Abstract

A recent article on education in China succeeded in giving a fresh tweak to the arguments concerning whether aptitude or achievement testing is more likely to promote equality of educational opportunity. In 'The Diploma Disease' Ronald Dore expounded the view that aptitude testing is to be preferred for selection purposes on the grounds that it gives more weight to 'innate potential' (his term) than does achievement testing which produces results more affected by quality of schooling, an influence which is all too variable, especially in emerging countries. Although shot through with considerable ambivalence, Dore's view could still be instrumental in persuading educational and political authorities in those countries that aptitude testing will do what he says it will do - 'make for greater equality of educational opportunity and be more effective in mobilizing all available talent'. And even if these authorities have never set eyes on Dore's book, there is sufficient evidence that some of them are acting as if they had taken Dore's view on board for it to be worth re-opening the question. It is argued here that Dore's position cannot be supported.