Should We Give an Entrance Exam to People Running for President or Congress?

An entrance exam would be nice. Nothing difficult, maybe solving a handful of math problems, answering a few U.S. and World History questions, and even responding to some philosophical ones, just to gauge their level of knowledge before they occupy positions of power.

To run for President, the requirements are:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”1

For the House of Representatives:

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”2

And for the Senate:

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”3

That’s it—just age, citizenship, and residency, in the case of the President.

I’m almost done reading the two-volume biography of John Adams, the 2nd President of the United States. In it, I learned that John Adams was a farmer, and that part of his entrance exam to Harvard College (now Harvard University) was an on-the-spot translation of a passage from English to Latin.4 John Quincy Adams, his son and the 6th President of the United States, received the following entrance exam:

“They quizzed him on Horace and the Iliad, asked him ‘a number of questions in Logic, and in Locke, and several in geography,’ then gave him a passage in English to translate into Latin.”5

He passed the exam and was admitted to Harvard.

My college entrance exam was hard, but not as hard as the ones John Adams and his son took.

It seems there was an expectation from the beginning that well-rounded individuals would lead this country. Somewhere along the way, something happened, a disconnect of sorts, and we’re definitely not seeing that kind of intellectual capacity in many of our elected officials today.

Now, I’m not suggesting that the President or members of Congress should have PhDs. After all, President Abraham Lincoln was, for the most part, self-educated. But at a minimum, they should understand basic math, have some grasp of science and economics, and be socially and culturally attuned, not only to American society but also to the world. That seems essential for leading a country of immigrants and making decisions that touch the lives of people globally.

Earlier this year, I wrote a post titled “Thermodynamics: Because Political Nonsense Is Exhausting.” In it, I touched on an article I read in The Economist about the Lucy Letby trial in the UK, which highlighted flaws in Britain’s education system, especially in math and science among politicians.

Well, there’s plenty of nonsense happening in this country on a daily basis. Too much to capture in a single blog post. But one comment that made me laugh yesterday was about the reduction in prescription drug prices. The President said:

“You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don’t mean 50%, I mean 14—1,500%.”6

I mean, that’s great news, right?

If you’re used to paying $1 for your medication at the pharmacy, now, instead of paying $1, you’ll be getting paid $14. Or let’s say you’re paying $1,500 for a particular medication, now you’ll receive $21,000.

Just in case, here’s the math:

1,500 × 1500% = 1,500 × (1500 / 100) = 1,500 × 15 = $22,500
$1,500 – $22,500 = –$21,000

Now, I’m not sure who’s going to receive this money—you, the pharmacy, the drug company, or maybe the government—but it’s remarkable that we’re supposedly reducing drug prices by as much as 1,500%. Maybe we’ll get an Amazon gift card in return.

Putting sarcasm aside: we all know this is mathematically impossible. Or maybe we’re living in a parallel universe where that kind of math works. After all, the plan was to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of inauguration—so, on or about January 21. But it’s now August, and the war is still going. Maybe in this parallel universe, “hours” mean months or years. Who knows?

The point is: as leaders of this country, our elected officials should exercise judgment before speaking and aim to state facts rather than resorting to hyperbole to impress the public. Maybe an entrance exam would weed out some of this nonsense, or maybe not. But we definitely need to change the process by which our major political parties select candidates. Because electing officials based solely on age and citizenship doesn’t seem to be working too well.

  1. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/#ALDF_00027969 ↩︎
  2. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S2-C2-1/ALDE_00013371/ ↩︎
  3. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C3-1/ALDE_00013345/ ↩︎
  4. Smith, Page. John Adams. (p. 14). New York: Doubleday & Company, INC, 1962. ↩︎
  5. Smith, Page. John Adams. (p. 667). New York: Doubleday & Company, INC, 1962. ↩︎
  6. https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=89a9248c88ed42ae97aa2fd123bb27df&mediatype=video ↩︎

70 thoughts on “Should We Give an Entrance Exam to People Running for President or Congress?”

  3. The electoral commission conducts an official draw to see which candidate gets which spot on the ballot paper. It is based purely on luck. If you are able to get drawn for that first spot, you will get the donkey vote.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Interesting! So if the best and strongest candidate gets the last spot, and someone places a number 1 on the top candidate even if the best candidate is at the bottom, is that considered a donkey vote?

      Like

      Reply

  4. You are absolutely right on all those points for compulsory voting. My children were brought up knowing that people had hiatorically not always had the right to vote and even had died trying to secure it. Voting is an important privilege and a human right, however – there are some downsides. Informal votes – where people throw away their vote by defiling the voting paper because they receive a small fine if they don’t vote and objectvto being forced to do it wgen they have no interest. And the other aspect is that although you get the opinion of the whole population you also get many fools that are not politically aware at all and don’t understand the implications of voting or protest vote meaning with our preferntial system, an outlier can secure a position in parliament based on lower rated preferences from other candidates. Donkey votes we call the ones who just get their name ticked off, know nothing about the candidates and put 1234 etc on the ballot paper, regardless of names or political parties represented. They might influence things depending on who is the candidate at the top of the voting paper.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Great points, and definitely a risk when voting is compulsory. “Donkey votes”—I just learned something new. I didn’t know that’s what they call them in Australia. Thank you.

      Like

      Reply

    1. A few reasons: to get people involved in the process, to maximize participation (the last election had about a 64% turnout, with 4 million fewer people voting than in the previous one), because I believe it’s a duty to protect democracy and voting is the best way to do that, and because many people complain but don’t vote, just to name a few.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I wrote about this. Why aren’t we attracting the right people to politics? I wonder if they start with good intentions to make a difference but cannot swim against the tide of corruption. I believe in the US one has to be wealthy to enter politics. This is not so much the case in Australia where I live. Recently though, we elected a federal government with more women than men. So very young and capable. I am expecting good things but we shall see.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. I ask myself the same question often. It seems that politicians after Dwight D. Eisenhower’s presidency have declined in character and are easily swayed toward corruption or, at the very least, favoritism toward certain groups. I’ve read about Australia’s politics, and it seems promising. We definitely need more women and young people in politics. We are lacking fresh ideas and energy.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Something else that is different here in politics is compulsory voting. But then it doesn’t necessary stop greedy politicians – it just might reflect more of the popular vote – but it depends on electoral boundaries. We don’t have an electoral college system though – I would hate that.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. I wish we had compulsory voting in the U.S. and that the Electoral College were eliminated. I think the reason behind the Electoral College is no longer valid and can’t be trusted. Thank you for sharing all this great information about Australia. I’m really enjoying this discussion.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

    1. You’re so welcome, my friend. I’m glad I made you laugh with that crazy math. There is so much going on and way too many changes that it seems like things are going to implode one of these days.

      Like

      Reply

  9. Well said, Edward. And I enjoyed reading the comments too.

    “Somewhere along the way, something happened, a disconnect of sorts, and we’re definitely not seeing that kind of intellectual capacity in many of our elected officials today.”

    Every time I hear him speak, I shake my head. Nothing he says is intelligent. It’s still mind-blowing to know how a felon could be president, let alone run in the first place. No one has the backbone to stand up to him. He threatens and they bow down. It’s disgusting, and we still have 3 /12 years? I am so afraid for our country’s future.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I’m surprised too, and that shows the lengths people will go to in order to punish the other party. It’s just terrible, and my hope is that we can return to our senses once those 3 1/2 years are over. Thank you, Lauren.

      Like

      Reply

  11. So much good information here Edward. The thing with entrance exams is they’re only required for people like us. Those at the top don’t need them, because their IQs are 350. Is that each or collectively? Hmmmm…Let’s do the math on that. 🤣🤣🤣

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  12. I think it has become evident that there needs to be an amendment to the qualifications – And if George Santos didn’t teach the congress anything- (not to mention quite a few others) then we need to amend the qualifications for congress too!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Absolutely! That’s a great example. How no one did a background check on him is beyond me. There must be a better system to evaluate candidates before they get on the ballot. That’s something Congress should take on instead of the trivial things they’re currently pursuing. Thank you, Violet.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  13. His so-called base have gone way over the cliff. There’s no hope of reaching them. I’ve always judged politicians by the advisors they surround themselves with. One man or woman can’t be expected to know everything but they should be smart enough to listen to experts. Out leaders are listening to witches and warlocks and conspiracy theorists.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. That’s so true. There’s a particular lady who seems to have control over the party and is driving conspiracy theories. I agree that we can’t expect the president to know every detail, but at a minimum, he should be able to express himself without resorting to hyperbole. I totally agree about the advisers, and I think he had better ones during his first time in office.

      Like

      Reply

  15. I agree with you Edward, there should be some kind of test of ability to do the job. I’m embarrassed to say that I used to believe politicians were smarter than me. How else could they get so many people to vote for them? But then I learned it’s 2-party manipulation and has nothing to do with intelligence. Party leaders give disgruntled people a place to focus their anger, and without properly thinking it through, party followers obey. And our nation stays divided instead of united. I’ve been searching for no-party political sites, they’ve not been easy to find but here are a few I’m exploring – No Labels, and The Builders Movement. I’m not advocating for a third party, I’m advocating for a no-party system, where we sincerely focus on the issues. Americans have a lot of common and are more upstanding than either party will let us believe. It’s the party leaders that are horrid.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I thought the same about politicians, especially the senators who are supposed to be more capable, but I was wrong. I was looking into No Labels, but for some reason, they don’t want to be on the ballot unless there’s a viable path. I think that’s kind of strange; they just need to go all in and disrupt the status quo. With time, they could win congressional seats and change the dynamics in Congress. We’ll see what their next move is. I’m ready for a third and even a fourth party to step in and change things up a bit.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  17. HI Edward, I also find it strange that uneducated people are often elected to government positions. We’ve had this in South Africa for years and years. The incumbent government has engaged in corruption and mass theft of funds. Mismanagement is rampant. I think a candidate should have a minimum of a degree in economics to run for any cabinet position. It is not surprising that the economies of the world are in a mess when we have people with degrees in ancient history or no education at all (even worse) running everything.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. It’s absolutely absurd, Robbie. We need to do better and truly evaluate candidates to ensure they’re fully qualified to lead a country, not just in terms of education, but also character. Failing to do so is a recipe for disaster. Thank you, my friend, for commenting.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  18. Very pertinent questions and considerations, Edward. I agree with you when you say that the eligibility criteria for the highest representatives of a state should be more rigorous and beyond age and citizenship. I truly wish we could evaluate a person’s goodness, honesty, and benevolence and that these, along with knowledge and intelligence, could be the primary criteria for the position. Can you even imagine it? Aww, I think we are planting positive seeds for the future here… Thank you for another great post, my friend. It’s always a pleasure to read from you. With appreciation and gratitude, sending you light and blessings 🙏✨

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Yes, measuring candidates against the cardinal virtues would be wonderful. Evaluating a person’s character to ensure we elect the best candidate would eliminate many of the injustices we’re seeing around the world. Thank you for the thoughtful comment, and blessings to you, my friend. 🙏🏼

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  19. As a math person, I’m laughing about the percentages. Point well taken, age and citizenship don’t seem to be working too well.

    A couple things strike me. I was listening to a great podcast with the amazing Father Gregory Boyle today. His fundamental question is whether someone is healthy – as in mentally healthy. And I’m not doing his expansive worldview justice here but he had a good point about when we look at people that way, we can disagree and still have empathy. Of course, this is not intended to be an exercise in judging others as our responsibility is to be healthy ourselves.

    Second thing is a quote from Douglas Adams, “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” That does seem to fit these days. 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Excellent point, my friend. I really like what Father Boyle said. Most of the time, I analyze what the President says, and usually, I can figure out what he’s trying to say. I’m sure he meant that prescription drug prices will be reduced significantly, and maybe some people will get them for free. I highly doubt the “free” part, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. What bothers me is the narrative. One thing is to say that “we are reducing prices significantly, between 50–90%, to be at the same levels as other European countries.” Another is to say that we are going to reduce them “1,200–1,500%”

      I told my wife a couple of months ago that if you listen to the way he used to talk 30–40 years ago and compare it to now, you’ll notice a huge difference. Not sure if that’s due to his age, his advisors, or something else, but it’s a bit off.

      You and Douglas Adams are spot on.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I love your expansive ability to listen to find the intended meaning. What an interesting point about comparing 30 years ago to today – I need to find some clips. What bothers me more than the misspeaking is the inability to own it. George W had such a delightful way of laughing at his own gaffs. Thanks for the interesting and thought-provoking topic, Edward!

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  20. The problem is that they have to care as well, care about their constituents and their country, not just about themselves and their biggest donors. Trusting them for integrity would be a good idea as well!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. That’s a big one, Jane, caring enough to actually solve problems instead of worrying about their bank accounts. I know recent presidents have monetized their experience in government after leaving office, but the current administration is making millions while in office, which looks really bad, in my opinion.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  23. All great ideas, Edward. The unfortunate thing is that intentions and personalities often change once power is achieved – and in my mind that’s for almost every politician, no matter the party. We had a friend from home who ran for office here in Canada. He’d have easily passed all entrance exam requirements you’ve suggested. When he visited us while on a break from the campaign trail, I asked him some very pointed questions about, “if you were elected, would you …” and then added the issues I felt were relevant at the time. Because we were friends, I believe he answered honestly, and because of his answers, he wouldn’t have had my vote if I was in his riding.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. So true, Terry. I think some people will take shortcuts and lie their way in. I wish politicians understood that serving the people is one of the highest honors, and that behaving ethically and morally is essential. I guess I’ll settle for someone who doesn’t use hyperbole every time he talks. I’m okay with voting for someone who doesn’t meet all my expectations, as long as they have a decent and rational plan to address the major issues affecting the people. But, my goodness, some politicians win by being all talk. I’m a simple man: deeds, not words.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  24. How about a lie detector and BS test too, along with term limits, and requiring all elected officials to participate in the same health care and retirement plans. No special plans, privileges, kickbacks. And most importantly, repeal Citizen’s United to remove the corrupting influence of big money.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. I like it, Brad. I’m surprised by the number of people who think some of these officials are like us. Some of them have never done hard work in their lives or been in a grocery store in decades. A lie detector and BS test should definitely be added to the Constitution. 👍

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  25. “But at a minimum, they should understand basic math, have some grasp of science and economics, and be socially and culturally attuned, not only to American society but also to the world.”

    Yes to this Edward!!! With all the talk about trade and tariffs, I’ve commented many times that the US President needs to go back to school and take Economics 101.

    The lunacy I see on the news on a daily basis is really disheartening for the future of our world.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Yes, you’re absolutely right. Sadly, the corrupt will always find a way. But we definitely need to find a way to remove some of these people from the process. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, and maybe it’s already too late for that.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a reply to Jane Fritz Cancel reply