Civics Test the College Kids all Failed

So I guess....since you basically got a "D", on the test, and you don't want to be a dumb ass, it's meaningless?

This is my whole problem with this thing, people equate the score on this test with being either smart or being a "dumb ass" as you put it.

The average score for Harvard students is 69. Are you going to tell them they're dumb asses? I'd be willing to bet their IQ scores rank damn high, which is a much better indicator of intelligence.

My whole point is ANY DIPSHIT can memorize facts. You can read a history textbook for three days and get a 90 on this test, and all you'd need to know is how to read. This test tells you nothing.

In the words of Bill Parcells, let's flip this pancake over. Let's see who comes out on top, you or the Harvard kids, on the SATs, IQ tests, or math exams. I think we'd quickly find out who the "dumbass" really is.

Most of those questions are easy but there are few tough ones in there. I would expect most college kids to get at least 40 of those questions right, more than that is just a bonus.

It's definitely not a fluff test and covers wide range of topics (philosophy, economics, religion, and history). I don't think this test can be used to get an accurate reading of someone's intelligence. It's basically a memory test with a few questions you can reason your way out of.

p.s. I scored 48/60 (80%). Damn you Alexis de Tocqueville and Radical Republicans!

Most of those questions are easy but there are few tough ones in there. I would expect most collage kids to get at least 40 of those questions right, more than that is just a bonus.

p.s. I scored 48/60 (80%). Damn you Alexis de Tocqueville and Radical Republicans!

Are they made out of paper mache?

Are they made out of paper mache?

Perhaps, you never know :)

What do you mean "accidentally"?

1988 was a seminal year for me. And, as it turns out, the ottoman as well.

This is my whole problem with this thing, people equate the score on this test with being either smart or being a "dumb ass" as you put it.

The average score for Harvard students is 69. Are you going to tell them they're dumb asses? I'd be willing to bet their IQ scores rank damn high, which is a much better indicator of intelligence.

My whole point is ANY DIPSHIT can memorize facts. You can read a history textbook for three days and get a 90 on this test, and all you'd need to know is how to read. This test tells you nothing.

In the words of Bill Parcells, let's flip this pancake over. Let's see who comes out on top, you or the Harvard kids, on the SATs, IQ tests, or math exams. I think we'd quickly find out who the "dumbass" really is.

Go find a test that you think is more indicative of intelligence and let's all take it.

This is my whole problem with this thing, people equate the score on this test with being either smart or being a "dumb ass" as you put it.

The average score for Harvard students is 69. Are you going to tell them they're dumb asses? I'd be willing to bet their IQ scores rank damn high, which is a much better indicator of intelligence.

My whole point is ANY DIPSHIT can memorize facts. You can read a history textbook for three days and get a 90 on this test, and all you'd need to know is how to read. This test tells you nothing.

In the words of Bill Parcells, let's flip this pancake over. Let's see who comes out on top, you or the Harvard kids, on the SATs, IQ tests, or math exams. I think we'd quickly find out who the "dumbass" really is.

The test is obviously more than a memory set to be recalled. It requires on many of the questions at least a cursory understanding of events, societies, social makeup, Governments, etc.
Does is require Da vinci to understand these facts? No
Are many, if not all scholarly people, at least to some degree students of history? Yes
Why? a window to the past in many cases is the window to the future.
I noticed that you reference in all your posts the lack of importance of history in your workplace. I would consider that a very limited view of the world. Your work place is but a micron of the larger picture.
Speaking of history on a workplace note, I would doubt there is any successful business, that does not actively use it's own history, and history in general to predict and exploit the future.
I personally have the utmost respect for the intellect of anybody who is accepted to Harvard. However, as they will discover, the real education in business (if that is your concern) will come with their first position of consequence.

The test is obviously more than a memory set to be recalled. It requires on many of the questions at least a cursory understanding of events, societies, social makeup, Governments, etc.
Does is require Da vinci to understand these facts? No
Are many, if not all scholarly people, at least to some degree students of history? Yes
Why? a window to the past in many cases is the window to the future.
I noticed that you reference in all your posts the lack of importance of history in your workplace. I would consider that a very limited view of the world. Your work place is but a micron of the larger picture.
Speaking of history on a workplace note, I would doubt there is any successful business, that does not actively use it's own history, and history in general to predict and exploit the future.
I personally have the utmost respect for the intellect of anybody who is accepted to Harvard. However, as they will discover, the real education in business (if that is your concern) will come with their first position of consequence.

You clearly didn't read my second post in this thread. So I will repost it:


That is not to say that studying American history, or any history, is a waste of time. If you can think through the issues and problems we faced in the 1800s around the time of the Civil War, explain them, and analyze the outcomes, then you've managed to think through real world problems and you likely have the ability to apply that kind of thinking to our present day situations. That kind of person would be great as a political analyst, or great as an elected official. That kind of thinking, analyzing problems from our history, helps us to avoid repeating mistakes we've made in the past.

So studying history can be a very valuable tool.

That said, this "quiz" does nothing to test analytical thinking. It simply tests your knowledge of historical fact. Memorization of fact adds no value, and hence the test is retarded. History teachers should always ask open ended questions to be answered in essay fashion.


In other words, I don't care if you can name 10 civil war battles or not. What matters is if you can analyze the issues surrounding the civil war, and the lessons learned from them.

Go find a test that you think is more indicative of intelligence and let's all take it.

This kind of test is a legit, though not completely thorough, test of intelligence.

If we we really wanted to take a real IQ test, those take 2-3 hours. But this one can be done in 15 minutes and at least gives you an idea of where you are.

INTERNATIONAL HIGH IQ SOCIETY | Iq Tests (http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/)

Take the one labeled CMA.

This kind of test is a legit, though not completely thorough, test of intelligence.

If we we really wanted to take a real IQ test, those take 2-3 hours. But this one can be done in 15 minutes and at least gives you an idea of where you are.

INTERNATIONAL HIGH IQ SOCIETY | Iq Tests (http://www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/)

Take the one labeled CMA.

144.

As a warning to the kids out there, don't take this test while high.