STANDARDIZED TESTS, SUCCESS AND LEARNING IN AMERICA

AN ESSAY

I always get ideas when I study advertising in the New York subway. A couple weeks ago, I looked up and saw a big print ad from Kaplan, the standardized test-taking course publisher. It showed a young black man with glasses holding a book. Next to his face ran a slogan: "Prepare for an Upturn." Under the slogan appeared a few words about the tests for which Kaplan offered courses. It did not mention prices, although it did list contact information and addresses.

My mind roared into action as soon as I saw these images. I have long criticized standardized tests for their counterintuitive absurdity. They rarely measure knowledge or intelligence; if anything, they measure an applicant's ability to learn the "test-writers'" techniques and predict which multiple-choice answer they designated "correct." This ability to "read the test-writer's mind" includes numerous little tricks, such as looking out for the words "not," "unless," "but if" and "except." If those words appear in certain combinations, they automatically rule out certain answers. By ruling out certain answers, test-takers increase their chances to pick the correct one from those that remain. In sum, standardized tests do not test substantive knowledge from a liberal perspective. Rather, they are merely ornate little games with learnable little rules. And worst of all, these "ornate games" represent the single most important factor in determining whether a person attends a university.

Kaplan--along with all the other test-taking course publishers like The Princeton Review--knows all these things. It understands that students want to get into the best schools they can. They know that students want to make money, and the only way to make money is to get a good job. Only people who go to "good schools" get "good jobs," and the only way to get into a "good school" is to do well on standardized tests. Kaplan, then, offers a truly valuable service. On a micro level, they teach students how to read the test-takers' minds and predict the correct answer based on subtle hints in the text. But on a macro level, they open the doors to lifelong commercial success: Once you "ace" the test, you get the degree, get the job and make the money. For a terrified student, that is a miraculous potential reward.

At least, that is the theory. In truth, good schools and good grades do not necessarily translate into employability and money. That is why I found it perplexing--and even misleading--for Kaplan to say: "Prepare for an Upturn." Is that not an ambiguous thing to say? An upturn? In what? In score? In salary? In happiness? On the other hand, perhaps Kaplan meant all these things. After all, according to the "test-school-job-money-happiness" continuum that dominates conventional American notions about "success," doing well on standardized tests is the first step toward ultimate victory. These conventional notions assume that people want nothing more than a high-paying job to be happy. And if a person aces a standardized test, that increases his or her chances to get into a school, which in turn will lead him or her to a high-paying job. Kaplan knows that students think in these terms, so they play to it: If you get an upturn in standardized test scores, you get an upturn in life.

But there are not too many jobs left in 21st Century America. Even people who follow the "conventional path" from high standardized test scores to college and graduate school will not always find the "upturn" they expected in the end. Thousands of law school graduates, for instance, now struggle to find low-paying posts. College graduates face an even grimmer employment picture, even the ones who got 1600 on their SATs and waltzed into top schools. For those who did not fare as well, opportunities are even bleaker. Put simply, success on standardized tests does not translate into a "guaranteed upturn" in salary, employability or happiness. In fact, those who peg their hopes for happiness on the private job market are bound for disappointment. In times like these, the best pathway to employment lies in family connections, not school names or even test scores. A dumb nephew will always get a family job over a smarty-pants stranger who got high test scores. And Kaplan can't teach you to be the CEO's nephew.

That is why it is both sad and disingenuous for Kaplan to promise hopeful students to "expect an upturn" from acing standardized tests. It is sad because no test score or intellectual achievement ever guarantees private sector employment. Quite the contrary, private enterprise follows the money; people get jobs in private business when the company has available money, not because it respects a student's performance on a standardized test. It is disingenuous because it leads students to believe that test scores somehow entitle them to private sector employment. The mystique surrounding standardized tests is so pervasive that students think they are invincible as long as they breach a certain score threshold. This is a fool's belief.

Standardized test preparation companies like Kaplan perpetuate this fool's belief. They want students to lust after high scores. They want students to believe that they are "set for life" as long as they achieve a certain score on the test. By nursing that belief, Kaplan's "services" become ever more attractive: If high scores mean a better life, then who wouldn't lay down $1500 for a course that guarantees a high score? Like any savvy advertiser, Kaplan did not list course prices. Advertisers do not like to scare people away with prices. Instead, they want to trigger a burning desire to buy their products; they only disclose prices after the consumer has developed a conscious need to get the product. Kaplan faces an easy task in this regard. All students burningly seek an advantage in standardized test-taking because they believe higher scores mean a better life. Thus, they all too readily buy into Kaplan's rhetoric about "upturns" as long as they buy a Kaplan course. When they ultimately learn that Kaplan charges $2000 for a course on the LSAT, they are too intoxicated to resist paying it.

I did the same thing. I paid $1500 for an LSAT course in 2002 because I wanted to get a better score and increase my chances to get into a "good law school." I didn't take Kaplan, but test preparation companies all follow the same principles. I fell for the rhetoric. I thought the course would magically boost my score, and my score would propel me to Harvard or Columbia, then a $150,000-a-year job at a private law firm. It didn't happen; not even close. I did not even do that well on the test. I am just not very good at standardized tests. But I am proud of that. I resist mimicking idiotic test-writers and learning their picayune little mind tricks. That doomed me on the LSAT, but so what? What good would a higher score have done in the end? We're still in a depression, and even the greatest test-takers face the same economic adversity as the most blundering multiple-choice neophytes.

I have deep objections about America's fixation on standardized tests. It is impossible to objectively measure an individual's intellectual depth, creativity, intelligence and "value" with a purposely deceptive, trick-laden, multiple-choice amalgamation. Yet millions believe that standardized tests authoritatively measure all these things. I think this reveals a fundamental flaw in most Americans' approach to knowledge in general. Standardized tests are supposed to measure intelligence and intellectual depth. Yet neither intelligence nor intellectual depth can prepare a test taker to face the myriad tricks and traps in any standardized test. Doing well on a standardized test about biology, for instance, requires learning about the particular standardized test about biology, not about biology itself. And because standardized tests act as "gateways" to universities and careers, they are essentially instrumental. In essence, then, the American obsession with standardized tests renders American approaches to knowledge "instrumental," too: By spending all your time learning how to take tests, knowledge becomes just another forgettable tool to get a job. Knowledge in itself is nothing. Only knowledge that "gets you in somewhere" is worth having.

I believe the opposite. I think that knowledge offers its own rewards, no matter whether it helps you do well on a standardized test. People tell me that this is a "humanist" or "Renaissance" approach to knowledge. In other words, it is "old-fashioned" and "impracticable." People tell me that I need to "put my knowledge to use" so I can "make money" and "get a better job." But that's not the reason I learn things. I learn things to enrich my own mind, not to boost my resume or impress some interviewer. This might be old-fashioned and even "unreasonable," but it's what I do.

I do not like instrumental learning. Kaplan thrives on it. I live in a country in which students ask: "What do I need to know for the test?" rather than: "I want to learn more about this subject because it interests me." That illustrates the difference between instrumental learning and learning for its own sake. True, instrumental learners might score highly on standardized tests. But so what? They can pick all the correct answers in the world, but that will not magically create a private sector job for them. How ironic is that?

SUCCESSFUL PEOPLES' PRACTICAL ALLIANCE FOR THE REDUCTION OF ALL LIFE QUESTIONS TO A MULTIPLE CHOICE TEST

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Dr. Chuang Ho Fung, Esq. (bar licensed in all 50 States, plus the District of Columbia), M.D., D.D.S., C.P.A., D.V.M., P.E., D.P.M., Certified Race Horse Rider & Jockey, Certified 500-Meter Springboard Diver, N.A.P.T.-Certified Personal Trainer, State-Authorized Dietary Technician (New Jersey); Chairperson, The American Board of Standardized Test Takers (Multiple Choice Division); CEO and Founder, Ho Fung’s Test Wizzes, Inc., a Delaware Corporation with subsidiaries.

In America, success depends on taking tests. From school to work and professional life, Americans must repeatedly prove their merit by answering substantive questions under supervised time pressure. Third-graders must take tests to prove they can spell. Eleventh-graders must take tests to prove they can handle college work. Doctors must take tests to prove they know the aorta is not the colon. And lawyers must take the Bar Exam to prove that they know what contracts are. Tests define and mark our lives. If we do not do well on the test, we fail. If we do well on the test, we succeed. Our tests determine whether we go to college, get a job or make money in life. In short, tests are everything. Without solid test-taking skills, success is impossible.

We are successful because know how to take standardized tests. Test-taking is an art and a science. It involves iron nerves, time management, cunning, skill and aggressiveness. In that sense, taking tests mirrors American life. Just as a successful person must have iron nerves, solid time management skills, cunning and aggressiveness, so too must a master test-taker. Great test-takers manage their time to the minute. They do not spend 61 seconds on a question that only deserves 45. They know how to answer questions. And they are cunning; they can ignore distractions and focus solely on the important information in a problem.

We did not become master test-takers overnight. We spent our entire lives learning how to take tests. We endured failures before learning how to decipher standardized questions. We did not always know how to answer questions such as: “It is raining on Sunday, but not Thursday; Jones goes to the park on Wednesdays, unless it is Friday; Marge cooks in the parlor every day but Sunday, unless Jones goes to the park; When does Jones not go to the park? (A) On Tuesday if it is raining; (B) On Fridays, except Good Friday; (C) Unless Marge cooks in the parlor, on Saturday night; (D) (A) and (C), but not (B); (E) None of the above; but all of the above if Marge cooks a steak.” But now we can fish out the correct answer simply by looking at the sentence structure. We know how testers think. We can read their minds and give them the answer they want. We know how to use the words “but,” “unless,” “except,” “not,” “all,” “if” and “none.” Armed with those skills, we passed tests that made us doctors, lawyers, accountants, professors and veterinarians. All Americans can learn test-taking. They need not actually know the material; they just have to know how to take tests. In America, results matter. Tests measure results. In that light, testing is everything. Knowledge is unnecessary. Even the most knowledgeable man will fail a test if he does not know how to take it. And if he cannot subconsciously interpret the word “unless,” he will stand no chance at all.

Our test-taking abilities brought us untold riches. By learning how to take tests, we got into the best schools, passed all the professional license exams and landed extremely high-paying jobs. We learned how to take each test, aced them and started collecting our money. True, we often forgot everything about the test after we passed it. But that did not matter. We achieved our goals. We got our degrees. We landed our jobs. We did all this because we knew how to take each test along the way. Who can argue with success? Too many Americans complain that they just “cannot get over the hump.” We disagree. As the Successful Peoples’ Practical Alliance for the Reduction of all Life Questions to a Multiple Choice Test, we believe that all Americans can achieve success. They must simply know how to answer questions in a standardized test format. Once they learn this art, no door will close to them. Rather, even Harvard and Yale will bombard them with scholarship offers. After all, it is all about the score in America, in both life and sports. If you get the high score, you get the result you want. Test-taking skill will get you the high score. And that will get you all the love America can give.

Educators in the United States do not understand this. They believe that students should learn for learning’s sake, not merely to pass tests. They think that knowledge is a permanent asset, not merely an expedient instrument necessary to overcome a looming exam. These are fundamentally flawed assumptions. If it came between a well-rounded person who “learns for learning’s sake” with no special test-taking skill and a narrow-minded person who “learns what is necessary for the test” with special test-taking techniques, the trained test-taker will always get the higher score. And in America, high scores trump low scores. It does not matter that the well-rounded person retains his knowledge and thinks profoundly. Nor does it matter that the test-taker immediately forgets everything he learns before moving on to the next exam. Scores are more valuable than knowledge. Harvard does not take “smart people;” Harvard takes people who get the high scores on standardized tests. High scorers do not need to be smart. They simply need to know what’s on the test and how to correctly—and quickly—answer the questions. Intelligence actually hampers test-taking ability, since “intelligent people” see ambiguities in unambiguous test questions. Rather than instinctively answering, they hem and haw, pondering grammatical issues in the text. What good is intelligence when it costs them test success? Nothing. Thus, educators have it all wrong. Intelligence and knowledge are not the goal. Rather, students simply need to pass tests. They do not have to be “smart,” “curious,” “profound” or even “remotely bright.” They just need to know whether (A), (B) or (C) answers the question—within time limits.

Tests gave us all we could ever want in the world. We achieved our status because we learned how to take the tests and aced them. Nonetheless, even master test-takers face quandaries. Despite our superior test-taking abilities, there are some questions in life that we cannot answer. This frustrates us greatly. We feel cheated. We worked long and hard to learn how to take tests, only to discover that there are some questions that do not appear in a standardized format. Worse, no one grades or corrects responses to these questions, making it impossible to achieve a high score for answering them. Put simply, this is unacceptable. Test-takers deserve better. We believe that all questions in life must appear in a standardized, multiple-choice format subject to grading and scoring. We can answer any question by ruling out (A), (C) and (D). Why can’t we apply our skills to answer “unanswerable” questions? What message would it send to hopeful test-takers if they knew that all their hard work will never answer certain questions? As master test-takers, we are accustomed to success. We refuse to allow life to ask any question that we cannot answer in a graded, standardized format.

To reinforce respect for test-taking in America, we must draft a standardized test for “difficult life questions.” It is not enough to test future lawyers by asking them about evidence, contracts and property division rules. It is not enough to test future engineers by asking them about load walls and stresses. Rather, we must test and grade responses to all questions, not just questions necessary to get into universities and obtain professional licenses. To do this we must introduce a Universal Life Standardized Test (ULST). We must appoint a professional board to grade it. This is the only way to bring all life questions under standardized control. We are not accustomed to questions without answers. That is why we resolve ourselves to answering them all now—once and for all. No longer will people say: “There is no answer to this question.” Soon, there will be. And you will fail if you do not answer it correctly.

We believe that we can answer any question as long as we know the test. The ULST will provide definitive, objective answers to all life questions, even questions that have eluded explanation since time began. For example, the ULST will pose questions such as: “The purpose of life is which of the following, assuming Herbert is present in the room on Friday: (A) To live well according to James Wilson, except if his wife objects; (B) To obtain $5,000,000 before age 50, but not if it snows in London this March; (C) Meeting James Wilson; (D) Not meeting James Wilson; (E) All of the above except (D).” It will also resolve intractable philosophical issues with questions such as this: “Happiness can best be described as: (A) Joy, but not pain, provided the supervisor consents; (B) Pain without joy, unless the supervisor does not consent; (C) A warm house owned in fee simple absolute and not subject to adverse possession claims; (D) Mental retardation and lifelong dependency in the State of Ohio, but not mental retardation or lifelong dependency in the State of Hawaii, unless it is a leap year; (E) Death, unless it is not quick.” Additionally, the ULST will test an applicant’s ability to ascertain previously-unknown—and apparently insignificant—facts: “Bill Ruggles went for a walk in June 1987 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. During that walk, Bill DID NOT think which of the following thoughts: (A) I need to get home in order to urinate, but not feed the cows; (B) My wife is a mean and awful woman; (C) I do not need to feed the cows, but I need to get home to urinate; (D) My left middle finger has a cut on it; (E) None of the above except (A).” Lastly, the ULST will test matters of taste and morality: “Good people: (I) Read good books; (II) Eat good food, but not eel grass; (III) Exercise regularly without ingesting more than 500 calories per day; (IV) Tell the truth, unless working; (V) Do not tell the truth, except when not working; and (VI) Visit their parents in Duluth during bad weather, but never in summer, unless the parents are named Carlsbad. Applying these facts, bad people do which of the following: (A) (I) and (V), if they are not named Carlsbad; (B) Tell the truth, (II) and (III), unless they are working; (C) (I), (II) and (III), but not (VI); (D) (V) if not telling the truth at work in Duluth; (E) All of the above, except (III), other than eel grass.”

Test-takers will learn how to answer ULST questions in less than 60 seconds. Good test-taking requires disciplined time management. Applicants will have 180 minutes to answer 180 multiple-choice questions on the ULST. Applicants will have one 15-minute break in between the first and second halves. Applicants will not have access to any outside information during the testing session. They must know how to answer the questions without recourse to data. That is the only way to determine whether an applicant truly understands universal life questions. Proctors will circle the room to ensure fairness. The test will be administered quarterly. Registration will cost $575 per applicant, plus applicable taxes and fees.

We suggest that the National Board begin work on the ULST immediately. If we do not reduce all life questions to a multiple-choice test, we insult all the hard-working test takers who gave their lives to learn how to take exams. As it stands now, even the best test-takers cannot truly answer “what is the purpose of life” or “what makes you happy” because there is no standardized test to ask those questions.

No more. Through the ULST, test-takers will remove all uncertainty from their lives. They will take comfort in the fact that even tough questions can be answered—and graded accordingly. Finally, successful ULST takers will receive “Universal Life Certification,” meaning they have correctly answered every question in life. That, in turn, will allow them to update their resumes and legitimately claim that they “know what they are talking about” on any life issue. Of course, success on the ULST will not replace success on specific subject matter tests. Lawyers must still take the Bar Exam even if they have passed the ULST. Doctors must still take their Boards even if they have Universal Life Certification. Although successful ULST takers should not have a problem with specific subject matter tests, we believe that Americans can never take enough tests. After all, the more high scores one achieves in life, the better.

Life is understandable. Everything can be boiled down and graded under an objective standard. There is no uncertainty in life; rather, we can know everything. As long as we phrase our questions in a standardized format, we can answer them correctly. Tests are the gateways to truth and success. We control our own destinies. We simply must write the test, enroll in a course, learn how to take it—then pass it.

Enroll in a special ULST practice course today. Testing day is coming up. You want to pass, don’t you? You don’t want to fail, do you? You want to be successful in life, don’t you? If so, you had better start studying for the test. You can do it. You just need to know how to answer the questions. After all, life has an answer key, just like the ULST. Just learn it once and you’re on your way. Once you pass, you can tear up your study materials and go to work for the rest of your days, confident in the knowledge that you have “Universal Life Certification.”

CLOSING THE EDUCATION GAP : WE NEED TO MAKE AMERICA SMART--FAST

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Dr. T. Vernon Letterman, Professor of Market Solutions, Wharton School of Business, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Chairman, American Credit Professionals United For Growth Through Debt.

America faces economic crisis because we do not properly educate our children. Recent studies revealed that American children rank behind Albanians and Somalis in basic math and science skills. They also rank behind Togo and Trinidad in English reading ability. This represents a grave danger for the American economy. Without math, reading and science skills, American bankers cannot effectively use calculators, loan officers cannot tabulate interest rates and chemists cannot invent profitable new medications for erectile dysfunction. Our economy needs bankers, loan officers and chemists. We need loans and drugs to function as a modern society. Without such contributions to society, we can expect a bleak future. If our economy faces difficulty now, imagine how bad things will be once these poorly-educated children join the workforce. Given this alarming trend, we must take swift action. There is only one way to prevent imminent economic ruin: We must make our children smart—fast.

For decades, American children have wallowed in an overly permissive culture. They no longer want to achieve great things; they simply want to drink Kool-Aid®, eat cookies, play Super Smash Bros.® video games and go nighty-night. In decades past, American children learned the skills they needed in school and went on to successful careers. In 1960, schoolchildren wanted to be astronauts, bridge builders and pediatricians. Today, they just want to hang around and talk about High School Musical® or imitate no-good rappers. We need to bring the spirit of achievement back to America’s youth. We need to make American children want to learn, not play video games and or wander around malls with their friends. We need to tell our children that they are Americans, not Albanians or Slovaks. They are better than that. Yet the scores say that Americans can’t solve word problems as well as an ignorant Portuguese peasant. This must change.

As a Professor of Market Solutions at Wharton Business School, I believe in American enterprise. I know that private enterprise can provide a solution to the education gap. We simply must find the right teachers to help our kids. The time for soft-hearted permissiveness is over. Kids need to take school seriously and get ready for tests. Private enterprise can equip them with the tools they need to learn everything. We must no longer settle for Albanian math achievement levels; we must strive to be the world’s best. To that end, schoolchildren must start algebra in first grade and calculus in second grade. This is the only way to get our children excited and motivated about math. If our second-graders can’t compare the cosine differentials in inconsistent parabolas, we are failing as a country. Private businesses can make it fun to learn calculus. By working with companies such as Disney® and Fisher-Price®, I am confident that even the stupidest kid can work out a differential equation under time pressure by the time he reaches third grade. In America, we can achieve anything for our kids.

We want results for our children. For too long, Congress has obsessed about protecting children from internet pornography, child molesters and playground killers. Instead, Congress should have been worried about children’s deteriorating academic skills. While Congress fretted about immoral Hollywood movies, our children stopped learning how to read. While Congress enacted laws protecting children from al-Qaeda, our kids became stupider than the Sudanese. We need to prioritize. What good are safe children if they are stupid? Without proper education, we sabotage America’s chances to succeed in the 21st Century. The smart people are all dying. Now, the idiots who can barely read or balance their checkbooks are succeeding to powerful positions in government, finance and science. We face national embarrassment, bankruptcy and international ridicule. All over the world, other countries call our kids fat, lazy, Twizzler®-eating do-nothings who can’t distinguish circles from squares. They point to the geometry test scores. They note that American kids think triangles have six sides and that isosceles means “ice cream.” Is it any wonder that our economy fails? Look at our children—they are horrendously stupid.

We must get tough on our children. It is in our interest to make our kids smart again, because smart kids make money later. And when people make money, it makes everyone else happy. Additionally, smart kids might even turn out to be inventors or patentholders; and inventors give us all useful things like hand vacuum cleaners, improved anxiety pills and disposable pets. Parents may want to “go easy” on their children so they don’t “hurt their feelings.” But the time for mercy is over. We need to get strict with our kids so they don’t turn into mush-brained couch potatoes. We can no longer afford to call failed kids “individuals with delayed achievement issues.” No, we must return honesty to education. When a kid can’t add or subtract on a math quiz, we cannot write “Nice try! You will get it next time: B+.” We must write: “You dumb fuck. Get it right or ship out: F.” In American business, we do not tolerate failure. We should not encourage failure among our children, either. Our economy depends on their success. We must foster it. And we must harshly punish failure, just as private enterprise does.

We must close the achievement gap. Private enterprise can do this by setting firm goals for students all over the country. The time for “curricula” and “lesson plans” is over. We must treat schools like corporations with deadlines, achievement patterns and incentives. We must foster a new culture that demands success. To that end, we propose demanding that all first-graders read Milton and Shakespeare. We cannot wait to move into challenging texts; we must challenge our students from day one. How will our students outdo the Germans and the French if they are still reading Elmo books when they are 18? Our students must achieve everywhere, all the time. They must achieve in math, reading, science, astronomy, literature, art, physics, chemistry, history, philosophy, Spanish and writing. We will not achieve without bold, corporate-style goals. It is not enough to read large-print books with simple sentences. Our second-grade students must read Descartes, Homer, Dante and Aristotle in the original. We refuse to be a Nation of junk-food eating losers any longer. We are determined to outdo the Japanese. And that means our kids will solve calculus problems at age 7.

Detractors say that we should go easy on our kids. They say that children face developmental problems at early ages, and that academic success must take a back seat to emotional stability and “socialization.” This is precisely the attitude that landed us behind Albania on the international intelligence list. While our kids should have been reading Paradise Lost and solving calculus word problems, they were playing with building blocks and drinking apple juice with their 4-year-old classmates. Their teachers wanted them to “acclimate to life with other people” rather than study for achievement tests. What a bunch of losers! These teachers bred our children for failure and condemned our country to international embarrassment. In life, “getting along with other people” is not as important as scoring highly on tests and getting a good job. American educators failed to see this for decades. They failed to prepare our kids for everyday challenges; rather, they made our kids into lazy, ungrateful, petulant whiners who prefer to chat about Britney Spears than write geometry proofs. Now our economy is in shambles.

We face difficult years. It will not be easy to reverse the damage caused by years of wrongheaded educational theory. Nonetheless, I am confident that private enterprise will find a way to make our kids smart—fast. Private enterprise feeds our troops, builds airplanes, finances construction projects and provides entertainment to millions. It breeds a culture of success because only the strong survive. Private enterprise always finds the best way to get things done, and I know it will find the best way for our kids. Of course, it will be no cakewalk. Our kids need to adjust the way they think. They need to think about scoring highly, achieving, winning and doing their best. They need to think about physics, chemistry, calculus and Shakespeare, not about Guitar Hero® or the new Zac Efron album. In short, American kids need to start thinking like employees: They must want to win. They must have the zeal to outdo their neighbors and friends. They must constantly thirst for victory. We need ambitious kids who want to ace tests, go to great schools and land super-paying jobs. To do that, we must hit them early. We get nowhere as a Nation when our eighth-graders are still playing Tiddlywinks® in math class. When private enterprise brings achievement back to American education, eighth graders will be building rockets and refining jet fuel, not answering “true” to the question: True or false? 6 X 7 = 44. Our eighth graders will be writing sonnets and grammatically perfect essays, not plodding through Sesame Street® primers and struggling to write their names in crayon. We demand success from our kids. And they will give it to us—fast. In private enterprise, we get results. If a kid does not deliver, he’s out. There will be no more comfort in failure.

America can beat Albania in math ability. When private enterprise provides the solution, American kids will outdo everyone on earth. Soon, America will be #1 in math, science, economics and literature. Our kids will be smarter than any Norwegian. And when we have smart kids, we guarantee a bright economic future, complete with bankers who can add, subtract, multiply and divide interest rates, as well as chemists who can formulate profitable new erectile dysfunction medications. By closing the education gap, we will triumph over the financial crisis. And we will make America the smartest—and richest—country in the world. We will no longer share company with contemptible Albanians, Slovaks and Yugoslavians. Soon, our 10-year-olds will be smarter than even the most brilliant Oxford scholar. Put simply, once private enterprise provides sensible, market-driven guidance to education, we cannot fail.

Let’s start winning. Let’s get smart. Let’s close the education gap. And let’s make sure that our bankers and chemists do their jobs, so that all of us have a better life.

A BETTER BAR EXAM MEANS BETTER LAWYERS

By : Mr. Cleophas G. Hoistwell, Esq., L.L.M., National Association of Bar Examiners

Our Nation depends on skilled lawyers. We live in a constitutional democracy in which reasonable laws maximize the public good. We eschew arbitrary rule by individual men for rational, collective, republican government. The law orders our society. It gives predictability to our commerce. It provides a voice to express the majority’s morals. And it protects all good citizens from the violence of dangerous deviants. In short, the law both drives and guides our American civilization.

Lawyers serve the law in America. Without good lawyers, Americans would not be able to secure justice through the law. In less orderly societies, aggrieved individuals resort to private vendettas, feuds and crude revenge to win justice. But in America, citizens trust the law to exact revenge on those who act wrongly. Rather than seeking private revenge on a merchant who breaks his promise, a private seller in America goes to a lawyer to seek legal revenge for his injury. At the same time, the accused merchant seeks his own lawyer to advocate his perspective. A neutral court weighs both sides and decrees a just result. That is the heart of American justice: Fairness, impartiality and reason under neutral laws. In this country, creditors do not bludgeon debtors to death when they fail to pay their bills. Instead, they invoke fair legal principles to compel adherence to just rules. In the process, we give everyone a chance to be heard. Lawyers allow us to hear everyone’s voice. That, in turn, allows our courts to render fair, just decisions to resolve disputes.

Our society depends on skilled lawyers for the same reason it depends on an orderly legal system. An orderly legal system provides effective redress for public and private injuries in society. People trust lawyers to secure that redress. Throughout our history, lawyers have done an admirable job. With dogged advocacy, imaginative argument and courage, lawyers have done their part for justice in America. By zealously advancing their clients’ causes under law, lawyers have forged a pathway to truth; and truth illuminates the pathway to justice. We salute our legal profession for its commitment to justice. In even the smallest cases, a lawyer’s work reinforces respect for a legal system in which the People put their trust.

We live in rapidly changing times. Thankfully, the law stands as a familiar bulwark against the forces of change: What was larceny in 1800 remains larceny today. Nonetheless, there is a widening gap between legal theory and professional practice. In decades past, lawyers attended law school to learn legal principles that served them well in their professional careers. State governments recognized that the public needs good lawyers. For that reason, they conditioned a license to practice law upon proven legal ability through a Bar Examination. Bar Examinations serve as a gateway mechanism that assures the public that only skilled lawyers will represent them. For generations, this gateway mechanism proved successful: Lawyers showed their skill by answering essays and reciting legal rules, just as their fathers and grandfathers did before them. Upon passage, successful examinees joined the profession; and the State felt satisfied that its lawyers “knew the law.”

We support the Bar Exam tradition. Our legal system depends upon the past. Legal rules derive their strength from past decisions. Lawyers must constantly look to the past for guidance in the present. Their analytical work is backward-looking: They see what happened yesterday, then attempt to match their arguments to analogous situations today. To do this effectively, lawyers must know how to read rules and memorize them. After all, without an ability to rapidly memorize old rules, a lawyer could not effectively match his case to an old one. The Bar Exam is an excellent way to measure a lawyer’s ability to memorize thousands of ornate legal rules. Although many of these rules have no application at all to modern legal practice, lawyers demonstrate their mental devotion by learning them anyway. Furthermore, lawyers must respect tradition and order. By learning immense amounts of inapplicable legal doctrine before test day, they show that they are willing to accede to any demand made by the State. Lawyers must obey the State that sustains the law. The Bar Exam enforces obedience at the same time it tests loyalty and mental discipline. In short, we will never abolish the Bar Exam, no matter how inapplicable it may be. We believe that the Bar Exam trains lawyers to follow instructions and submit to authority. To that extent, it is eminently applicable: It cultivates values that drive the legal profession.

New lawyers must pass the Bar Exam because old lawyers passed the Bar Exam. It would insult past generations if we allowed new generations to escape this highly significant rite of passage. It does not matter that the legal rules at issue in the Bar Exam do not apply in professional life. Lawyers are a brotherhood with distinct traditions, ceremonies and hierarchies. It would undermine our values to abolish a tradition that forges identity from adversity. No one asks the Army to abolish boot camp. So too should no one ask the legal profession to abolish the Bar Exam. The Bar Exam is the ultimate challenge. It is the ultimate ordeal. It demonstrates the applicant’s endurance, dedication and courage under stress. By dutifully learning inscrutable legal formulas that mean absolutely nothing in everyday life, lawyers show their mental toughness. They show their willingness to do anything for the profession. They build their characters by confronting seemingly insuperable difficulty. We insist that our traditions remain intact. Ceremony matters in both law and life. If we abolish the Bar Exam, which ceremony will be next to fall? The Presidential Inauguration? The fraternity hazing? The first communion?

By passing the Bar Exam, lawyers prove their worth. And because the Exam ultimately protects the public by creating obedient, disciplined lawyers, it would be foolish to eradicate it. It must persist.

We recognize that lawyers must accommodate changing times. Critics say that the Bar Exam should adapt to test more “pragmatic” aspects of legal practice. Currently, the Exam only asks timed essay and multiple choice questions on subjects from every legal field. Some States also require the applicant to compose a “practice-oriented” legal scribbling, such as an office memo or contract. Yet nothing in the Bar Exam directly targets the practice experience. We believe that the public deserves lawyers who more effectively understand how to serve clients. To that extent, we support including new sections in the Bar Exam that test an applicant’s ability to handle “real-life” practice situations.

In practice, lawyers must speak on the phone. They must ask questions. They must gather facts to flesh out their legal theories. They must listen to their bosses. They must review millions of documents to search for damaging admissions or inconsistencies. We support new Bar Exam sections that test an applicant’s ability to handle such practice pressures. The National Association of Bar Examiners has established a committee to determine which aspects of everyday practice best typify the lawyer’s everyday existence. After many months of hard work, we have drafted a new Bar Exam section entitled: “Preparation for Professional Life.” Beginning in 2010, applicants to the Bar of each State will be required to pass the new section. It will comprise 25% of the total test score; failure to pass it will result in overall test failure. Below, we discuss the substantive material at issue in the new section.

In Bar Exam tradition, applicants must answer questions without really thinking about the answers. They must be reflexive. Analysis does not matter as much as rote response. If an applicant can answer a criminal law question about “voluntary intoxication” by immediately choosing an answer that involves “a defense to specific intent crimes,” he will have proved his worth. After all, the Bar Exam tests dedication and memorization. And when an applicant has memorized the material, he knows answers without even looking at the questions. It takes time to reach such automatic facility with material. That is dedication. And that is the mark of a good lawyer. The public does not want original thought; it wants reflexive, responsive service.

In the first new section (“The Drinking Ordeal”), the Association continues the tradition of reflexive knowledge under merciless time pressure. To pass the first part of the “Preparation for Professional Life” Exam, applicants must drink five (5) U.S. gallons of beer or wine within 90 minutes under close supervision by other licensed attorneys. By this ordeal, we will test the applicant’s ability to drink copious amounts of alcohol quickly: A true hallmark of professional practice. Lawyers not only know how to analyze statutes and draft wills; they also know how to imbibe more—and more efficiently—than any layman. By requiring applicants to drain five (5) U.S. gallons of beer or wine within strict time constraints, we also test effective time management. Lawyers must drink; but they also must find time to do so. As many practicing lawyers know, this is no easy task. The new section tests a future lawyer’s ability to drink quickly and efficiently while balancing other responsibilities. By requiring supervision by other attorneys, we guarantee that no applicant can get away with drinking less than the prescribed five (5) U.S. gallons. If an applicant fails to drink the prescribed five (5) U.S. gallons within the allotted time, loses consciousness, undresses, dances on a test table, wets himself, vomits or dies, he fails. The Association recommends that the Drinking Ordeal be administered before all other Bar Exam sections, so that applicants will be forced to write essays and answer multiple-choice questions while completely intoxicated. This mirrors professional practice. Lastly, applicants must pay the State Bar Examination Board for the alcohol used in this section. This not only generates extra revenue for the State Bar Examination Board, but it also teaches a valuable practice lesson: In professional life, you have to buy your own beer.

In the second new section, the Association tests applicants’ humility and obedience. In professional life, new lawyers start low—very low. They do not start out trying cases or meeting with high-grade clients. Rather, they join a hierarchy; more specifically, they join at the lowest possible rung. They may know legal rules. They may be enthusiastic and bright. But that does not increase their political status as the weakest of the weak. Additionally, new lawyers must know their place within the hierarchy. To do that, the second new Bar Exam Section (“The Emasculation Ceremony”) requires applicants to submit to verbal abuse at the hands of senior partners. Applicants will have 120 minutes to complete an impossible task, such as finding a case that does not exist or a statute that has been repealed. When they have exhausted every source to find the nonexistent law, they must go before the managing partner, who will loudly call them “idiots, morons, losers, disgraces” and “incompetent assholes” who “don’t deserve a cent of my money.” The partner will also yell at the applicants and explain that their failure is costing the firm money, and that they have committed legal malpractice. The partner will scream various personalized insults at the applicant, such as: “You fat ass punk, I wanted this shit done yesterday. And fuck you, too.” He will also falsely tell the applicant that every other associate in the firm does their job correctly, but the applicant does not. If the applicant becomes defiant, talks back, makes excuses such as “I’m new at this,” argues or cries during his Emasculation Ceremony, he will fail the section. If he agrees with the partner’s assessment, apologizes profusely and says: “It was all my fault; I will do better next time,” he will pass. This section tests the applicant’s ability to calmly absorb criticism and blame from superiors, an essential skill in professional life. In the Association’s view, defiant lawyers have no place in the profession. Rather, competent lawyers know their place and willingly accept treatment commensurate with their low station.

In the final new Bar Exam section, applicants must demonstrate their ability to accomplish tedious, time-intensive tasks. In modern-day professional practice, law firms achieve financial success by billing as many hours as they can on particular matters. The Association decided that it would test applicants’ ability to practice that skill. To do this, the third new Bar Exam section (“The Sanity Test”) requires applicants to sit alone in a small room in front of a computer screen for 12 hours straight without rising from a very uncomfortable, hard-backed office chair. All the while, rotating supervisors will enter the room to ensure that the applicant does not get up. If an applicant gets up, speaks, turns around, falls asleep, cries out or urinates, he will fail the test. This section tests an applicant’s mental determination to methodically attend to the most mind-numbing tasks for long hours. In the Association’s view, modern legal practice involves many such time-consuming, apparently pointless tasks. Yet these tasks are very important to the firm, because they form the basis for robust billing. In the end, lawyers must understand that they are economic entities, no matter how many legal principles they memorize. The Sanity Test drives that message home.

In sum, the Association believes that these new sections will adequately prepare new lawyers for their careers in the legal profession. As lawyers, we respect tradition and we draw our strength from the past. At the same time, we recognize that we live in a changing legal climate that demands more from practitioners than ever before. By requiring new applicants to pass the new Bar Exam sections on Drinking, Emasculation and Sanity, we are confident that future lawyers will be better prepared for professional life. They will not only master timeless legal esoterica such as third-party beneficiary law and the Rule Against Perpetuities; rather, they will also effortlessly learn to balance alcohol with work, absorb punishing workplace abuse and resolutely attend to the most inconsequential, counterintuitive and meaningless tasks for hours on end. By mastering such technical skills, lawyers will better represent clients. And when lawyers better represent clients, justice prevails.

We are fully confident that the new Bar Exam will secure justice for all by producing perpetually drunk, abusive legal technicians who can stare at computer screens longer than any layman—for reasonable fees. And they will know how to recite the Holder in Due Course Rule, too. If that does not secure greater access to competent legal counsel in America, nothing will.