The Evil Design Of Schools Tests

Summary of the Video’s Main Arguments

• Standardized tests are portrayed as a “worker-sorting” mechanism, not an education tool. The video argues that schools primarily filter students and channel them toward roles that benefit the corporate system—rewarding traits associated with obedience, memorization, and following instructions, while pushing others out or into lower-status tracks.

• Historical origin: schooling designed during/after the Industrial Revolution. The video claims that public schooling expanded in the late 1800s (with compulsory attendance in the US by around 1890) primarily to convert children into factory laborers. It argues that students were placed into different pathways based on performance on standardized tests:

  • Low scorers → vocational tracks aimed at factory work
  • High scorers → academic tracks aimed at white-collar careers

• Standardized tests are said to measure memorization and compliance, not intelligence. The video uses examples to suggest tests ask for obscure fact recall rather than understanding (e.g., memorizing lists of geographic features from Pittsburgh to Vienna). It cites Einstein as an example of someone who reportedly performed poorly on standardized tests to argue they don’t measure intelligence—only test-taking behaviors.

• Multiple-choice tests are framed as an efficiency invention for grading and sorting. The video claims that early assessment was too difficult to grade quickly (with free-response questions), so multiple-choice was introduced around 1914 to enable rapid, standardized scoring using answer keys. It links multiple-choice design to Taylorism (industrial “time-and-motion” efficiency) and suggests the same mass-production logic was applied to education.

• When factory jobs declined, the same system was “rebranded” for college admissions. The video argues that standardized testing didn’t end—it evolved into college entrance exams, particularly the SAT in the US, along with similar systems globally. The core claim is that these exams still mostly measure preparation for the test rather than real learning or intellectual growth.

• International parallels (China, South Korea, etc.) are used to support the claim of continuity. The video states that in countries like China and South Korea, students must pass exams to enter higher schools; failing leads to vocational routes. It compares this to factory-era sorting to argue the system hasn’t meaningfully changed since the Industrial Revolution.

• “Teaching to the test” is presented as a direct harm. The video claims teachers narrow instruction to what appears on exams, reducing curiosity-driven learning. It argues students memorize topics (like periodic table elements or formulas) without learning underlying purpose or real-world relevance—because the school system wants measurable speed/recall performance, not understanding.

• Training for multiple-choice strategy is criticized. The video argues students learn tactics like elimination, time management, guessing, and returning to questions later—skills that optimize scores rather than deepen education. It cites a study to support the idea that students perform better on multiple-choice than on open-ended problem solving.

---

Proposed Solution (as Argued in the Video)

• Remove standardized tests from classrooms entirely.

  • Any assessments should be used to measure learning progress, not punish or sort students.

• Use open-ended, unpredictable exams for higher education admissions (modeled as an example by Finland).

  • The video points to Finland’s use of open-ended essay-style prompts as proof that admissions can be done differently.
  • It suggests tests with prompts requiring explanation, reasoning, and original solutions (including some open-ended math), plus randomized and unpredictable questions so they can’t be optimized through cramming.
  • It argues scoring should reflect multiple strengths/weaknesses, not a single ranking metric.

• Incentives are blamed for resistance to reform.

  • The video claims authorities and institutions benefit from the current system, so there is little motivation to change it—meaning progress would likely be slow.

---

Presenters / Contributors

• The video narrator / main speaker (referred to as “bro” in the subtitles; no real name provided)
• MyHeritage sponsor segment presenter (the same narrator during the ad; no separate name provided)