PDA

View Full Version : Should Presidential candidates be subjected to standardized testing?




SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 05:25 PM
Do you think candidates for President should be required to take standardized tests, along the lines of the SAT or other college admission tests and those results made public?

Kludge
08-05-2008, 05:27 PM
Maybe just an in-depth Nolan Chart test :p

Carole
08-05-2008, 05:32 PM
They should be tested for reasonable intelligence and decision making abilites, sure.

Mostly, they should be tested on their understanding of the Constitution. :)

LittleLightShining
08-05-2008, 06:25 PM
They should be tested for reasonable intelligence and decision making abilites, sure.

Mostly, they should be tested on their understanding of the Constitution. :)

Yes a mental health evaluation and a Constitution test! Absolutely!

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 06:33 PM
"Mr. McCain, what does this inkblot look like to you?"

"It's a gook with scissors coming after my nuts!"

"Mr Obama, what does this inkblot look like to you?"

"It's an audacious rainbow of hope!"

:p

brandon
08-05-2008, 06:38 PM
No way.

Who would write the test?

I think potential voters should have to take a test of basic political and constitutional principles before being given the right to vote though. Just simple stuff like...

How many US Senators are there?
Is congress allowed to make laws regarding gun ownership?
Which branch of government can declare war?

yaz
08-05-2008, 06:45 PM
two words: unintended consequences.

yongrel
08-05-2008, 06:46 PM
No. I would hope that they would have already tested and proven themselves over the course of their careers.

Rhys
08-05-2008, 06:46 PM
i don't think there can be a public test for office constitutionaly

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 06:46 PM
No way.

Who would write the test?



If all the candidates get the same test, what difference does it make? The SAT is good enough to influence college admissions, why isn't it good enough to influence white house admissions?

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 06:50 PM
No. I would hope that they would have already tested and proven themselves over the course of their careers.

I don't know if any of the candidates know what the cosine of zero degrees is, regardless of their background. And I think that would be a very meaningful bit of information to have when deciding whom to vote for. It's certainly more relevant than whether they wear boxers or briefs.

brandon
08-05-2008, 07:35 PM
I don't know if any of the candidates know what the cosine of zero degrees is, regardless of their background. And I think that would be a very meaningful bit of information to have when deciding whom to vote for. It's certainly more relevant than whether they wear boxers or briefs.

I think that's really irrelevant. I would rather have someone who understands trigonometry applying their skills in the private sector then wasting them as president.

If the president follows the constitution as is required by law, there is very little they can mess up. We just need to start holding presidents accountable when they violate their oath of office.

slacker921
08-05-2008, 07:49 PM
.. um.. they would cheat.

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-05-2008, 08:03 PM
Who gets to make up the test? Whoever gets to decide what the questions are has a lot of power in their hands.

I say no. ESPECIALLY not if the government is going to use taxpayer money to do it.

Jeremy
08-05-2008, 08:29 PM
No. Five words: Who would write the test

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 08:36 PM
What's wrong with using the same SAT test that thousands of students take every year as part of their college admissions?

All these objections about who creates the test are equally applicable to the SAT. Or for that matter, to the standardized testing mandated by the no child left behind deal. I think it would be real interesting to know if the presidential candidates are able to pass the same standardized test that high school graduates are required to pass. If the candidate doesn't have the chops to graduate from high school, isn't that relevant to their qualifications to be commander in chief?

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 08:40 PM
i don't think there can be a public test for office constitutionaly

The test wouldn't be a barrier to being elected. Just because somebody scores poorly or fails, doesn't mean they can't be elected anyway. Americans have a long distinguished history of electing fucktards to the highest office in the land.

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-05-2008, 08:41 PM
What's wrong with using the same SAT test that thousands of students take every year as part of their college admissions?

That doesn't solve the problem. Then it just gives the writers of the college admissions SAT test that undue power over the election process.

And it STILL doesn't answer who's going to pay for this testing.

And whether candidates taking this test is going to be required by law.

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 08:49 PM
That doesn't solve the problem. Then it just gives the writers of the college admissions SAT test that undue power over the election process.

And it STILL doesn't answer who's going to pay for this testing.

And whether candidates taking this test is going to be required by law.

You certainly have a right to your opinion. I just don't see why it's so unnacceptable to have presidential candidates face the same kind of standardized testing that so many people in our society routinely face before being granted positions of responsibility. Even the dorks who fix computers routinely face examination and testing on the skills relevant to their job. Same for doctors, lawyers, engineers, you name it. Why should the highest, most critical job in the land be granted an exception?

And who pays for it? Who fucking cares? Are you seriously quibbling over the cost of administering an SAT test? What are we talking about here? The cost of printing out a question booklet and a scantron card? WTF? :confused:

Whether it's required by law or not is moot. A voluntary test would be just as valuable in terms of informing voters as a mandatory one.

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-05-2008, 08:55 PM
You certainly have a right to your opinion. I just don't see why it's so unnacceptable to have presidential candidates face the same kind of standardized testing that so many people in our society routinely face before being granted positions of responsibility. Even the dorks who fix computers routinely face examination and testing on the skills relevant to their job. Same for doctors, lawyers, engineers, you name it. Why should the highest, most critical job in the land be granted an exception?

You don't see how giving one person or one small group of people the ability to set the standards by which your presidential candidate's "intelligence level" will be judged is just asking for trouble?


And who pays for it? Who fucking cares? Are you seriously quibbling over the cost of administering an SAT test? What are we talking about here? The cost of printing out a question booklet and a scantron card? WTF? :confused:

Yeah. I have that silly belief that not a single cent of taxpayer money should be used by the federal government to do something the Constitution doesn't authorize it to do.


Whether it's required by law or not is moot. A voluntary test would be just as valuable in terms of informing voters as a mandatory one.

If it's voluntary, then who the hell cares? If you want it to be voluntary, get a petition going and propose it to the candidates (I doubt they'll accept). But if you want it to be legally required, you'd better get the Constitution amended first.

Either way, it's a stupid idea.

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 09:01 PM
You don't see how giving one person or one small group of people the ability to set the standards by which your presidential candidate's "intelligence level" will be judged is just asking for trouble?


Yet we trust those same people to make the exact same determination for every college bound student in the nation.



Either way, it's a stupid idea.

So I take it you wouldn't mind if your surgeon didn't pass the GMAT, or your defense attorney didn't pass the bar exam either? OOOHHHKAAYYYYY..... :D

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-05-2008, 09:09 PM
Yet we trust those same people to make the exact same determination for every college bound student in the nation.

So I take it you wouldn't mind if your surgeon didn't pass the GMAT, or your defense attorney didn't pass the bar exam either? OOOHHHKAAYYYYY..... :D

Ohhhh, I totally see the similarities now. Surgeons' and defense attorneys' decisions affect the fate of the entire nation. And also, you just reminded me about how the Constitution authorizes the government to administer academic tests to surgeons and attornies, just like it authorizes the government to administer academic tests to people who are running for President.

If this were ever to be instituted, don't blame me when it just so happens that the person who is most faithful to the Constitution also happens to have the lowest "IQ" and his/her low "test scores" ruin his/her shot at the presidency.

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 09:14 PM
If this were ever to be instituted, don't blame me when it just so happens that the person who is most faithful to the Constitution also happens to have the lowest "IQ" and his/her low "test scores" ruin his/her shot at the presidency.

Low IQ and poor test scores were no barrier to Dubya being elected.

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-05-2008, 09:15 PM
Low IQ and poor test scores were no barrier to Dubya being elected.

You don't think the statists in the government and the media would unrelentingly use a poor SAT score against a constitutionalist running for President far more than they did against W? The status quo gate keepers gave Dubya a free pass on his low grades because he was one of them.

Jamsie 567
08-05-2008, 09:22 PM
No. I would hope that they would have already tested and proven themselves over the course of their careers.

In theory that is true but who selects the presumptive nominee? Regardless of their political background we can see there is no logic behind it.

Obama has no experiance at all compared to Ron Paul.

And McCain's poor record speaks for it self.

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 09:28 PM
You don't think the statists in the government and the media would unrelentingly use a poor SAT score against a constitutionalist running for President far more than they did against W? The status quo gate keepers gave Dubya a free pass on his low grades because he was one of them.

Do you think Ron Paul knows what the cosine of zero is?

I think he probably does.

brandon
08-05-2008, 10:14 PM
Do you think Ron Paul knows what the cosine of zero is?

I think he probably does.

He definitely did at one point - ya can't get into medical school without knowing calculus.

But I wouldn't be so sure he still does. People forget math quickly when they don't use it. And I don't see any reason he would have had to calculate a cosine in the last couple decades.

Captain America
08-05-2008, 10:16 PM
no

SeanEdwards
08-05-2008, 11:21 PM
How about asking them to take the ASVAB, the standardized test that every military recruit has to take? The prez is after all the highest ranking person in the military. Shouldn't they have to take the same test as every ditch digging private? Or is even that too much to ask?

G-Wohl
08-05-2008, 11:36 PM
We already subject presidential candidates to standardized testing: It's called the presidential election.

roshie
08-05-2008, 11:49 PM
I can only see the thousands of books that will be created to beat this test. Only that the poor folks can't afford it.

muzzled dogg
08-05-2008, 11:55 PM
Not if it costs the taxpayers anything

SeanEdwards
08-06-2008, 12:07 AM
Not if it costs the taxpayers anything

Oh of course, because having dumbass chief executives doesn't cost us anything.

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

SeanEdwards
08-06-2008, 12:14 AM
We already subject presidential candidates to standardized testing: It's called the presidential election.

Is it really? Every candidate gets the same standardized treatment during the election process? I did not know that. How very interesting.

G-Wohl
08-06-2008, 12:14 AM
Oh of course, because having dumbass chief executives doesn't cost us anything.

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

We're not populists here! Presidential candidates are granted the same freedoms the average citizens are. The Constitution has considerations for stupid potential presidential candidates. (Hint: They're simple things like, say, VOTING, and THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE - you know, BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW).

G-Wohl
08-06-2008, 12:17 AM
Is it really? Every candidate gets the same standardized treatment during the election process? I did not know that. How very interesting.

If we followed the Constitution, they would be treated fairly.

But, this kind of standardized testing would be unconstitutional.

So implementing such a system would be counterproductive.

In a free market, the candidate with the most desirable views would obtain the most donation money, and in a free society, businesses would be too afraid of legal ramifications of engaging in corrupt/illegal practices regarding elections.

rockandrollsouls
08-06-2008, 12:53 AM
Do you think candidates for President should be required to take standardized tests, along the lines of the SAT or other college admission tests and those results made public?

No. They just need to be held accountable when they violate their oath to the Constitution. The sad thing is we let them stay in office...we should be ripping them out. We don't need a test if we keep them in check. Tests are not a good idea.

H Roark
08-06-2008, 01:09 AM
No. I would hope that they would have already tested and proven themselves over the course of their careers.

+1

Besides with the public in the deep sleep that its in, I don't think the results would have ANY affect. The nation witnessed retardedness for 4 years, yet we still re-elected GW... I don't intelligence has much to do with how well a president will govern, there are plenty of evil geniuses.

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-06-2008, 01:20 PM
How about asking them to take the ASVAB, the standardized test that every military recruit has to take? The prez is after all the highest ranking person in the military. Shouldn't they have to take the same test as every ditch digging private? Or is even that too much to ask?

Presidents are NOT military, they are CIVILIAN. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest ranking person in the military. There are a ton of reasons why the government demanding presidential candidates take general academic exams is a dumb idea and why that could just as easily backfire on the freedom movement as help it.

HOWEVER, I might support the idea of presidential candidates taking an exam to test their knowledge of the Constitution, since upholding and preserving the Constitution is the President's job description... But, the test would have to be submitted to voluntarily by the candidates, issued by a private organization and not by the government, and there would have to be complete transparency about who writes the questions and how.

SaratogaForRonPaul
08-06-2008, 01:27 PM
Can this be considered "No President Left Behind"? Rather than learning to make real decisions and think for themselves, they will focus on learning to pass the test, then our presidents will fall behind the grade levels of all the other western nations.... oh wait, we're already there.

acptulsa
08-06-2008, 01:27 PM
Piss test them too!

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-06-2008, 01:28 PM
Can this be considered "No President Left Behind"? Rather than learning to make real decisions and think for themselves, they will focus on learning to pass the test, then our presidents will fall behind the grade levels of all the other western nations.... oh wait, we're already there.

If it's going to be like NCLB, then if our government leaders don't get high enough scores on these tests, can we just start closing entire departments of government like we do with schools when they don't score high enough?? :D That might sway me over to support this.

JosephTheLibertarian
08-06-2008, 01:31 PM
Do you think candidates for President should be required to take standardized tests, along the lines of the SAT or other college admission tests and those results made public?

YES!


http://static.flickr.com/46/176988243_320bebad0e.jpg

Rhys
08-06-2008, 04:50 PM
YES!


http://static.flickr.com/46/176988243_320bebad0e.jpg

lol Billy Clinton is smart as shit. He'd ace this little test. Jesse Ventura would say "wtf" to this test.

Therefor, based on test results, vote Clinton.

SeanEdwards
08-06-2008, 05:41 PM
Presidents are NOT military, they are CIVILIAN.


The President is the commander in chief of the entire military. In the army barracks I was stationed in they had pictures of the entire chain of command, enlisted and officer, and Dubya's smirking chimp face was at the top of the wall.

pacelli
08-06-2008, 05:42 PM
If the candidate doesn't have the chops to graduate from high school, isn't that relevant to their qualifications to be commander in chief?

The SAT isn't a required test to graduate from high school, and standardized testing did not exist when the Constitution was penned.

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-06-2008, 05:43 PM
The President is the commander in chief of the entire military. In the army barracks I was stationed in they had pictures of the entire chain of command, enlisted and officer, and Dubya's smirking chimp face was at the top of the wall.

Right, the President is commander in chief of the armed forces during times of war, but even then, he is still civilian, not military. CJCS is the top ranking military officer.

Rhys
08-06-2008, 05:46 PM
we have civilian leadership of the military. the president and defense secretary are both civilian.

SnappleLlama
08-06-2008, 05:46 PM
The SAT and ASVAB tests are a joke. Why not have them test for Mensa, instead? ;)

SeanEdwards
08-06-2008, 05:53 PM
The SAT isn't a required test to graduate from high school, and standardized testing did not exist when the Constitution was penned.

The SAT is a college admissions test, but I think the No Child Left Behind laws have requirements that all high school students have to pass some standardized test in order to graduate.

And the constitutionality of this testing is not really significant. I'm not arguing for a test that would in itself bar a person from being elected, rather I'm arguing for some kind of test that would give voters a more quantitative assesment of a presidential candidates educational level.

If a presidential candidate can't add fractions, I want to know that. I don't want to vote for that guy. I think that's more useful data regarding an individual's fitness for the job than what songs are on their ipod, or what kind of underwear they prefer. The media does an admirable job of reporting on the candidates underwear, but they are not telling me if any of these bozos can locate China on a world map.

And as I said previously every single person entering the miltiary takes the ASVAB and has their scores attached to their permanent record. I took the damn thing, and it was a joke. Somebody who can't pass that test, meaning they aren't fit to dig holes for the militiary as a private, has no business being the highest ranked person in the military.

libertarian4321
08-06-2008, 11:15 PM
The SAT wouldn't make sense- that contains academic knowledge that most people never use after HS or college. Even bright 40, 50, and 60 year olds probably wouldn't do all that well with mathematics that they never use.

However, perhaps a basic test of mental competence would be in order- something that checks for, among other things, the onset of senility. McCain seems to be slipping mentally- both his short and long term memory seem to be diminished- for now, he's usually able to cover it up- but what about 2 or 3 years from now?

Three years from now, if McCain manages to win, we could have a hot headed, senile, warmonger with access to the nuclear football.

That would not be good...