Lemann's argument, to be fair, is not that Americans should be judged by character in college admissions, but rather that college admissions should not be the defining test in a person's life. But here, again, he runs into problems. If, as Lemann suggests, we take the extreme view that people should always be judged by performance rather than potential, we must provide everyone with precisely the same opportunity to perform. But providing everyone in the nation with exactly the same education would be a disservice both to those who would benefit from more rigorous academic training and to those who would be best served by vocational training or the opportunity to explore more creative educational alternatives. Different people reach their full potential in different environments. Not everyone would be happy taking courses at Harvard. The environments that people choose for themselves, ideally, should have equal social standing. To believe that they will any time soon is probably naive, but by trying to fit everyone into the same mold, we would only reduce the chances that each individual will find an appropriate educational environment.

A less extreme statement of the principle that performance should be valued over potential is sound, but Lemann's statement that this principle is blatantly violated in today's America is not entirely convincing. Certainly, higher education is strongly linked to money and power and an impressive college credential carries weight. But Americans rarely work at the same job their entire lives these days. Our entire lives are tests, and to whatever end, the college-educated workforce is a driven population.

To support his ideal of a "true" American meritocracy, Lemann calls for a change to content-based college admissions exams. These tests would emphasize mastery of a nationally-established curriculum instead of "learning tricks to outwit multiple-choice aptitude exams." If he feels that this system would be less likely to discriminate against students in poorly run schools and less likely to be twisted by test preparation courses available to the rich, he is truly naive. The SATs are certainly not uncoachable, as ETS once claimed, but they are less dependent upon coaching than tests about subjects in history and chemistry.

Nicholas Lemann wants educational opportunity for everyone. He wants less emphasis on the "right" colleges and less hysteria about and dependency on standardized testing. He wants a society in which achievement need not be academic or youthful to be rewarded. In short, he wants students who are learning rather than earning grades. I absolutely agree. But in trying to reach these goals, he advocates a system at once even more divisive based on educational background and even less adept at providing young Americans with the opportunity to work hard and reach their potential later in life. In any case, The Big Test is an interesting contribution to a discussion about America's educational philosophy that probably deserves more of our active thought and attention.