<p>Jobs awarded based on capability and skill with a civil service test, administered by the Office of Personnel and Management. Also, thank you Princeton Review.</p>
<p>thats the merit system? i thought the merit system was keeping government secrets when they’re employed for the government or something. woww i missed that entire question i think.</p>
<p>^lol, people are so creative. I think I would have a fun time grading the gov FRQs</p>
<p>^^^I got the merit based on capability and skill part, not so much the specifics you have listed. Hopefully what I have is enough to get a decent score on that section.</p>
<p>well i knew just about everything on the test except for that frq because i read NOTHING about bureaucracies. all i know is that they are sometimes considered the 4th branch of government and that the FBI and CIA are bureaucracies, so a merit system to me sounded like it would mean employees of these agencies would follow all laws and keep government information to themselves? Idk i basically BSed the entire question. I talked about like torture in part C hahaha…</p>
<p>I put the Pendleton Act establishing a civil service test for the merit question.</p>
<p>Monoclide: same here! </p>
<p>what did you guys put for 2 b) the structure of bureaucracy question?
I’m not sure if this work, but I talked about how independent regulatory agencies have discretion over implementation of policy and to some extent development of policy as long as it follows legislative intent.</p>
<p>for 2c), does lobbying count as a way interest groups can check bureaucracies?</p>
<p>what did you guys put for 2a)… just curious</p>
<p>I’m just so confused about question 3c (Several other changes in party composition have emerged in the past few decades. Select three of the following groups and for each explain how parties have changed in composition with respect to that group. ). What were we supposed to do? Discuss how different groups effect different parties?
For example, would a legitimate answer be that: women’s support for the Democratic Party has led Democrats to strongly pursue equal employment and pay for women and to be strongly pro choice.
could that work? Or did I completely miss it?</p>
<p>also, for 2b, I believe that the question about the complexity of public policy problems was more that since the problems are very complicated, the independent agencies of the bureaucracy are able to develop expertise in their specific area and are able to address said problems more efficiently. It also helps that the heads of independent regulatory agencies can be present for multiple administrations, so they gain experience in politics as well.</p>
<p>^ Basically if you mentioned that the bureaucratic agencies developed expertise in their particular fields thus making them more adept in handling the issues than the other parts of the fed. gov. you’re probably fine.</p>
<p>^ how bout for 3c? What were we even supposed to answer for that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I mentioned the 1st Amendment - freedom of expression, symbolism, assembly, speech, etc. I used NYT v Sullivan as an example; while NYT is not an interest group, controversial views were presented and the SC ruled an ambiguous and indeterminable requirement in favor of freedom of speech. I also mentioned the 9th amendment - I couldn’t think of anything else, so I just mentioned that it gave the people enumerated rights that can be further used to support the 1st. And I threw in the 17th. I wasn’t sure if the Bill of Rights extended to the rest of the amendments, but I wrote about how the change in elections allowed for interest groups to influence and support candidates in the senate – promoting their interests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>Ok guys.</p>
<p>I put Catholics have become more republican because of abortion, and this is evidenced by the fact that G.W. Bush got a MAJORITY of the Catholic vote in 2004 I believe, which was quite an achievement.</p>
<p>Social Conservatives used to be Democratic, when they were ulta-conservative (supported Jim Crow, etc.). That’s just common sense. FDR pushed many out, and Reagan the rest, mainly because social conservatives felt alienated by the new progressive social platforms of the Democrats, like same sex marriage and abortion.</p>
<p>Women could go either way I believe. I put they’ve become slightly more Democratic. You have to remember that the counterculture in the 60’s with the bra burning was only a small minority of women, and for the most part, women were still very conservative. In the 21st century, post-modern age, where women’s rights are nearly identical to mens, they have rapidly become more liberal, as seen by the ‘soccer moms’ in the Clinton campaigns and the historic run of Hillary Clinton, which had to of attracted many women. I suppose you could put the same point for Sarah Palin, that’s why I say this one was a bit trickier.</p>
<p>^ I mentioned the partial shift of more conservative Catholics from Dem -> Rep due to the two parties’ respective stances on abortion.</p>
<p>Someone before said something about Catholics going from Rep -> Dem under FDR’s presidency? I’m pretty sure Catholics have always been Dem…</p>
<p>And the REA Crash Course mentions that men are more likely to vote Republican than woman are. I mentioned the pro-choice stance of many Dems as a contributing factor as well.</p>
<p>My only concern is:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is definitely some ambiguity in “past few.” Is it talking about three? Or is it talking about a few relative to the existence of the United States?</p>
<p>I did women as well, though I have no idea why at this point. In addition to Jersey13’s point, I also talked at length about the reforms enacted by the DNC commissions; I believe I mentioned the McGovern Commission in particular, though I was–and still am–unsure of whether or not that was the reform intended to promote the presence of minorities and women in the party.</p>
<p>Unfortunately it said past few decades. I really wanted to mention why women would be more likely to vote Democratic because of events in the earlier part of the 20th cent.</p>
<p>I feel as if they were subtly hinting at divided government/split tickets and general dealignment of the two party system. That’s what I grasped from the question and ran with. If that is the case, I am on target. Otherwise, whoops.</p>
<p>Would the ERA be considered past few decades?</p>
<p>I don’t think I put enough specific examples for any of the FRQs.</p>