Your essay on correcting essay tests reminded me of our far simpler method of evaluating job interviewees. On our best days several of us employed persons ran identical questions to the subjects, then scored them personally, then met and decided if we agreed with each other and if not, why not. I think we based our method on how we saw Olympics judges score performance athletics that couldn't be timed. Not a good model now that I rethink about it.

I meant to *explain the SAT
in my previous posting. For those of you not in USA "SAT" is an abbreviation for what used to be "Scholastic Aptitude Test". They were everpresent when I was a high school student. They were given at the end of American elementary education so about when the average student was 17 or 18 and were supposed to indicate how well prepared one was for post-secondary education, but not paid for by the state. Possibly subsidized, but I don't think totally. There were two separate sections to be done, one that verbal and another that was mathematical. Predominantly multiple choice. Possibly there were essays required for the verbal.

It might be a good idea to have some set of standard requirements that can be posed as an exam and must be passed to go into public service, but that would certainly indicate a society prejudice against mental infirmity or personality defects. I doubt that can work in the U.S. because it departs from the 'everyman' nature of our Democracy. Also, I believe the French have a quite elaborate system of schooling their public officials and how has that worked out? (Seriously, I'm asking, how has that worked out? I sure don't know).