Should Presidential candidates be subjected to standardized testing?

[SeanEdwards]

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]

Maybe just an in-depth Nolan Chart test

 

[Carole]

They should be tested for reasonable intelligence and decision making abilites, sure.

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

 

[LittleLightShining]

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]

"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!"

 

[brandon]

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]

two words: unintended consequences.

 

[yongrel]

No. I would hope that they would have already tested and proven themselves over the course of their careers.

 

[Rhys]

i don't think there can be a public test for office constitutionaly

 

[SeanEdwards]

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]

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]

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]

.. um.. they would cheat.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

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]

No. Five words: Who would write the test

 

[SeanEdwards]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.