Should the United States Adopt a Merit Exam?

[Poltica]

Most of you probably know my hypothesis on America's future, but let's not dwell on the grim future. As anyone who even vaguely keeps track of the evershifting, dangerous realm that is American politics, you may have noticed that some in power are...less than competent. While many of us complain and wonder how this obviously incompetent person won an election, there is very little we can do until elections come around. But wouldn't it be better if our politicians had to have actual governing skills, and not simply be the richest or the best orator? This is why I personally believe America should implement a merit Exam, similar to the Confucian exams of ancient China. A tester fails the exam? They can't run for office. They pass? Congrats, they can run for office. Simple. Based on their grade in the exam, a tester could run for mayor, governor, senator, etc. The point is, our leaders should prove their ability to lead before they run.

So, NSG, what do you think?

[Glycker]

It would be reasonable to require politicians to take the SAT. The score shouldn't be binding or anything, but it should just be publicly available so the public knows where they stack up. The SAT is generally considered to be a good proxy for intelligence and is even better than IQ tests.

[East Blepia]

Most of you probably know my hypothesis on America's future, but let's not dwell on the grim future. As anyone who even vaguely keeps track of the evershifting, dangerous realm that is American politics, you may have noticed that some in power are...less than competent. While many of us complain and wonder how this obviously incompetent person won an election, there is very little we can do until elections come around. But wouldn't it be better if our politicians had to have actual governing skills, and not simply be the richest or the best orator? This is why I personally believe America should implement a merit Exam, similar to the Confucian exams of ancient China. A tester fails the exam? They can't run for office. They pass? Congrats, they can run for office. Simple. Based on their grade in the exam, a tester could run for mayor, governor, senator, etc. The point is, our leaders should prove their ability to lead before they run.

So, NSG, what do you think?

Great checks and balances would have to be imposed to prevent unnecessary alteration or bias of the said examination.

In addition there would have to be strong political will to overcome the various and numerous ¡¡¡ OBJECTIONS !!! which would be raised to the imposition of any such examination. It could be rather reasonably argued that an examination too focused on one category of knowledge/ability over another could exclude or put at a disadvantage certain groups of the population. There would probably exist strong ¡¡¡ OBJECTION !!! especially in rural areas as the common sentiment would probably disparage 'educated' persons who feel as though they are superior.

Nowadays as far as I know very few countries have such an exam so there must be a good reason but I can not come up with it.

[Poltica]

Most of you probably know my hypothesis on America's future, but let's not dwell on the grim future. As anyone who even vaguely keeps track of the evershifting, dangerous realm that is American politics, you may have noticed that some in power are...less than competent. While many of us complain and wonder how this obviously incompetent person won an election, there is very little we can do until elections come around. But wouldn't it be better if our politicians had to have actual governing skills, and not simply be the richest or the best orator? This is why I personally believe America should implement a merit Exam, similar to the Confucian exams of ancient China. A tester fails the exam? They can't run for office. They pass? Congrats, they can run for office. Simple. Based on their grade in the exam, a tester could run for mayor, governor, senator, etc. The point is, our leaders should prove their ability to lead before they run.

So, NSG, what do you think?

Great checks and balances would have to be imposed to prevent unnecessary alteration or bias of the said examination.

In addition there would have to be strong political will to overcome the various and numerous ¡¡¡ OBJECTIONS !!! which would be raised to the imposition of any such examination. It could be rather reasonably argued that an examination too focused on one category of knowledge/ability over another could exclude or put at a disadvantage certain groups of the population. There would probably exist strong ¡¡¡ OBJECTION !!! especially in rural areas as the common sentiment would probably disparage 'educated' persons who feel as though they are superior.

Nowadays as far as I know very few countries have such an exam so there must be a good reason but I can not come up with it.

A good way to prevent biased examiners would be to bring in foreign experts who have been checked to ensure they have no bias in American politics, and a way to prevent the two parties from simply blocking successful testers from engaging in politics would be to simply abolish political parties in the name of pragmatism. Small townspeople will simply have to head to the city to take the exam or stay out of politics.

[Fluganya]

To make sure current style events didn't become a thing again the test would have to be more comprehensive than merit only. It would have to also test for sociopathy and egotism.

[-Ra-]

No. This is just undemocratic.

The people should be able to vote in whomever they want to vote in.

What is it with NSG today and wacky ideas?

[The Two Jerseys]

Define "merit".

[Poltica]

No. This is just undemocratic.

The people should be able to vote in whomever they want to vote in.

What is it with NSG today and wacky ideas?

So the people should be able to vote for a known psychopath, or a person who has no idea how to do their job? That is a surefire way to ensure a nation advances at a snail's pace.

[Poltica]

To make sure current style events didn't become a thing again the test would have to be more comprehensive than merit only. It would have to also test for sociopathy and egotism.

I absolutely agree with this. I am not a logistician, so I do not know how an exam would be implemented, but I am merely saying that it would be good for our leaders to know what they are doing.

[-Ra-]

No. This is just undemocratic.

The people should be able to vote in whomever they want to vote in.

What is it with NSG today and wacky ideas?

So the people should be able to vote for a known psychopath, or a person who has no idea how to do their job? That is a surefire way to ensure a nation advances at a snail's pace.

What makes you think that a merit exam will weed out psychopaths or someone who's incompetent at their job? People can look great in paper and better utter shit in practice. Vice versa.

[Luziyca]

Knowing the United States, they'll arrange it in such a way that it will only apply to African-Americans and other disadvantaged groups.

[Picairn]

Pray tell, what will be the content of this exam? I hope it's not rigged with vague questions to restrict political freedom.

Also being highly-educated and scoring well on the exam doesn't mean that a politician is not evil or misguided. See: Communist figures.

[-Ra-]

Knowing the United States, they'll arrange it in such a way that it will only apply to African-Americans and other disadvantaged groups.

Knowing that the United States has laws against such a thing, I'd say that your argument is utter hogwash.

[Poltica]

So the people should be able to vote for a known psychopath, or a person who has no idea how to do their job? That is a surefire way to ensure a nation advances at a snail's pace.

What makes you think that a merit exam will weed out psychopaths or someone who's incompetent at their job? People can look great in paper and better utter shit in practice. Vice versa.

Have you never been interviewed by a medical professional before? While a socio/psychopath can hide their nature well, professionals have ways of discovering if they have a mental condition. Also, while I am not saying that this will be perfect, it sure as hell would help America to have leaders who are experts at governing, diplomacy, and actually knowing how to lead.

[Poltica]

Pray tell, what will be the content of this exam? I hope it's not rigged with vague questions to restrict political freedom.

Also being highly-educated and scoring well on the exam doesn't mean that a politician is not evil or misguided. See: Communist figures.

Hopefully it would cover civics, international and internal diplomacy, economics, and governance. And if the politician attempts anything evil, there is always impeachment.

[Fluganya]

To make sure current style events didn't become a thing again the test would have to be more comprehensive than merit only. It would have to also test for sociopathy and egotism.

I absolutely agree with this. I am not a logistician, so I do not know how an exam would be implemented, but I am merely saying that it would be good for our leaders to know what they are doing.

I kinda left it vague because I don't think with current knowledge we cannot perfect such a test. But if a test were to exist I think at least these three standards should be tested.

[-Ra-]

What makes you think that a merit exam will weed out psychopaths or someone who's incompetent at their job? People can look great in paper and better utter shit in practice. Vice versa.

Have you never been interviewed by a medical professional before? While a socio/psychopath can hide their nature well, professionals have ways of discovering if they have a mental condition. Also, while I am not saying that this will be perfect, it sure as hell would help America to have leaders who are experts at governing, diplomacy, and actually knowing how to lead.

Thankfully I haven't. Also, this just isn't true. People slip through the cracks, and it's just not feasible to have psychologists or psychiatrists evaluate every single civil servant. They're already time-strapped anyway.

"Professionals" shouldn't be choosing who representatives are. The people should. Democracy 101.

[United American Commonwealth]

A standardized test is a pretty poor way to decide who's gonna be running your country, ngl. There are dumbasses who pass tests and there are smart people who fail tests. There are people who will cheat, there are people who simply want power but would be good at running a country if they simply cared, In fact, I can imagine that this 'merit test' might become Partisan within itself (I.E The Democrats wanting a 70% passing rate on the Social Studies part of the test while the Republicans wanting a 70% on the Economics).

Also, you just know whoever makes the test is gonna put their biases in. Like, imagine if a Green Party member or a Constitution Party member wrote the tests. It's just a mess.

[Poltica]

Have you never been interviewed by a medical professional before? While a socio/psychopath can hide their nature well, professionals have ways of discovering if they have a mental condition. Also, while I am not saying that this will be perfect, it sure as hell would help America to have leaders who are experts at governing, diplomacy, and actually knowing how to lead.

Thankfully I haven't. Also, this just isn't true. People slip through the cracks, and it's just not feasible to have psychologists or psychiatrists evaluate every single civil servant. They're already time-strapped anyway.

"Professionals" shouldn't be choosing who representatives are. The people should. Democracy 101.

Did I say psychologists find everything? If course a few mentally unstable people would slip through, but at least they'd be tested, unlike in current politics, where for all we know everyone's a psychopath. And do you know that people will follow mob rule, even if they don't agree with the politician? People are easily swayed, through bribery, coercion, or threats. Professionals know what they're doing, which the average person doesn't. Does the random Joe know how to manage the national finances? Or how to choose the right person to head a federal agency?

[Poltica]

A standardized test is a pretty poor way to decide who's gonna be running your country, ngl. There are dumbasses who pass tests and there are smart people who fail tests. There are people who will cheat, there are people who simply want power but would be good at running a country if they simply cared, In fact, I can imagine that this 'merit test' might become Partisan within itself (I.E The Democrats wanting a 70% passing rate on the Social Studies part of the test while the Republicans wanting a 70% on the Economics).

Also, you just know whoever makes the test is gonna put their biases in. Like, imagine if a Green Party member or a Constitution Party member wrote the tests. It's just a mess.

This would not be like the Seats we take in school. The tests would be asking questions on governance, civics, civil planning, etc. And foreign experts who are checked to be unbiased in American politics would write the exams. Testers would also be searched to ensure they brought nothing, not even a tissue, to the exam. Wearing glasses? Examiners will check to ensure you're not hiding answers in the lenses. Brought your own pen? Nope, we'll take that away and give you a pen purchased the day.

[The Two Jerseys]

A standardized test is a pretty poor way to decide who's gonna be running your country, ngl. There are dumbasses who pass tests and there are smart people who fail tests. There are people who will cheat, there are people who simply want power but would be good at running a country if they simply cared, In fact, I can imagine that this 'merit test' might become Partisan within itself (I.E The Democrats wanting a 70% passing rate on the Social Studies part of the test while the Republicans wanting a 70% on the Economics).

Also, you just know whoever makes the test is gonna put their biases in. Like, imagine if a Green Party member or a Constitution Party member wrote the tests. It's just a mess.

This would not be like the Seats we take in school. The tests would be asking questions on governance, civics, civil planning, etc. And foreign experts who are checked to be unbiased in American politics would write the exams. Testers would also be searched to ensure they brought nothing, not even a tissue, to the exam. Wearing glasses? Examiners will check to ensure you're not hiding answers in the lenses. Brought your own pen? Nope, we'll take that away and give you a pen purchased the day.

Now I'm positive that this thread is a joke.

[Poltica]

This would not be like the Seats we take in school. The tests would be asking questions on governance, civics, civil planning, etc. And foreign experts who are checked to be unbiased in American politics would write the exams. Testers would also be searched to ensure they brought nothing, not even a tissue, to the exam. Wearing glasses? Examiners will check to ensure you're not hiding answers in the lenses. Brought your own pen? Nope, we'll take that away and give you a pen purchased the day.

Now I'm positive that this thread is a joke.

How?

[United American Commonwealth]

A standardized test is a pretty poor way to decide who's gonna be running your country, ngl. There are dumbasses who pass tests and there are smart people who fail tests. There are people who will cheat, there are people who simply want power but would be good at running a country if they simply cared, In fact, I can imagine that this 'merit test' might become Partisan within itself (I.E The Democrats wanting a 70% passing rate on the Social Studies part of the test while the Republicans wanting a 70% on the Economics).

Also, you just know whoever makes the test is gonna put their biases in. Like, imagine if a Green Party member or a Constitution Party member wrote the tests. It's just a mess.

This would not be like the Seats we take in school. The tests would be asking questions on governance, civics, civil planning, etc. And foreign experts who are checked to be unbiased in American politics would write the exams. Testers would also be searched to ensure they brought nothing, not even a tissue, to the exam. Wearing glasses? Examiners will check to ensure you're not hiding answers in the lenses. Brought your own pen? Nope, we'll take that away and give you a pen purchased the day.

Okay, sure, you got rid of the cheaters. But now you got foreigners writing the tests which determine who's our leaders (If they're unbiased, then they're aliens who know nothing about America or politics. Everybody is biased one way or another.)

Not to mention, you still run into the issue that standard-issue tests are not signs of knowledge, at least, not for everyone. By having a standardized test, you both leave out nervous geniuses who are just horrible at testing and put dummies who are good at remembering into power. The latter is, most likely, impeachable but if you're going to impeach the dummies then what's the point of the test? Just let Bureaucracy or God sort it out at that point.

[Luziyca]

Knowing the United States, they'll arrange it in such a way that it will only apply to African-Americans and other disadvantaged groups.

Knowing that the United States has laws against such a thing, I'd say that your argument is utter hogwash.

Just because they're not allowed to do something doesn't necessarily mean they will do that thing. They will just find a way to get around these restrictions, like with voter ID laws that just so happen to disenfranchise people that those in power don't want voting.

And I'm certain that if the USA adopts a merit exam, the powers that be will probably make it so to make it harder for certain groups to enter government, even if they do it in a way that technically conforms with the laws of the land.

[Poltica]

This would not be like the Seats we take in school. The tests would be asking questions on governance, civics, civil planning, etc. And foreign experts who are checked to be unbiased in American politics would write the exams. Testers would also be searched to ensure they brought nothing, not even a tissue, to the exam. Wearing glasses? Examiners will check to ensure you're not hiding answers in the lenses. Brought your own pen? Nope, we'll take that away and give you a pen purchased the day.

Okay, sure, you got rid of the cheaters. But now you got foreigners writing the tests which determine who's our leaders (If they're unbiased, then they're aliens who know nothing about America or politics. Everybody is biased one way or another.)

Not to mention, you still run into the issue that standard-issue tests are not signs of knowledge, at least, not for everyone. By having a standardized test, you both leave out nervous geniuses who are just horrible at testing and put dummies who are good at remembering into power. The latter is, most likely, impeachable but if you're going to impeach the dummies then what's the point of the test? Just let Bureaucracy or God sort it out at that point.

Bloody hell, must I say it again? THESE ARE NOT STANDARDIZED TESTS! I am not a professional in the educational field, so I have no clue if this is applicable in reality, but the tests are on how to govern. The American political system, not the states but the actual bureaucracy, is not that different from other bureaucracies, so a foreign expert would be able to present a situation that is relatable on America. They aren't multiple choice, the testers will be given several situations and given a set amount of time to answer how they'd resolve it. If their ideas are applicable and not cruel or inhumane, they pass. If their ideas aren't applicable or are cruel an inhumane, they don't pass. In short, tests would be graded on how the tester resolves situations. There would also be sections on math, since economics require an understanding of math, along with a section on how to plan out a city, for those hoping to run for mayor or representative.