a gorilla on whom she was experimenting. Strenio's concern that the gorilla scored well within the average human range appears reasonable. But his tone does not change as he complains that the animal would have scored even better, had not certain questions (such as "Where should you run for shelter from the rain?") revealed an unmistakeable "cultural bias towards humans."

Other gaps in Strenio's logic are less funny, and some leave his position seriously incomplete. In a several-chapters-long discussion of the need to eliminate SAT secrecy, Strenio writes at length about New York State's recent "Truth in Testing" controversy--which eventually produced legislation requiring ETS to release corrected copies of SAT's. But he makes only cursory mention of the testing company's main argument: that the cost of writing new questions every year instead of repeating the old ones would force the company to raise prices and cancel administrations of the test.

Strenio uses statistics freely, but skimps on explaining them, with the disclaimer that mathematical complexities are irrelevant. But among his self-styled "basic" explanations is the airy statement that the "bell-normal" curve used to calibrate percentile rankings is a shape chosen by testmakers at random, without any theoretical relation to distributions. Elsewhere, in a similar attempt to scale down concepts for the reader, he misdefines social Darwinism.

BALANCING THE PROBLEM of oversimplification are some sustained confusions, and a few distinctions that demand clarification Strenio attacks the concept of basic competancy testing for high school diplomas on the grounds that it discriminates against students whose high school curricula weren't geared to the test. He thus ignores the point that a properly "basic" test is designed to detect severe shortcomings in the school system. And afterarguing convincingly that the tendency for schools to coach for tests rather then teach subjects is harmful, his "Beating the System" chapter heartily recomments SAT prep course plugs Stanley Kaplan by name, and adds that in prepping properly for the tests a student should pick up a core of basic knowledge.

The book's last section, "What Can We Do?" brings more confusion. Having "proved" his points to his own explicitly-stated satisfaction, Strenio changes source and provides the reader first with a fairly comprehensive series of test taking tips--including the unexpected recommendation of the Kaplan service--and then some straightforward campaign literature: books to read, newletters to contact and support, and, the book's final line, "You help in that venture would surely be appreciated."

Though such a declaration of interest is unexpected, at least it is forthright--much more so than the publisher's less-evident ploy of adorning the back cover with a glowing comment from someone quoted copiously in the text, it also obliquely relieves the misgivings of a reader who may have expected a balanced discussion.

The Testing Trap cannot be said to fail through lack of balance; it is what it is, a lively position paper offering a few substantive points and plenty of guidance for standardized testing's victims. Its weakness even as campaign literature is mostly the fault of length; repeating his thesis endlessly over 300 pages, Strenio unwittingly widens its gaps and saps much of its persuasive power. He could have written a great editorial