Almost 40 percent of all respondents falsely believe the president has the power to declare war.

Maybe they're just confused with effective practice under the War Powers Act?

I took the quiz online, and only didn't get a perfect 33/33 because of terrible wording of two questions (30, 33 - in fact, I think as written 33 had no correct answers, and that mere reason can't get you their "correct" answer for 30).

Public education got me a 32 out of 33 (and like Sigivald, I got number 33 wrong).

I agree with Erin that it's a thoughtful quiz and that there are no inherent reasons why a well-constructed multiple choice test cannot evaluate higher order thinking skills.

The test does seem biased toward more particular information in conservative-oriented areas of history. (The question about Western philosophy, while relevant to American civics, would seem to work against, say, the influence of Hume's moral relativism on the Founding Fathers.)

The question about the Puritans seems misguided. Predestination, while assuming the basic sinfulness of all humans, would seem to create a system in which some (the Elect) are never punished for their sins. A sin without punishment is not a sin. (And a sin with no chance for absolution -- the Preterite -- is not a sin.)

Finally, the average score on-line is 78.1% now. A sample space of 2,500 seems rather limited for any decent statistical findings. The on-line results are not trustworthy either, though. No doubt Americans don't know much of this; but no doubt many of those were taught it at some point. That issue of meaningful, lasting learning is the concern I consider when I see results like these.

"A sin without punishment is not a sin."

Well, no. It is, it's kind of like character being what you do when no one is looking. A parent, for instance, may judiciously decide to have mercy on a misbehaving child but the child has still misbehaved. Sometimes having mercy has a greater effect, if the kid has a conscience.

I didn't do as well as y'all did - I missed four, partly because I didn't read the questions well enough. Should have waited till I was not tired.

Go to YouTube and search on "how Obama got elected" for a real jolt. This isn't so much about the ignorance of the people as it is what people glean from the media if they don't dig in a little.

I got 100% (smirk)

Luther, a sample size of 2500 should be fine *if* the sampling procedure was truly random.

It would be interesting to stratify these results by age...if the education system *used to be* better than it is now, then one would expect older people to show better results. I'll go take a look and see if they have any breakdown on this as well as the sampling method.

OK, looked at the detailed report. The sampling was based on random dialing of home phones--potential problem here is that it omits people who have only cell phones, which is an increasing group. Also, people answering a detailed survey on the phone are probably not at their best since they're often exposed to various distractions--kids, dogs, dinner being cooked, etc.

There doesn't seem to be any relationship between score and age across the entire sample, but when they hold education constant--by looking only at people with bachelor's degrees--there does seem to be a general improvement with age:

18-24 59%
25-34 54%
35-44 54%
45-64 61%
65+ 59%

I have no real problem with multiple choice tests as broad indicators, and no real problem with the idea that Americans share a common culture that they all need to know something about. But questions 27, 30 and 31 are obviously fishing for answers consistent with neo-con ideology. To wit:

31) International trade and specialization most often lead to which of the following? Guess what: the right answer is (a) an increase in a nation’s productivity. Gee, you don't say? I can't imagine why anyone would thing this was "a VRWC set-up paid for by rich right-wing ideologues."

My 16 years of US public education led me to get 32/33, and I got answers like these "right," inasmuch as I ticked the ones that seemed the most right-wing. I got #7 wrong (I misidentified the source of "govt. of the people etc.," to my shame).

Jerry, the answer to 31 became clear to me when I thought, not about the USA, but about less-developed countries that begin to compete on the global market.

If a left-wing outlet wanted to disguise a propaganda effort as a history quiz it might do so with questions like these:

1. The figure who warned Americans against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" on the part of the "military-industrial complex" was:

a. Karl Marx
b. William Ayres
c. Noam Chomsky
d. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

2. The antisemitic attitudes that culminated in the Nazi Holocaust were fostered by which of the following?

a. The Gospel of Matthew
b. Martin Luther
c. Henry Ford
d. All of the above.

This is fun! I suppose I could go on in this vein until I had a full-fledged "quiz," and then I could cook up a "study" and whip up a bunch of press releases about the terrible state of history education--if only I had the kind of money they have over at ISI. Do you suppose the Olins or the Scaifes might want to fork over a few hundred grand to help me sound the alarm about Americans' abysmal ignorance of history?

Jerry...the "international trade & specialization" question is clearly intended to test knowledge of the theory of competitive advantage, developed by David Ricardo circa 1817. Maybe conservative (in today's use of the term) but not very "neo."

ES...I'd argue that well-educated people should know the answer to your questions too, although your #2 leaves out quite a few of the threads that culminated in the Holocaust.

In any event, most of the survey questions are asking for straight and pretty basic factual knowledge, and it's hard to believe that anyone could look at these results and conclude that we don't have a problem

Eveningsun -

Yes, the ISI test leans right, but that doesn't mean the questions are invalid. They are still basic knowledge questions that any educated American should know.

In fact, the first question you propose is an excellent one that would fit in just fine on a civic literacy test. The second one is badly written, but I could see a better version of it in a test.

The results of the ISI test show there is a problem, regardless of whether or not there was a lack of left-wing questions on the quiz. Would the test have been more balanced if it had questions like yours on it? Yes. However, the test is still valuable because it shows a lack of knowledge in areas there shouldn't be a lack.

(On a side note, the only one I got wrong was #33, and that was because I didn't read the question or the answers carefully enough. I saw it was the last question, so I skimmed).

The ISI is right to insist that there's a problem, though it might be a "problem" more in the sense of an interesting topic to explore than in the sense of a threat we must counter at once.

Anyway, the ISI hasn't so much "released a new study" as once again performed a sort of ritual denunciation that has been performed many times before without (as they might have noticed by now) actually solving the problem.

Is anyone really surprised that people forget things over time? That's a pretty basic and ineradicable aspect of human existence, no? Has the ISI bothered to think about why people remember some things forever and forget others ten minutes after they finish the final exam? We don't forget that the red light means "stop," not to mention a zillion other driving laws, because we use that knowledge on a daily basis, and we have an immediate stake in that knowledge. But why in the world should we be surprised that someone ten years out of high school fails to remember anything about the Bill of Rights? I mean, how many times has your immediate welfare depended upon your ability to repeat the wording of the Establishment Clause? And no, I'm not suggesting here that the Establishment Clause is not important to all of us as Americans. I'm merely saying that--at least once we get out of school--hardly any of us will ever be in a situation in which our individual ability to recite those words will make the slightest practical difference. So why are we surprised that people forget these things? And why do we believe we can somehow make people remember them by abolishing teacher's unions or adopting "active learning" or otherwise tinkering with the educational system?

Has the ISI ever asked these questions as questions, that is, in an honest attempt to understand the problem in which they feign so much interest?

We don't forget that opposites attract, because that knowledge has been taught to us repeatedly in a very effective narrative form that's been around since before Harry Met Sally.

We don't forget that you, who are on the road, must have a code that you can live by, because that knowledge has been taught to us in another very effective form, the song.

Given that the knowledge we teach in the very ineffective mode of the school must compete constantly with the knowledge taught in the far more effective modes of song and story, why are we surprised at the school's failure?

The ISI (and, to be fair, their liberal counterparts as well) seem to think that our children are not learning the things that we Custodians of the Culture consider important (and that this is the schools' fault). Dare we consider the possibility that our children actually do learn what we actually do consider important? that what our children actually do learn reflects all too accurately what we actually do consider to be important, as opposed to what we say is important?

Don't cultures always encode their most cherished beliefs in their songs, their myths, their games, their architecture? (Speaking of architecture, what do we teach when we hold commencement in the basketball arena because it's the largest venue on campus?)

If the values we find in, say, pro baseball are in fact the values we cherish, then maybe we shouldn't worry too much about whether people forget the expository language and historical-factual matrix in which those values were taught in school. Maybe when you get right down to it the baseball fan's knowledge of the Steve Bartmann incident in Game Six of the 2003 National League Championship Series is just as serviceable, from a civics perspective, as the Civil War buff's knowledge of the Battle of Shiloh.

Also, if we want to understand what people actually know, shouldn't we respect them at least enough to ask them in their own language? Why ask people questions like this, using the abstract language of the school:

"The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a.) freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures...."

instead of like this, using the concrete language of lived experience:

"Suppose that %&$# down the hall tells the cops you've been selling pot, and the cop comes to your door and wants to come inside and look around, but he doesn't have a warrant. Do you have to let him in, or...."

If the ISI were really interested in learning what people know, as opposed to standing up periodically like some second-rate Jeremiah to engage in the ritual denunciation of the sinners, it would think more carefully and more charitably about its methodology. Maybe our repeated performance of and appreciation for this ritual shows that what we really value is denunciation itself. Darn those Puritans....

Well, let's see. I got 32 out of 33. Missed the "wall of separation," which was the only one I felt really uncertain about. (Narrowed it to two choices and then picked the wrong one.) I did not find any of the questions ambiguous or lacking clear answers. What they did require was carefully reading and comparison of the answers.



Regarding the survey results -- first, the online results are meaningless. Second, as mentioned, a sample of 2,500 is four times what would be needed if the sample were truly random. Most samples are not, for any number of reasons. Further, I don't believe this kind of test can be done well over the phone where (1) the questions cannot be seen/read and (2) conditions may be difficult (e.g., presence of small children, time pressure, etc.)



The questions are obviously a small subset of what could be called "essential cultural knowledge," and so there is some merit in objections about what was left out. I have a much harder time accepting criticism about what was included as being "right-wing."



Then there is the criticism that the questions are too academic or artificial. Well, yes, many people may forget (or have never known) precisely where and how freedom of religion is protected in the Constitution but still be able to name this as being a cornerstone of American life and freedom. Yet, I consider this "quiz" to be aimed (whether intentionally or not) at college graduates, who should have most of these ideas and supporting knowledge down pat. This knowledge should be part of what it means to be college-educated. I would not expect the average high-school graduate, much less someone with less than a K-12 education, to answer most of the questions. But, indeed, many college graduates don't have a clue either, which is why many (of us) are concerned.



Finally, when questions about basic economic theory are criticized as being "right-wing" or "neo-con," I wonder how anyone can consider himself or herself educated and yet know nothing about economics. It's one thing to differ on normative values -- everyone has a view on what is "fair" and "right." It's quite another to argue the equivalent of "well of course vaccines cause autism."

""Suppose that %&$# down the hall tells the cops you've been selling pot, and the cop comes to your door and wants to come inside and look around, but he doesn't have a warrant. Do you have to let him in, or...."

As someone who's done a good umpteen dozen suppression hearings, there are insufficient facts in your hypo to actually answer that, which is why the more abstract question actually tests one's civic knowledge better than expecting Joe Citizen to know the finer contours of Fourth Amendment caselaw. Is " that %&$# down the hall" an anonymous tipster, a citizen informant, or a reliable source? Is there any other evidence to form a basis for probable cause? Are there exigent circumstances, e.g.,, good reason to believe you're imminently about to destroy the evidence of your crime? I could go on.