Civics Test the College Kids all Failed

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Good point. In fact I would guess that intelligent people do better on the test because they are better equiped to figure out that "Puritan" has a root of pure which really left only one answer that would fit with that question. Whether they knew the answer or not thinkers probably got that one right and a good amount of similar questions.

Yeah, I was able to deduce my way to a score of 70, which would put me on par with the Harvard average. Some questions I flat out knew, others I could just reason through.

But if I wanted to test someone's ability to deduce and logically think through questions, I'd administer an IQ test. This is, first and foremost, a test of factual knowledge, most of which is completely useless in today's world.

It's just irritating to hear people come down on college kids from Ivy League schools, who are clearly extremely bright, for not scoring high on this test. Hell, if I went to Harvard and someone came up to me and said "I got a 95 on that civics quiz, what'd you get?" I'd say, 65. What'd you get on your SATs? Oh, 1050? Well I got a 1520, motherfucker. By the way, how was community college?"

This was not to put down a score of 1050 on the SATs, or community college. This was just to illustrate that it's absolutely ridiculous to equate this quiz with intelligence, let alone relevance in today's world.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, I was able to deduce my way to a score of 70, which would put me on par with the Harvard average. Some questions I flat out knew, others I could just reason through.

But if I wanted to test someone's ability to deduce and logically think through questions, I'd administer an IQ test. This is, first and foremost, a test of factual knowledge, most of which is completely useless in today's world.

It's just irritating to hear people come down on college kids from Ivy League schools, who are clearly extremely bright, for not scoring high on this test. Hell, if I went to Harvard and someone came up to me and said "I got a 95 on that civics quiz, what'd you get?" I'd say, 65. What'd you get on your SATs? Oh, 1050? Well I got a 1520, motherfucker. By the way, how was community college?"

This was not to put down a score of 1050 on the SATs, or community college. This was just to illustrate that it's absolutely ridiculous to equate this quiz with intelligence, let alone relevance in today's world.

I got an 83.3%, you neanderthal.

But seriously, it's only because reading History books is sort of a hobby of mine. I find it interesting and cool to learn about. But whereas I might be quicker than Schneed to talk about the Federalist papers, Schneed I'm sure is much more qualified to discuss the subprime mortgage crisis. The latter which is much more relevant.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I got an 83.3%, you neanderthal.

But seriously, it's only because reading History books is sort of a hobby of mine. I find it interesting and cool to learn about. But whereas I might be quicker than Schneed to talk about the Federalist papers, Schneed I'm sure is much more qualified to discuss the subprime mortgage crisis. The latter which is much more relevant.

Nonsense. Financial panics come and are then forgotten. The Federalist Papers will endure forever.

But seriously. The test is designed to reveal one's knowledge of civics. No one claimed it was a test of intelligence. Although, there are many questions that could be answered by applying a liitle common sense. Others, like the one where you had to know that Sumter, Gettysburg, Appomattox was the example in the correct order reveal wether or not you know anything about the Civil War. I think a Harvard graduate should know enough about U.S. history to answer that question. They should know enough about finance to answer the treasury bond question. Etc. Etc. Apparently many of them do not. Ross Douthat has a great book called Privilege that exposes a lot of what goes on up there. Basically everybody that shows up for class gets an A or B. There are many genuinely gifted people, but most of them are kind of unctious over-achievers of the Al Gore variety. That was a revelation to me. I assumed that they were all unusually bright. I guess they are compared to the other schools. Which is sort of like being the best hockey player on Fiji.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Nonsense. Financial panics come and are then forgotten. The Federalist Papers will endure forever.

But seriously. The test is designed to reveal one's knowledge of civics. No one claimed it was a test of intelligence. Although, there are many questions that could be answered by applying a liitle common sense. Others, like the one where you had to know that Sumter, Gettysburg, Appomattox was the example in the correct order reveal wether or not you know anything about the Civil War. I think a Harvard graduate should know enough about U.S. history to answer that question. They should know enough about finance to answer the treasury bond question. Etc. Etc. Apparently many of them do not. Ross Douthat has a great book called Privilege that exposes a lot of what goes on up there. Basically everybody that shows up for class gets an A or B. There are many genuinely gifted people, but most of them are kind of unctious over-achievers of the Al Gore variety. That was a revelation to me. I assumed that they were all unusually bright. I guess they are compared to the other schools. Which is sort of like being the best hockey player on Fiji.

Well, you say that a Harvard graduate should know enough about the civil war to answer that question, but why? Why do people need to know that? I'm interested to hear a valid reason other than "I just think you should know this stuff."

I just can't come off the fact that employers don't give a crap whether you can name the civil war battles. They care if you can negotiate contracts, or strike deals, or analyze financial statements, or determine how to advertise to 18-45 year olds, or defend a company in the courtroom from lawsuits.

College is intended to be preparation for your next step, whether that step be to law school, med school, or into the business world. The reason Harvard kids get an average of 69 is because Harvard doesn't waste its time teaching kids about the civil war. They spend their time training them to think critically and solve problems in the workplace. That's why Harvard grads get paid so dang much.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I got an 83.3%, you neanderthal.

But seriously, it's only because reading History books is sort of a hobby of mine. I find it interesting and cool to learn about. But whereas I might be quicker than Schneed to talk about the Federalist papers, Schneed I'm sure is much more qualified to discuss the subprime mortgage crisis. The latter which is much more relevant.

That's what I got too. Great minds...

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, I was able to deduce my way to a score of 70, which would put me on par with the Harvard average. Some questions I flat out knew, others I could just reason through.

But if I wanted to test someone's ability to deduce and logically think through questions, I'd administer an IQ test. This is, first and foremost, a test of factual knowledge, most of which is completely useless in today's world.

It's just irritating to hear people come down on college kids from Ivy League schools, who are clearly extremely bright, for not scoring high on this test. Hell, if I went to Harvard and someone came up to me and said "I got a 95 on that civics quiz, what'd you get?" I'd say, 65. What'd you get on your SATs? Oh, 1050? Well I got a 1520, motherfucker. By the way, how was community college?"

This was not to put down a score of 1050 on the SATs, or community college. This was just to illustrate that it's absolutely ridiculous to equate this quiz with intelligence, let alone relevance in today's world.

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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

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.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

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

Take the one labeled CMA.

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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

Take the one labeled CMA.

144.

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

144.

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

True to the title, "a friggin genius." That score puts you in the top 3% or so.

I had a 140.

It's the pattern memory that gets me. I think I aced everything else, but I just can't for the life of me remember those yellow, blue, and white blocks by looking at them for 10 seconds.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

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.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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



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.

Actually, I'm guilty, I did not read the entire thing. It is however, an interesting retraction to your first.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Actually, I'm guilty, I did not read the entire thing. It is however, an interesting retraction to your first.

It's not a retraction, it's a clarification. How are you not getting this? Perhaps you should take the IQ test.

The difference lies in memorizing historical facts and ANALYZING historical events. If you're analyzing historical events, then you're learning lessons that you can apply to the present day. If you're memorizing the dates of civil war battles, then you're adding no value to anything.

This test gets after your knowledge (ie MEMORIZATION) of historical fact. As some have said, there is room for some process of elimination, but in the end it's a fact check. All you have to do is not be a retard and be capable of reading a textbook for 3 days, and you can ace this test.

In short, doing well on this "civics" test says nothing more than you can read.