Jump to content

Civics Test


Recommended Posts

I saw a link to this quiz on a blog and followed it, encouraged that the blogger had missed "only 3" out of 60 questions.

I missed 12.

As I took the test, I decided I'd link to it here but wouldn't post my results, which, it was becoming increasingly clear, would be miserable. Turns out my results are much worse than I would have hoped -- a reminder that no matter how much I might fancy myself as up to speed on current events, my knowledge of history is truly pathetic -- but not nearly as bad as I feared.

Still, I expect most everyone here will do much better than I did. And for that, I salute you.

My results comparison:

You answered 48 out of 60 correctly

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW. That was tough. Warning: some questions are political ringers designed to ensnare the cant of modern conventional wisdom. Non-partisan snares, I might add.

My score was 91.67% (55 out of 60). On at least one of my misses, I was not up to the task of answering the question and merely guessed. On one or two, I picked the wrong answer of two or three possible "right" answers.

Excellent quiz. I urge all to take it.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I scored exactly what I thought I would: 50 out of 60. (I'm OK on history, but economics and poli-sci aren't my strong suits.)

Curiously, though, some of my guesses turned out to be correct, whereas some choices I was fairly confident about turned out to be wrong.

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My results:

You answered 49 out of 60 correctly

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich, which questions were you thinking of as snares?

Most of the questions about the First Amendment had answers tempting for some not conversant with its language. A question about the sort of government we have (I don't want to spoil any answers). There were some ringer answers in the Econ section. The question I just guessed on was the effect of the U.S. governments purchase of bonds. No frame of reference. This off the top of my head after a Vestry meeting preceded by a tempestuous Future Planning session and an email debate over a fit response of my church over the mess that is the Episcopal Church's relations with the Anglican Communion.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich, which questions were you thinking of as snares?

Most of the questions about the First Amendment had answers tempting for some not conversant with its language. A question about the sort of government we have (I don't want to spoil any answers). There were some ringer answers in the Econ section.

Yeah, I guess this was a survey designed for college freshmen and seniors. It was pretty interesting to look at how the students did, particularly the questions that the freshman did better with than the seniors. (Although I question the conclusion by the authors that some students experienced "negative learning." I think you could only draw that conclusion by following up with the freshman four years later.)

I was really impressed with how well the Grove City College students did in comparison with all of the other schools. I guess Grove City, with its stand regarding not accepting any federal student aid, attracts students who are well versed in civics. Of course, the mean score for those of us on this thread is much higher than from the top scoring school, Harvard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. I had to gloat a little after I saw my score. The jerks didn't even give me the out of "some college" on the survey. All in all, that's why I thought that the choices were pretty crafty in that some of the answers played to what one so often overhears in conversations and reads in the papers, now and then.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That WAS tough; I did worst, and I was a History major! (Albeit one who focused on world and NOT American history.) In my defense: I was rushing and did answer all question "off the top of my head" rather that, say, using Wikipedia.

Using Wikipedia? To take a quiz that tests your knowledge?

I hope we all answered the questions "off the top of [our] head."

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was really impressed with how well the Grove City College students did in comparison with all of the other schools. I guess Grove City, with its stand regarding not accepting any federal student aid, attracts students who are well versed in civics. Of course, the mean score for those of us on this thread is much higher than from the top scoring school, Harvard.

I didn't notice comparisons of college kids among freshman/seniors, or Grove City to elsewhere, but my smallish Virginia church includes a number of families who sent their kids to Grove City. I've taken to referring to the congregation as a "cult" in that respect -- as if sending kids to some other college is a betrayal of some sort. :) But it's tough to argue the point when the academic results speak so eloquently to that school's achievements.

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question

24

has two correct answers, since in

Federalism

the

state

and

national governments

do

share power

, but the

national government

has the

ultimate power

to

overrule

the

states

.

52/60, plus one for q.

24

. Almost all the misses were obscurish things I had no idea about.

Dale

Edited by M. Dale Prins

Metalfoot on Emmanuel Shall Come to Thee's Noel: "...this album is...monotony...bland, tripy fare..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Megan McArdle discovers the test, and 68 comments (and counting; I haven't read 'em yet) ensue.

She scored 100%.

I hate her.

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites
Question

24

has two correct answers, since in

Federalism

the

state

and

national governments

do

share power

, but the

national government

has the

ultimate power

to

overrule

the

states

.

52/60, plus one for q.

24

. Almost all the misses were obscurish things I had no idea about.

Dale

Of course, and so does the question that tripped me up on the Monroe Doctrine. However, as an academic or political dff, the answer considered correct is truly the correct one in the context of the answers provided insofar as it best describes Federalism distinctives. Heh, needless to say that while I missed the dff of the Monroe doctrine, I got the Fed question right.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Megan McArdle discovers the test, and 68 comments (and counting; I haven't read 'em yet) ensue.

She scored 100%.

I hate her.

The bitch. And who is the blogger that directed you to the quiz? [gloat]They are the only ones so far to do better than I did that I know of.[/gloat]

Buckeye: Indeed, #58 was the question I had no frame of reference for and by the time I was at #60, I was so cautious about conventional wisdom cant that I fell prey to it myself by guessing wrong (my own political cant happens to correspond to the correct answer. I was seduced by another cant).

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Megan McArdle discovers the test, and 68 comments (and counting; I haven't read 'em yet) ensue.

She scored 100%.

I hate her.

The bitch. And who is the blogger that directed you to the quiz? [gloat]They are the only ones so far to do better than I did that I know of.[/gloat]

:lol: Hey, now. Language. The "blogger" was just some guy at NRO's "The Corner." Can't remember who just now.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: Hey, now. Language.

Sorry. I was quoting my favorite line from Police Academy. I got it wrong. The clueless Commandant Lessard actually said, "The Bitch?" in response to a tirade from his superior about new police policies on the part of the female mayor.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I missed 1 (#58 on purchase of bonds by the Fed) 98.33%

::superman::

I guess that means you didn't cheat and read my answers blacked out above. I can't believe I missed the declaration of independence one--a brain fart, if ever there was one. I dispute #53, although I suppose for poor people and dependents, its true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I missed 1 (#58 on purchase of bonds by the Fed) 98.33%

::superman::

::bow:: Nice going! Having scanned McArdle's blog with its high scoring responders, #58 seems to be the most obscure. I'd love to know how one reasons to the correct answer, or intuits it. As opposed just knowing the answer. The trickiest seems to be #60.

I dispute #53, although I suppose for poor people and dependents, its true.

I thought this question to be a second teer toughie. It seems to be the best answer of a bunch of not quite satisfactory options, but the correct answer is the defense of first resort for any pooled benefit of government in conventional wisdom cant.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

This quiz was featured in today's USA Weekend magazine, which is distributed as a supplement in many newspapers nationwide.

I re-took the quiz, and my results were better than last time:

I answered 53 out of 60 correctly (88.33%) with the following questions missed:

1, 9, 23, 24, 31, 35 and 58

I had missed most of these last time I took it, too. But I had gotten #24 right last time, and missed it this time. Sigh.

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to post
Share on other sites

There it is, that pesky #58 again! Crimson and oldhome both missed it. Like I say, how does one intuit such a question? At what point in Econ training (as opposed to intor and survey classes) does one deal with this sort of thing. Obviously, many of us and everyone with a good chunk of college education under their belt has had some economic education, but for that question, the info isn't being retained....

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...