I mentioned in an earlier posting that I thought that we have gotten awfully far from discussing grammar here. Consequently, I promise that this will be my last comment on this issue in this forum. I would have kept silent, but I feel very strongly that the following needs to be said. After I say this, I will say no more. So here goes:
As usual, Herb makes the point eloquently: Not everything worth measuring is measurable. I still think my school's mission "to educate each student to become a productive, responsible, enlightened citizen and a creative life-long learner" is, though perhaps un-testable (how does one test lifelong learning?), is a meaningful and useful mission. One "measurement" that we use in the English department at my school is the student portfolio, which is put together from a year's worth of student work at the end of each school year. It's hardly a one-shot test, but it's a dynamic assessment tool. And I know there are other schools that do this, too.
Regarding DD Farms' repeated recommendations of "The Bell Curve," I stand by my initial criticism. No, I cannot cite examples from the book any longer because I do not own a copy (nor would I buy one). However, I have read it and found it wanting. In defense of my opinion, I suggest that others read the criticisms that were published in the mid-1990s, when the book was new.
Stephen Jay Gould, who has been mentioned in this thread before, reviewed it in 1994 ("Mismeasure by Any Measure." _The New Yorker_, Nov. 28, 1994). He refers to the the book's claims as "anachronistic social Darwinism," "disingenuous," and "extraordinarily one-dimensional." Regarding the analytical process used in the book, he says it "is also suspect in its use of statistics." He denigrates the author's so-called use of scientific methods, but suggests that the benefit of it being published is "that its errors could be exposed." He concludes that "we must fight the doctrine of _The Bell Curve_ both because it is wrong and because it will, if activated, cut off all possibility of proper nurturance of everyone's intelligence." Everyone's intelligence! That, to me, is a powerful indictment.
Princeton University professor Alan Ryan also reviewed the book in _The New York Review of Books_ (Nov. 17, 1994. "Apocalypse Now?"), saying that its authors, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray are "two practical-minded men in the grip of irrational passion." He points out numerous contradictions in the 800 page work, and ends by saying, "In short, _The Bell Curve_ is not only sleazy; it is, intellectually, a mess."
Finally, Howard Gardner (author of _Multiple Intelligence_ among other groundbreaking books), in the winter 1994 issue of _The American Prospect_, wrote a negative review of the book ("Cracking Open the IQ Box."). He says that "the science in the book was questionable when it was proposed a century ago." Although he credits that the authors make some sensible observations, he refers to their thinking as "scholarly brinkmanship." He criticizes the authors' racial, social, and political biases, suggesting that these biases interfere with their ability to be fair and reasonable.
Frankly, IQ doesn't impress me ... in fact, it doesn't even interest me. I don't know my students' IQs and don't want to. Hell, I don't even know my own IQ! It probably isn't very high -- I didn't usually take tests very well in my younger days. However, it certainly didn't stop me from achieving a 3.97 GPA in my Masters Degree program (one lousy A-!). Humans are amazing creatures and can surprise us by their abilities to change and grow. Is biology really destiny? I think the truth is much more complex and interesting.
Paul E. Doniger