Standardized tests make sense when they are conceived in the correct manner.

Tests that test specific knowledge, for example what you learned from a particular book or in a single class, are just a test of what you can remember.

But tests designed around entire bodies of knowledge, for example medical exams, are quite effective. They don't test what you remember but rather what you know.

There is a big difference

Agreed. My gripes with not only standardized testing but testing in general is that they are done in a way that doesn't encourage the students to learn what is being taught, and instead to memorize the information temporarily.

My psychiatric boards didn't ask me questions with four right answers and one right answer, they asked me questions with five right answers and asked what was the "best" answer among them. It required me to have real experience from my residency treating real patients and also to be very familiar with the literature so I can recognise what the current body of knowledge is as opposed to "traditional knowledge" which may have been superseded by new information.

Passing scores for "real" standardized tests are often in the high 60's or low 70's % specifically because it's hard to answer questions that have no single right answer. The point of the test is to prove that you are broadly familiar with the body of knowledge. Test questions can literally come from anywhere as long as you can cite them in the primary literature or accepted standards of practice.

👌

I thought that kind of thing was a common thing in universities? Give the students literature to read, hold the lecture and then hold a test with a passing grade of like 50%?

@DrYuriMom since you have experience with grand jury duty. I hope you can explain it to me, since I am a filthy foreigner from a place without juries.
I tried reading the wiki article, but did not get much meaning from it.
1. Is the purpose of the grand jury to discover if there are any merit to an accusation?
2. Are you allowed to bring a lawyer when appearing in front if a grand jury?
3. You know the history of the concept of thegrand jury?
4. A (normal) jury is part of trial where guilt and punishment are metered out?
5. What is the definition of a; reasonable doubt. b; beyond reasonable doubt. c; beyond any doubt.
6. Is there any difference between a grand jury on state level and federal level?
7. Do you have an opinion on the Mueller Grand jury?

I can atleast answer number 5

Go for it

A) is basically is there enough evidence for a group of peers to believe you committed a crime, B) There must be more than before, C) And finally, The evidence in facts proves they committed it

I'm pretty sure that's not what reasonable doubt is.

I;ll come back to this in a bit. Too busy in general ^^;

Let's move over here, I think it's fair to say this is becoming a debate.

No one is taking life away except the individual taking their own life

Which is itself an abridgement of the citizen's privileges.

Thus, enforcing a law which allows it is a breach of the amendment.

The citizen has no right to determine their own actions upon oneself? That doesn't strike me as liberty.

There can be no laws which allow for the abridgement of citizen privileges. There is no caveat that the citizen is exempt from abridging their own privileges.

Thus, a citizen is not allowed to abridge their own privilege to life.

"You're not allowed to die. You must express yourself"

So, on the topic of grand jury.
1-correct
2-no. The defense has absolutely no role in a grand jury and the accused may not even know that charges are pending.
3- Grand jury is to prevent the tyranny of a district attorney. Any felony accusation must be deemed credible by a jury before prosecution can occur.
4- yes
5- Grand juries have a rather low bar. All we assess is whether if, assuming all the testimony and evidence is true, there is a credible case that could result in a guilty verdict.
6-Yes, the threshold is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
7- All I know is that they are citizens doing the best the can to perform their civic duty.

Does a grand jury convict?

Never

They simply act as gatekeepers to prosecution

Where is it written in the Constitution that we have a "privilege to life"?

Thank you for your answers

Ah. Well, if we do not, that simplifies things greatly.

So, a law that allows for the killing of individuals on the spot would then be a legitimate right of a state?

Due process

And would not be in conflict with the 14th amendment.

So, an individual kills himself, there is no problem with due process.

An individual kills another, and suddenly there is a problem with due process?

Why is that?

Because you can't prosecute a dead person.

Ah, so you admit they are breaking the law. It is simply impossible to punish them for it.

Sure.

So, allowing for assisted suicide *is* a breach of the 14th amendment.

I'll see where this leads