Standardized Tests

I have a complicated relationship with standardized tests (things like the SAT; things not like AP tests or the MCAT). We are to assume that standardized tests give a quantitative indicator of potential (ignoring, for the time being, the sociocultural bias that these tests have). Grades earned, on the other hand, can be an indicator of behavior (study habits, self-discipline, etc). During the undergraduate application process, I found it incredibly interesting how universities made their selection from among my friends based on these two variables- standardized test scores and grade point average.

Within my social circle, it appeared that institutions assigned a greater value to the apparent innate potential indicated by standardized test scores than to the behaviors indicated by grade point average. This was especially evident in the scholarships offered by our primary state school based on a particular test's score. While my GPA was far below a 4.0, I was offered a full ride based on my standardized test score. On the other hand, a friend of mine, who took much more difficult classes, maintained a 4.0, but missed the cutoff for the standardized test by 1 point, was offered almost no scholarship. Although he certainly had what would be considered "high" test scores, he was denied admission to a more selective institution into which a friend of mine, with a lower GPA, higher test scores, and a comparable extracurricular resume, was admitted.

I would argue that this indicates a general belief held in the world of higher education that preference ought to be given to innately "smarter" individuals, with smart being defined as an ability to understand and perform well on quantitative and qualitative reasoning questions within a short period of time. These tests, however, are hardly representative of what students will be asked to do in their courses in universities, and indeed in the real world. My friend who missed out on a full ride and admission to a prestigious university has done exceptionally well in all his classes and will be earning $80,000 next year. I still struggle with forming effective study habits and my other friend, the one admitted to the selective university, was kicked out after his freshman year and has dropped out of school all together. While this is obviously anecdotal, it is certainly the case that standardized test scores do not correlate with performance, and my high performing friend would have been a much better investment for the university's full tuition scholarship than I would have been.

Once again, while universities don't see the tests themselves as infallible, they do see them as indicative of the more important determinant: innate potential, rather than demonstrated performance.

I don't think that Pinker believes that all behavior is entirely determined by genes. He may believe that certain capacities and abilities are limited by inherited materials, but I do not believe he conflates this with behavior itself. Nor do I believe that he and Lewontin are completely opposed in their beliefs about the nature of individuals and behavior. I would like to suggest that if we are to argue about what determines behavior and traits, we need to propose a more specific definition of these categories than wearing the same clothes as a long lost twin, killing someone, or wanting to cut off your arm.