In the tables of frequency the first column to the left represents the Intelligence Ratio, or raw score divided by the chronological age in months, in steps of .05. The next three columns headed "1," "2," "3" and "Total" are the number of cases for each step for the poorest social group, the median social group, the best social group and total school grade, respectively. The "Norms per test manual" are based on almost a thousand cases of each school grade.

Mere inspection of the case-distribution of intelligence ratio for the three social groups clearly shows a rising tendency with the quality of social group and that group 1, the lowest social group, is by far the lowest in intelligence as measured by the test. The medians of course tell the same story. However, in the fourth and the sixth grade the median ratio of the middle social group is slightly better than that for the best social group (but the number of cases is small). Nevertheless, in every grade the superior social group has the highest minimal score. Certainly the difference between groups 2 and 3 is not so great as the difference between groups 1 and 2. When the groups are compared in terms of raw score the medians show the same relative inferiority of the lower social groups. For example, the 108 cases of the fifth grade give for groups 1, 2 and 3 a median raw score of 32, 35, 37 respectively.

It should be noted that a small difference in intelligence ratio is significant since the range of medians from the first grade to the eighth grade for 7,000 children is only from .13 to .32. The obvious variation from normal distribution for the totals for several of the grades is undoubtedly due to the peculiar social composition of each grade. This explanation is the more likely since for all school grades up to and including college students this same four-page group intelligence test has been giving practically normal distribution both for intelligence ratio and raw score. (With a slight skewness in the first grade) 2

Just what does this great inferiority in intelligence ratio by the lowest social group signify? It can not be a matter of difference in school training, for the children of the three groups have been in the same school for most of their school training. Neither is it a

2 See Annual Report on Altoona Public Schools by S. H. Layton. See also Examiner's Guide, The Myers Mental Measure. Furthermore, unpublished data on junior high, senior high, and normalschool students taking the same test give for each group practically normal distribution.

matter of language difficulty since the test is one entirely of pictures. (No one failed to score.) Of course the better social group had better home environment; yet that could hardly explain the marked difference in ability between the respective groups to draw a few lines and make a few marks in accordance with specific directions; to complete familiar pictures; and to note a certain number of pictures that are alike in some way among the same number of different pictures. Difference in home training can hardly explain the difference in ability to do these three types of things which are all the test demands. Undoubtedly the most of the difference between the intelligence ratios of the groups is due to inherent differences in the make up of the social groups which are compared.

Why has Intelligence Ratio been used instead of raw score or intelligence quotient? In the first place what is called intelligence ratio here and in the first report on this test3 could just as properly be called intelligence quotient since it is an intelligence of raw score divided by age in months. Indeed, this term is used in the manual of this group test. But since there has developed a kind of notion of intelligence quotient in terms of mental age in years divided by chronological-age-inyears and since the lay mind has taken up this specific meaning so as to think in a ratio of 1 or 100 it probably is well not to use I.Q. in any other sense, to avoid confusion. Therefore the authors of the Myers Mental Measure will at the earliest possible time have their manual revised so as to substitute intelligence ratio for intelligence quotient.

Of course this group test or any other can have its score easily reduced to an Intelligence Quotient in this more generally accepted sense by merely noting the age in years corresponding to the individual score and then dividing that so-called mental age by that individual's chronological age in years. Some of the group tests provide in their manuals a scheme or table for reduction to such an intelligence quotient. The authors of all such plans for finding an I.Q. from a raw score are attempt3 SCHOOL AND SOCIETY, September 20, 1919.

ing to use the I.Q. as it is used by Terman with the Stanford Binet tests.

It should be remembered, however, that Terman's scores for each part of the Stanford Binet test is in terms of months and that his I.Q. for any child is derived by dividing that individual's total number of months credit by the same individual's chronological age in months.

Therefore the use of the I.Q. from group tests is an unfortunate use:

1. Because it admits of an obviously wide range of inaccuracy as a result of the actual or implied two fold reduction.

2. Because it immediately suggests, by using terms that radiate around 1 or 100, an identity with the Stanford Binet I.Q. Laymen tend to make this error and even to attempt individual diagnosis on the basis of such an I.Q. Just as soon as an individual's I.Q. in such terms is determined there is the obvious temptation to think of that as equivalent to an I.Q. by a standardized individual test, when it is actually not equivalent. Most of all, group testers desire to advise any one to avoid final diagnosis of any individual on the basis of a score in a group test. The only safe use of group tests is for diagnosing groups and for suggesting very roughly the probable learning capacity of individuals.

On the other hand some kind of an age ratio is very important to approximate group diagnosis. Probably the gravest error now prevailing in the classification of children into ability groups in a given grade is in not taking account of the raw score of the group intelligence test in relation to the child's age. Indeed there is a good deal of opposition and lack of faith in group tests because the teacher often finds an over-aged child scoring relatively high in his grade. This will often happen in the use of any group test. But if that score in relation to the child's age is considered, the facts almost always verify the group-test's findings. The writer contends that the best method of using scores by any group test for group-classification purposes is to reduce all raw scores to intelligence ratios, by dividing the raw score by the learner's age

SOCIETIES AND MEETINGS SCHOOLMEN'S WEEK AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

SCHOOLMEN'S Week at the University of Pennsylvania was held Thursday, Friday and Saturday, April 7-9. 1,855 persons were registered while 8,565 attendances were noted in 31 programs. The number of registrations and attendances were both larger than in any preceding year, previous highest records having been made in 1920, 1,392 and 3,802 respectively.

The program reflected in its scope the great awakening in education that is taking place in Pennsylvania at the present time. Practically all of the 31 sessions dealt with some question of immediate practical moment. Speakers were secured from a number of different states reaching as far west as Illinois, as far south as Tennessee and as far north as Massachusetts, Harvard, Columbia, New York and Chicago Universities as well as Pennsylvania were all represented on the program.

Usually two sessions were devoted to each of several important fields as follows: Possible Improvements in Teaching Program of State Normal Schools; Improving the Teaching Service in Pennsylvania; Financial Accounting and Budgeting; The Superintendent as Administrator and Leader; The Rural School and the Community; Supervision of Rural Schools; Group Intelligence Tests; Achievement Tests; Junior High School; Grouping by abilities in Senior and Junior High

Schools. In addition to these pairs of topics there was one program devoted to a demonstration of methods of teaching silent reading, another to vocational guidance, and an evening program upon the State and Higher Education and Americanism. One joint session was held with the Philadelphia High School Teachers, and another with the Vocational Guidance Association of Philadelphia and Vicinity.

The Secondary School Conferences, eleven in number-Biology, Chemistry and Physics; Commercial Studies; Home Economics; English; Mathematics; Modern Languages; Social Studies; Art Education; Greek and Latin; History; and Industrial Arts-were given for the most part to the discussion of the new state courses of study.

Paralleling the regular programs were demonstrations by the Department of Psychology (1) of the use of Psychological tests in Analytic Diagnosis, (2) of Psychological methols applied to the correction of Speech Defects, (3) of the Use of Psychological tests in Vocational Guidance; a historical lecturè given upon both Friday and Saturday by Dean Graves upon Evolution of Education in America and another by Professor Samuel G. Barton upon The Methods of Determining Celestial Distances.

Approximately 122 names were on the printed program-12 members of the State Department of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania; 18 members of the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania; 12 members of the faculty of the State Normal Schools of Pennsylvania; 19 city superintendents and supervising principals; 9 county and assistant county superintendents; 2 secretaries of boards of education; 7 high school principals; 13 heads of departments of high schools; 14 teachers in high schools; 9 members of university faculties other than Pennsylvania and 7 unclassified. Doubtless even a larger number of persons took part in the discussions which, as is always the case in these meetings, was unusually free and to the point.

Among the speakers from outside the state were, J. H. Kirkland, Chancellor, Vanderbilt

University, Nashville, Tenn.; Frank Aydelotte, President-elect of Swarthmore College, now professor of English Massachusetts Institute of Technology; John W. Withers, former Superintendent of Schools of St. Louis, now Dean of School of Education, New York University; Walter S. Dearborn and John M. Brewer, Harvard University; Walter S. Gray, School of Education, University of Chicago; Professor N. L. Engelhardt, Otis W. Caldwell and Miss Fannie Dunn, Columbia University; and C. J. Gilpin, Specialist in Farm Life Studies, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

Social and recreational features took the form of visitation of the campus and building, including the museum and library. The guests of the university were given luncheons on Thursday, Friday and Saturday noon, and on the evenings of Thursday and Friday. Upon Saturday over 650 luncheons were served. A reception was tendered by the acting provost, Dr. Josiah H. Penniman after the Friday evening program. Several hundred accepted the invitation of the Athletic Association to witness the baseball game between Pennsylvania and Swarthmore, Saturday afternoon. On Thursday night two hundred superintendents and supervising principals were given stage seats at the Academy of Music and the Metropolitan Opera House where the American Legion gave a program of unusual interest for the purpose of stimulating the spirit of Americanism.

It was generally considered the most successful meeting yet held. This result was due in large part to the faithful and cordial cooperation of the members of the General Committee, the Reception and Registration committees, and the Advisory Committeemen, and to the support given by State Superintendent Thomas E. Finegan and City Superintendent Edwin C. Broome anl their assistants. The executive officers were the same as in previous years-Harlan Updegraff, chairman of the general committee; Arthur J. Jones in charge of secondary school conferences and LeRoy A. King, secretary of the general committee.