What do you think?
Rate this book
None of the Above: The Truth Behind the SATs
Each year high school students across the country, armed with No. 2 pencils and in various states of battle-readiness, face one of life's most gut-wrenching rites of the SAT. Part devastating expos-, part savvy test guide, None of the Above demystifies the development of the SAT and offers practical strategies on how to beat the test. Fifteen years after its original publication, Owen's updated book is more relevant than ever for students, their parents, and those who believe in the importance of educational opportunity for all.
- GenresEducation
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
October 26, 2021
In 2021, as we witness what might be the death knell of the SAT, it is worth returning to David Owen's "None of the Above" for a moment. Though his book was published 36 years ago (and was based on an article in Harper's some time before that) the arguments are pretty much the same as those being made today. Go figure.
You can read in this book about:
1. How the test is frivolous.
2. How the test's creation is suspect.
3. How test security is problematic.
4. How the test functions as a money-printer for its creators.
5. How the "cult" of mental measurement has some problematic origins.
Of course these arguments were made in books before this one, and in many books after this one. What makes Owen's work more compelling than most is the irreverent tone. Take the opening lines, for instance:
"The not-for-profit are different from you and me. Tennis courts, a swimming pool, a baseball diamond, a croquet lawn, private hotel, four hundred acres of woods and rolling hills, cavorting deer, a resident flock of Canada geese. I'm loving every minute here at the Educational Testing Service, the great untaxed, unregulated, unblinking eye of the American meritocracy."
The text is full of hilarious bon mots like that one.
Anyways, a few things have changed since the book was published in 1985, and are worth mentioning here. They are:
1. College Board now creates most of the SAT questions in-house, and does most of the related research themselves. ETS merely handles some administrative duties.
2. Both ETS and College Board have become even wealthier than they were in the 1980s. I doubt even Owens could have predicted the 2.1 billion (ETS) and 1.6 billion (College Board) of assets under their control.
3. The SAT was revised in 2016. There are fewer obscure vocabulary words on the current test. That's something. The new version experiences some security problems. That's something else.
4. The SAT subject tests were eliminated in 2021. As was the SAT essay question.
Note: A second edition of this book was published in the 1990s. I haven't read it.
You can read in this book about:
1. How the test is frivolous.
2. How the test's creation is suspect.
3. How test security is problematic.
4. How the test functions as a money-printer for its creators.
5. How the "cult" of mental measurement has some problematic origins.
Of course these arguments were made in books before this one, and in many books after this one. What makes Owen's work more compelling than most is the irreverent tone. Take the opening lines, for instance:
"The not-for-profit are different from you and me. Tennis courts, a swimming pool, a baseball diamond, a croquet lawn, private hotel, four hundred acres of woods and rolling hills, cavorting deer, a resident flock of Canada geese. I'm loving every minute here at the Educational Testing Service, the great untaxed, unregulated, unblinking eye of the American meritocracy."
The text is full of hilarious bon mots like that one.
Anyways, a few things have changed since the book was published in 1985, and are worth mentioning here. They are:
1. College Board now creates most of the SAT questions in-house, and does most of the related research themselves. ETS merely handles some administrative duties.
2. Both ETS and College Board have become even wealthier than they were in the 1980s. I doubt even Owens could have predicted the 2.1 billion (ETS) and 1.6 billion (College Board) of assets under their control.
3. The SAT was revised in 2016. There are fewer obscure vocabulary words on the current test. That's something. The new version experiences some security problems. That's something else.
4. The SAT subject tests were eliminated in 2021. As was the SAT essay question.
Note: A second edition of this book was published in the 1990s. I haven't read it.
March 23, 2019
This review is for the original book from 1986, which I read decades ago. I bought a used copy, just curious. It stayed in my bookcase for years, then I took it out and handed it to my daughter when she was about to face the SAT.
The book gives a good understanding of the Educational Testing Service and the SAT test, and includes some basic strategies for test takers.
The book gives a good understanding of the Educational Testing Service and the SAT test, and includes some basic strategies for test takers.
Read
May 27, 2009I prefer the older edition of this--the newer edition seems to be somewhat diluted and unfocused.
The question of whether it's possible to determine anything useful and/or predictive about 'aptitude' from these games is one that is rarely asked. It needs to be asked more often, and as well as this book asked it. A standardized matrix that punishes originality and careful thought is very probably not the best metric for 'aptitude', 'achievement', or whatever else these tests claim to measure. Then again, there likely is no way to quantify such things...and really, would we be better off if there were?
The question of whether it's possible to determine anything useful and/or predictive about 'aptitude' from these games is one that is rarely asked. It needs to be asked more often, and as well as this book asked it. A standardized matrix that punishes originality and careful thought is very probably not the best metric for 'aptitude', 'achievement', or whatever else these tests claim to measure. Then again, there likely is no way to quantify such things...and really, would we be better off if there were?
August 27, 2012
Lots of so what information
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews