[ThereBeDragons]

Before you can become The President of the United States (or basically any other high office) you should be forced to take an exam. It should be ten hours long. This one is geared specifically towards the United States.

General Knowledge
- Economics
- Political Science
- International Relations
- Physical Science

Facts About America
- GDP, GDP per capita
- Identify major components (sectors, etc) of the economy
- Economic indicators
- Government
- Demographics
- Census information

Facts About Other Countries
- Foreign leader and party identification.
- Estimates of GDP and population.
- Know where everything is on a map.

4-hour Interview Section; this section should be like forty interviews, choosing questions that don't suck for all of them. Dodging the question or repeating BS will result in automatic failure and disqualification for consideration of the presidency.

[Zyx]

Stupid idea. Seriously, why do people come up with such stupid ideas? I know that it is late; but, do not you go to a good school? Do not ask stupid questions.

Exams can be studied for. In fact, it is below idiotic that someone would think that giving an exam would filter any better. The fact of the matter is that even under the circumstance of random questioning, one really can not be tested too arbitrarily. Furthermore, general knowledge and facts about the U.S. would likely not affect one's advisory committee or political philosophy. That said, what is the use of even wasting monies to test someone if it would not act as a filter? That is a stupid idea, ThereBeDragons; even for you.

[ThereBeDragons]

Exams can be studied for.

So if anybody can ace an exam by studying, why have any exam, anywhere?

Furthermore, general knowledge and facts about the U.S. would likely not affect one's advisory committee or political philosophy.

They're not designed to.

[Zyx]

So if anybody can ace an exam by studying, why have any exam, anywhere?

You are asking me as if I administer and write exams or something.

They're not designed to.

So then what is the point? If Sarah Palin aced some exam would that make her any better a President (if she had to take one?)

[QatzelOk]

The most important "knowledge" in American politics is "where does the money come from?"

If a political person like Sarah Palin can understand this basic concept of American democracy, then she can play the role of international tyrant.

The media can make her look smart. They've got the writers and the camera people working with them.

This exam would just make it harder for big business to find pliable retards to bark out there soundbites for them.

[Nets]

ThereBeDragons, I like it! Why not extend it to all civil servants.

Make a less extensive one for the right to vote as well. Issues:

- Economics
- Political Science
- International Relations

This is pretty loaded. There are so many different schools and opinions in these fields.

Stupid idea. Seriously, why do people come up with such stupid ideas? I know that it is late; but, do not you go to a good school? Do not ask stupid questions.

Don't be shy, tell us how you really feel.

Exams can be studied for. In fact, it is below idiotic that someone would think that giving an exam would filter any better.

So ThereBeDragons's question to you stands. Why have exams anywhere?

That is a stupid idea, ThereBeDragons; even for you.

Nice ad-hom, Kumatto.

[Mercutio]

Exams can be studied for.

Isn't that a good reason to require them, so people will study? You made her point for her.

It'll never happen though, since we collectively decided on a system of primaries... as a long oral exam of sorts.

[Dr House]

Make a less extensive one for the right to vote as well

This is a bit of a slippery slope. Who'd make it? Who ensures that the test isn't discriminatory? etc.

- Economics
- Political Science
- International Relations

This is pretty loaded. There are so many different schools and opinions in these fields.

True, but they are still crucial knowledge for the position being applied for.

[Zyx]

So ThereBeDragons's question to you stands. Why have exams anywhere?

That is an inappropriate question. I do not write or administer exams. If there are exams anywhere but I am not responsible for any then there is no reason to ask me to question its existence. Some people believe that exams have merit; what you should have asked was whether I were one of those people. I am not.

Nice ad-hom, Kumatto.

Heh, yeah. I was just kidding with him. It's just a consistency in tone.

Isn't that a good reason to require them, so people will study? You made her point for her.

Studying for a math exam according to the problems to appear on the math exam is not the same as studying mathematics, actually. Just the same with studying for any exam.

It'll never happen though, since we collectively decided on a system of primaries... as a long oral exam of sorts.

Precisely, and its addition would be useless since it would not help at filtering anyone. People would just study for an exam and then get party monies to become politicians. If anything, it would be elitist and merely act to close out the people with less resources from becoming elected. Remember, George Bush went to Yale. Most people on these forums couldn't get into Yale!

True, but they are still crucial knowledge for the position being applied for.

Why do people idiotically romanticize the role of the Presidency? There is no crucial knowledge, there are only power balances.

[Dan]

The problem is that a test wouldn't work, the idea is nice, but impractical.

If it was simply a test of hard knowledge, that would hardly be a decent indicator of how well a person would be president, as most of these could be researched rapidly when necessary or would be obtainable from aides and bureaucrats.

But if it was more elaborate essay or analytical questions, then subjectivity appears, and in the extremely partisan atmosphere of current politics, this subjectivity would be abused by partisans.

Either way it would be a fairly useless test.

[ChronicLearner]

I dont think this idea is completely stupid, i mean we have test for everything else, why wouldnt we administer a test for president?

if anyone can pass an exam cause exams could be studied for then why to they have state testing? or more to the point, people failing state testing? (not that i approve of state testing mind you)

Or at least see if they can play Risk and take over the whole board?!?

[Zyx]

ChronicLearner, it's like what Dan says: the most successful would likely be those with the best means for taking the test. That is not the smartest person, though, but the person with the most access to resources. Although you may think that you and I have equal access, supposing that one of us had less responsibilities, more aides, or more discipline for exams, then one of us would do better on the exam despite intelligence. That said, it would be an exam that favours the better off of society which is hardly something that anyone should recommend in this day and age.

Of course, just because exams can be studied for it does not mean that people can not fail exams. It just means that the most studied for the exam will do the best. Did you know that private schools, sometimes, do not teach subjects as thoroughly as public schools do but instead teach exam preparation and comparably do better than public school students on exam questions like vocabulary, analogies, small no-calculator math problems and what have you? In my opinion, the public school system is better although the private school system would benefit a person more in the short term by getting them into a better school by prepping them for higher national exam scores. Similarly, mathletes study lower geometry and basic numerology but none of it is remotely related to real mathematics that real mathematicians or scientists use. The kids are not good at math, they are good at math exams tailored to their training. Granted, I could do worse than a mathlete in the math Olympics but I may still know more about mathematics than most of them, maybe. The point is, exams test how well one can do on the exam; hardly anything more.

So, all in all, like Dan said, the exam would be useless. There just is nothing that could be trusted for administering the exam. If the government has to test itself for qualifications then what in the world is going on? If one thinks that a third party institution on a government salary would not curl to the whims of the capitalists of our society then one is naive about politics. Again, a useless exam that would prove nothing and do nothing but cost money to justify thievery is an idiotic idea. Case closed.

[ThereBeDragons]

If politicians are going to prepare for the exam, it would probably come out of campaign money, all of which is voluntarily given. Neither is going to have more or less aids because they probably have as many as they would like. I would imagine the cost of the preparing the exam to be minimal.

If the government has to test itself for qualifications then what in the world is going on?

What's wrong with this?

As for grading analytical/essay questions, you could leave the exam ungraded and simply make the responses public.

The kids are not good at math, they are good at math exams tailored to their training. Granted, I could do worse than a mathlete in the math Olympics but I may still know more about mathematics than most of them, maybe.

This is mostly unrelated to the topic, but if you're talking about the American team, unless you are the smartest mathematics student in your university, this is in all likelihood not true.

[Zyx]

I would imagine the cost of the preparing the exam to be minimal.

If this case were true then that would be a problem all its own. An exam that's preparation is minimal would mean that the exam were negligibly easy and therefore useless.

As for grading analytical/essay questions, you could leave the exam ungraded and simply make the responses public.

It'll never happen though, since we collectively decided on a system of primaries... as a long oral exam of sorts.

To back Mercutio, interviews play the role that you request. They are sort of essay questions that are responded to on the fly. The format of interviews are actually more convenient and even with that most Americans miss them. Your idea is a stupid one that you should give up.

This is mostly unrelated to the topic, but if you're talking about the American team, unless you are the smartest mathematics student in your university, this is in all likelihood not true.

I would not need to be the smartest mathematics student. The kids do not learn as far as calculus for that exam. It may be that all of them have learned calculus but considering that it is not needed for the exams, I doubt it.

[Dan]

As for grading analytical/essay questions, you could leave the exam ungraded and simply make the responses public.

That I would like; in fact, I would whole-heartedly support that.

[ThereBeDragons]

Perhaps a multiple-choice examination isn't the best of ideas. That section wasn't meant to be a "look at my score" but rather more of a competency exam, but meh.

To back Mercutio, interviews play the role that you request. They are sort of essay questions that are responded to on the fly. The format of interviews are actually more convenient and even with that most Americans miss them. Your idea is a stupid one that you should give up.

The problem with interviews it that you can easily hide a lack of knowledge in your interview or take it where you want it to go. Ignoring the question and offering some sort of cheap partisan shot or repeating talking points instead of answering the question probably isn't going to fly. It won't be possible to write off mistakes as slips of the tongue or incorrect phrasing; mistakes, maybe, but the standard will be higher. It would also likely be more comprehensive.

I would not need to be the smartest mathematics student. The kids do not learn as far as calculus for that exam. It may be that all of them have learned calculus but considering that it is not needed for the exams, I doubt it.

It's not technically necessary, but most of them already know multivariate calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, and at least one of them is taking a graduate-level math class in his first semester of undergraduate. You are actually right in that I'm going to have to revise that probability upwards, because I realize that there are actually not a small number of people who are that advanced, but seeming to insinuate that they're somehow secretly (or even conceivably) below-average at math is grossly incorrect. At the top levels, it's not about memorizing theorems so much as having the analytical skills to turn them into a proof, and the kids who study enough math to be able to do that both genuinely like math and are very good at it.

[Zyx]

The problem with interviews it that you can easily hide a lack of knowledge in your interview or take it where you want it to go. Ignoring the question and offering some sort of cheap partisan shot or repeating talking points instead of answering the question probably isn't going to fly. It won't be possible to write off mistakes as slips of the tongue or incorrect phrasing; mistakes, maybe, but the standard will be higher. It would also likely be more comprehensive.

This is an ironic response. In fact, it portrays exactly what you contend essay formats would not. Here you claim that writing would be clearer as opposed to repeating talking points and avoiding the question, but here you are repeating talking points and avoiding the question. I do not believe that I should address this any more. Someone fudging an essay is just the same as someone fudging an interview only that an interview can reach a wider audience in the modern era with technologies such as video recorders and professional transcribers. Your duty here is to explain why responding to a question in writing is somehow better than responding vocally. Writing is less accessible, more elitist, and the price can vary. If you were making the case that writing would be cheaper as not everyone can book with ABC or CBS then I could have sympathy to your proposal, but so far you have not taken that line of argument and therefore I can not claim that you are right on those grounds. Furthermore, will you give three examples of essay questions? I realized that I wrote essays in the past, but I probably never had an essay prompt that would speak to the validity of my presidential candidacy; they were more, how do you feel about this quote and book comparisons.

It's not technically necessary, but most of them already know multivariate calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, and at least one of them is taking a graduate-level math class in his first semester of undergraduate. You are actually right in that I'm going to have to revise that probability upwards, because I realize that there are actually not a small number of people who are that advanced, but seeming to insinuate that they're somehow secretly (or even conceivably) below-average at math is grossly incorrect. At the top levels, it's not about memorizing theorems so much as having the analytical skills to turn them into a proof, and the kids who study enough math to be able to do that both genuinely like math and are very good at it.

ThereBeDragons, I am actually writing from personal experience with the mathematics circles. I was never a mathlete, but given that I observed some for a summer's month, I can say that they typically are on an accelerated track of the mathematics offered in high school (Calculus B.C. and probably freshman college mathematics is achieved by the top performers) and have a course particuarly geared for the math exam that reviews past exams and strategies for mathematical puzzles. Given that I have completed the math courses for Astrophysics, I wrote that I am more knowledgeable in mathematics than these kids. I should correct myself and say that I am more knowledgeable in Astrophysical mathematics than these kids but that was just a sloppy mistake. I do not doubt that some of these kids have read ahead in mathematics, but I do doubt that, that is the average. Also, I doubt that they read that far. I really was just trying to portray an example of how one can study for a test and yet not really know a subject. When my class was taking the weekly (?) exams for qualifying American schools to the math olympics (or whatever it was) we were in Pre-Cal and mostly needed to know geometrical terms in order to do well on the exam; the kids in Brooklyn Tech and Stuyvesant were likely in the same course.**

**I realize that I do not actually know what grade the Math Olympics cater to. If I remember correctly, it is tiered. I may be referring to a math team, though. It is not important.

[bp-open]

@ ThereBeDragons

Thank you for your detailed post.
You are absolute right, surprise 4 me. ty

--------------
There will be a big suRpriSe still coming.
I recommend to vote, to participate in the next election for all of you US-citizens, BUT
do not vote for McCain or Obama.

There is an alternative. And as you know from the media, alternative is strongly needed OR much more confidence in the actual System.

Ty