Psychological tests "are interesting as tools of investigation but should not be used to evaluate candidates for admissions," according to Dean K. Whitla, director of the Office of Tests and associate director of Admissions.

Whitla said that exams such as the California Psychological Inventory, which measures non-intellectual characteristics employed in predicting college freshmen grades, merely encourage a kind of "gamesmanship" in which the student tries to outguess the questionner's purpose.

Instead of doing his best, Whitla said, the student asks himself: what answer does Harvard really want from me? In this kind of "double-think" the candidate represses honest answers, responding not in terms of his own feelings but in terms of what he thinks the College is looking for.

"There is enough anxiety and confusion over admissions as it is," Whitla said. "We want the candidate to play it as straight as possible, giving us accurate information on which to judge his achievement."

Criticizing psychological admissions tests as "not corresponding to the values of a Harvard education," Whitla added: "It is not to our intents and purposes that the best games-player be the candidate admitted."

Whitla also criticized these tests because they expect a simple yes/no answer to "very complicated questions." He told of one Faculty member who instead of responding "yes or no" to the query: "Do you like your back scratched?" wrote in the margin "by whom"

"The kind of tests we're interested in." Whitla said, "are those in which the student who knows more does better. We do not want to encourage any exams outside the purposes of the University. A test must have more than a predictive value--and we have not found psychological tests which are consistently accurate predictors--it must be significant."

"If we give an exam in Latin," Whitla stated, "its purpose is to measure achievement in the subject for placement purposes. Irrelevant factors should play no role in its predictive value."