A great deal of educational thought and research has been devoted to the study of intelligence quotient, or IQ. All research points to the fact that all intelligence tests are designed to do one thing: differentiate people. In addition, since IQ tests differ widely, it can be said that they differentiate people according to different measurements. Therefore, intelligence is not one static construct, invariable across all populations. Ultimately, intelligence has to be seen as the measurement defined by a particular intelligence test. One can be sure that differentiation is the basis for the test, and the test may even be a valid predictor of future academic or vocational success; however, one cannot be sure that the test will ultimately be good for the individual taking it, or society in general.
In fact, IQ tests may be detrimental to individuals and society, if they are used to perpetuate the inequities of the dominant culture, or status quo, over minorities. The controversy continues in the behavioral and social sciences over whether differences in IQ test scores among students of different classes (or cultures, or social groups) are the result of genetic deficits (nature) or of cultural deprivation (nurture). Advocates of each position take for granted the importance of IQ tests.
A conclusion based on a review of current IQ literature combines both the importance of the IQ test with a cultural reality, and such a conclusion has pragmatic consequences: Even if a perfectly culture-fair test were devised, it would probably be a poorer predictor of school performance than our present tests, inasmuch as successful school performance is also culturally biased. Schools encourage the achievements and ways of performing considered valuable in white, middle-class culture. An example of historical IQ test bias will be considered in a discussion of an army intelligence test, significant because the army contributed to much o...