Government 111 Exam Preparation Suggestions
Format
Exams in this course typically have three components:
The first is identification questions. These are designed to test your familiarity with key concepts and terms in American government and politics. They are drawn from class meetings and readings. The glossary items at the end of each text chapter are a popular source of the terms that show up on exams. You should try to answer in no more than a paragraph, but include as much detail as possible. Answers can earn partial credit. An example of this kind of question and an appropriate answer follow:
unconventional participation
Political participation that occurs outside the normal channels of government and politics. Includes such actions as demonstrations, protests, boycotts, sit-ins, and rent strikes. Often pursued by people who lack the resources or skills to participate effectively through normal channels. Most studies indicate that fewer than 5% of Americans engage in these unconventional forms of political participation.
The second component is short-answer questions. These will ask you to explain a procedure or phenomenon. They seek to test your understanding of how government and politics work. An example of this kind of question and an appropriate answer follow:
In the process by which the major political parties select their candidates for president, what is the difference between a direct primary and a nominating caucus?
Both are designed to determine which candidates will have the support of a particular state's delegates to the party's national convention. In states that use direct primaries, voters participate in an election in which they indicate their preferences among the candidates for the presidential nomination. The state's delegates to the national convention are pledged on the first ballot to support the candidate or candidates that get the bulk of the votes in the primary. In a caucus state, people registered in a party meet with other party registrants in their local communities. They select delegates to their state convention whose support for presidential candidates is distributed in the same way as the distribution among participants in the local caucus. The state convention selects delegates to the national convention. The distribution of candidate support among those delegates is based on the statewide distribution at the caucuses.
The third component is an essay question. These usually count for half or more of the exam grade and are designed to pose a question that requires you to formulate a reasoned argument drawing on evidence from the course materials. Here's an example of an essay question:
One of the trends in American politics that has drawn much attention in recent years is the decline in party identification. Given our discussion of political socialization, what factors are most important in determining party identification? What factors would you cite to explain recent changes in party identification?
Tips
Listed below are some tips on preparing for the exams in GO 111. Following those are four essays actually written on final exams for this course in past years. As indicated, they vary in quality (and in the grades they received). I urge you to look at these carefully and try to discern the qualities that make for a strong and compelling essay. If you're uncertain about this, I'll be happy to talk with you about it.
1. In preparing for the exams, think about the broad themes of the course and try to fit your understanding of individual procedures, concepts, and facts into those. For example, it's important for you to know how elections are conducted in the United States. But it's also important to see the election process in broader terms as the prelude to governing. In what ways do our procedures for electing leaders affect the way the winners govern when the election is over? Keep your eye on the ball here, and the "ball" is the larger question of how and how well our governing process works.
2. Try to connect the readings with each other and with the lectures. The readings in Flanigan and Zingale, for example, illustrate many of the themes in the text and many of the more evaluative points I've tried to make in class. How do the policy readings we've done in the second half of the course (immigration, affirmative action, etc.) shed light on the way government operates and the ways it converts public opinion into public policy?
3. In writing the exam, plan your time and take your time. In exams like this, students often leave themselves too little time to write an effective essay. One way to cope with that is to write the essay first and limit yourself to a fixed amount of time. Another is to discipline yourself to spend only so much time on each section. Read over the exam before you write anything and spend most of your time on the questions about which you think you know the most. It's a dangerous trap to think that you'll come up with an answer if you just write away for awhile.
4. Details, details, details. The purpose of this exam is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate that you've engaged the materials in the course. If you write answers that are no more detailed than what you could have written before you took the course, you will not have demonstrated that. When you make a point, illustrate it with a fact or example or some data. Cite the readings whenever appropriate. The best answers, especially on the essay questions, are those that are richly illustrated and thus demonstrate a real understanding of the course materials. The least impressive essays are those which deal only in generalities without citations to readings or use of factual examples to support arguments.
5. In the essay, it is your obligation to make an argument--to state a position and then defend it with the best information and sources and you can bring to bear. Essays that merely list or repeat materials from the readings or lectures are rarely very effective. Your job is NOT to show that you've memorized what I've said or what you've read, but that you can use all of the source material in this course to shape and inform an argument based on your own thinking.
Sample Answers To Essay Questions
[Note the difference in richness, factual detail, and strength of argument as one moves from the lower to higher graded essays.]
Part III. Write an essay on one (1) of the following questions. Be sure to make an argument and draw a conclusion. Your argument should be richly illustrated by examples drawn from the materials of this course.
IIIa. Charles O. Jones writes in The Presidency in a Separated System that "the political and policy strategies of presidents in dealing with Congress will depend on the advantages they have at any one time." What kinds of advantages do presidents in our system have in dealing with Congress? What constraints do they most commonly face? What, then, is the extent of presidential influence in the contemporary policy-making process?
IIIb. The framers of the Constitution sought above all else to root governmental authority in the consent of the governed. Were they to return from the grave now to view the current operations of the American political system, in what ways would they find their goal met and in what ways would it seem unmet?
Answers:
This answer received a "D". Note the absence of detail, of reference to themes or general concerns of the course, of citations to the reading, or of any coherent argument. Anyone could have written this essay without taking this course.
IIIb. The framers of the constitution had one big goal when writing it. They hoped for a democracy, in which the voice of the people would run the country. Many parts of the government allow for this, however in some cases they don't.
The election process in the United States is the one way each and every person can have a say. Everyone's vote counts for the same amount. So if you are a liberal and you want a democratic president or congressman, you can vote for them. The voting decision is made purely by oneself on which candidate he or she agrees with most. Their was a time when not everyone could vote, and I do not think that is what the constitution is all about. Presidents, congressmen, and all other government agents are supposed to always look for the good of the nation, and do what the people want. But what people want is not always the same. That is why each person has a member of Congress who represents them. Constituents are those who fall under the guidance of a certain congressman. People are encouraged to tell their congressmen problems they have with the government. The congressmen specifically do what the people of his or her district want. People are also able and encouraged to get directly involved in government. They are able to get a job on a committee or subcommittee. People can work for specific parts of the government that they may have their own issues or feelings. People are also able to get involved in state or local governments. It does not have to be a full-time job. For instance, my father was a trustee and the president of his town's local government for 12 years. He had great impact on what happened right where he lived. This was not a full-time job and did not get paid, but had great impact.
There are situations, however, that being heard or having impact can be more difficult. Yes, everyone can vote. But what does one vote really accomplish? And unless you are directly involved or related to government, how much say or pull do you have. For specific concerns or concerns where you are the minority, being heard can be a problem. And minorities in this country are often times overlooked. the upper class has a definite advantage in the influence of today's government. They are the ones who get the officials elected, and support them financially. Also, people do not know or are unaware that they can vote or give their problems to their congressman.
Overall, it is a system that works for the majority. Is this a bad thing? I would say no, if you were a part of this majority. Also, today the minority is getting more and more attention. For not being fortune tellers, the writers of the Constitution have done us all good.
[Word count = 482]
This answer received a "C". There are a few factual references here and some effort to delineate an argument, but this never becomes much more than a stringing together of random statements that lead to no overall conclusions and reflect very little on the question. There are no citations to the course readings nor to specific examples of most of the general statements that are offered here.
IIIa. "Effective presidents know and understand their variable role in the permanent and continuous government." (Charles O. Jones) The president depending on the circumstances of how he achieved office and the problems he must face once in office, must mold into the separated system of our government.
This is a misconception caused by the Cold war that the president is the authority because of the "finger on the button" image. In reality, the president is only one piston in the 40 cylinder engine of the government.
The president must take positions on public issues that remain favorable in the publics eye. It is not important weather public policy actually changes or laws are made, only that the President maintains high public opinion polls for reelection.
Presidents are expected to produce mandates. This is a disadvantage because it is difficult to achieve predetermined guidelines in a drastically changing environment like our government. When guidelines are not met the president's image deteriorates.
Presidents have many advantages when dealing with Congress. First, the president is able to "spin" news to favor his policies and agenda. At the same time the media can act as a constraint if not properly taken advantage of.
In our current policy-making process, our President has influence, but this influence is not important when compared to the judicial influence. The court systems have the most control over public policy. They can choose what issues they want to tackle while the president must react to bills formulated by Congress.
The judicial branch makes decisions that do not necessarily satisfy the majority. Courts ended segregation in schools, decided McCulloch v. Maryland, and Brown v. Board which ended segregation with all "deliberate speed" in schools in Topeka. Then years later nothing had changed. This taught the members of the judicial branch that specific decrees were necessary.
Judges are elected for life, their word is final, they do not feel budgetary effect of cases or the repercussions of their rulings. They can be as specific as they feels necessary when issuing decrees and therefore have the most influence over public policy. Who really cares what the President and Congress do when the judicial branch will get the last word?
The President and Congress do have influence because they decide what the framework rules that the judicial branch has to work with. The Judicial branch only has what the president and Congress formulate.
Presidents utilize many strategies once they set up a system that fits their goals, style, and personality. Some presidents are authoritative while some react to situations. and some dole out responsibilities and oversee proceedings in the White House. After Nixon was impeached his vice president inherited a government and had to accommodate what was already in motion.
Overall the presidency is extremely complicated because of the influence of technology, conflicting interests in Congress, complex issues lacking funds, and the integrated system. The influence of a President in the system relates to how well he understands his responsibility, his position, and the issues that arise during his time in office. The integrated system is similar to a complex system of equations in a chemical equation. Everything is important related to how public policy develops.
[Word count = 531]
This answer received a "B". This is closer to the mark. The structure of the argument is laid out at the beginning of the essay. There are details that indicate pretty good familiarity with the subject matter of the course. But ultimately the argument wanders away from the question which was centrally about the consent of the governed. The writer broadens focus in the middle of this, then never gets back to the central issue. There's a lot of intelligence here and a lot of evidence of substantive knowledge. This answer falls short only as an effective argument about a specific proposition.
IIIb. An interesting, thought-provoking question. I'd like to look at elections, President, Congress, and the Judiciary. Elections are supposed to serve 3 purposes and were the fundamental aspect of democracy. Every American citizen has a say in his or her government and has the opportunity to run for office: (1) Broad-based participation; (2) Build coalitions; (3) Valid choices. However one could argue that none of these purposes have been fulfilled. Participation is down. Our forefathers would have been unhappy that anyone can run for a political seat now, but the opportunity to run depends on money which relies on donors which gets you into the influence of SIGs and a cash constituency,
The President we have today was voted into office by less than half the American people. That means that more than half of the American people didn't vote for Bill Clinton. Would this root government authority in the consent of the governed? I say no. We have had divided government for so long that gridlock is the norm. Nothing can get done. There are so many sides to each issue that governing coalitions are not met. Our legislative and executive bodies have no mandate to govern as in G.B. Valid choices. This is a more difficult argument. People like Mario Cuomo, Bill Bradley, and Colin Powell chose not to run because they don't want any part of the process. We did get Steve Forbes (heir to a billion-dollar fortune) , Pat Buchanan, and no other Democratic candidate. However we did get Bob Dole--a remarkable man. So the valid choices is up for debate, but in general our choices are slim pickings.
Our framers wanted the president to be an equal with that of the other 2 branches. The tide has been drifted with the president having a significant amount of power--more than the framers wanted. Nowhere in the Constitution does the P have the right to declare war, but he has the ability with the war Powers Act to keep troops in an area for 60 days. Also, the president can conduct business without the Congress knowing anything--treaties, executive agreements, etc. We as American citizens have no control over examples like that. Our representatives in Congress who are there to serve us cannot help us if the President is making closed door deals. Furthermore, the presidential veto with recent divided government is extremely rare and difficult for Congress to override by 2/3 vote in both houses. The president also has the ability to sway public opinion into policy making. By swaying public opinion, Congress feels pressure and this shifts the power to the president.
Our framers would be upset that the legislative process is more penetrable to outside influence. This influence does not come from constituents in their district, but from SIGs, PACs, and other lobbyists. Congress members have a lot to factor in and the influence that these aforementioned groups have is enormous. Again divided government makes it difficult for anything to [unreadable]. Micromanagement is also the norm. Subcommittees and committees are ubiquitous. A decision by A.G. Reno not to appoint a special counsel for the Lincoln bedroom affair was micromanaged by a committee. Subcommittees hear bills and propose mark-ups before committees hear it and long before the bill/law would get to a vote. Some would say that every possible angle is exhausted, but the framers would be upset with this [unreadable] and the length of time it takes to get things done. Congress is spending more time (7.5 hours a day) but doing less. The framers would be satisfied that tremendous amount of debate goes into every issue, but would be anguished that compromise is rare.
The judiciary might be the one branch where our framers would be most upset. The court's role is to interpret the Constitution. However, judges have seen their role as one of policy maker and not judicial [unreadable]. Courts have continued to get involved in every matter imaginable. Can you imagine T.J. or Ben Franklin hearing that a Maine court appointed a special master to take over the state mental health system and allotted an amount of time and money to her? Furthermore, that person is to constantly report back to the court. This is amazing and sets an awful precedent. The courts have had low points (as in Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson), but also had high points (e.g., Brown v. Board). However, they have been continually willing to get into policy making as in Roe v. Wade. Why? Do they have a right? In essence, no. Their job is to look at cases and decide them on the basis of constitutionality. the increase in policy making isn't all their fault. The increasing tendency of Americans and government to use law is prominent. Tocqueville, who wrote The Principle of Democracy, said that we have the habit of putting everything into a judicial matter is so true. Would the framers be upset with the increase in law cases, judges, and policy. I think, yes. It all contributes to the inability to get things done.
It seems that this has been a cynical essay. One thing is for sure is that our framers would be happy to know that many Americans do take an interest in their government. However the whole crux of our government today is that the American people want more things, more programs, but don't want to fork over the money to pay for it.
[Word count = 909]
This answer received an "A". This answer has it all: sound structure, good writing, a solid factual base, and an argument that builds to a conclusion about the exam question. While none of the readings is cited by name, there are several illustrations drawn directly from the readings.
IIIb. The framers of the Constitution are probably rolling over in their graves because of the prevalence of policy making on the part of the judicial branch. For today's judicial branch often makes unpopular decisions that go against the popular opinion of the governed (such as outlawing school prayer and increasing the rights of criminals). The Supreme Court, a group of a mere 9 justices, now makes much of our country's policy. Our forefathers would not be pleased with that. In fact this suggests just the kind of arbitrary government they took pains to prevent.
And what recourse do the people have to appeal unpopular Supreme Court decisions? They may try to influence their representative sin Congress to amend the Constitution to nullify a Supreme Court decision. But that's not very promising; it's happened only 4 times in our history. And the last time it happened was more than a quarter century ago when a constitutional amendment lowered the voting age to 18. These unpopular court decisions, our forefathers would probably agree, sabotage the very nature of a democracy and anger the people who do not have a say in them. They frustrate the people because they leave them so little effective recourse. And Supreme Court justices are extremely difficult to remove. They are appointed for life terms and can only be removed through impeachment--a procedure that requires a majority vote in the House and a 2/3 majority of the entire Senate.
Our forefathers would probably protest loudest over the fact that decisions by today's justices often result in the imposition of taxes and appropriations without legislative initiative. This directly contradicts Article I of the Constitution which places the taxing power squarely in the hands of the legislature. Our forefathers would be very angry with the fact that decisions which drastically affect the lives of an entire city are often made by a single federal judge, as with school desegregation in Boston in the 1970s. Although many Bostonians hated and protested this decision, they could do little about it.
Our forefathers would argue that it is extremely unhealthy for courts to play such a large role in policy making because (1) it diminishes the people's feeling of legitimacy for their government, and (2) it makes much of the law-making in Congress trivial. The latter reason would be particularly disturbing to our forefathers since congressmen are elected by a majority of the people in a given place. It is extremely unhealthy that 9 appointed officials have more policy making influence than 535 elected members of Congress. The number of laws struck down by the courts also encourages the Congress to employ position-taking instead of lawmaking because the laws made by Congress face a high risk of being struck down in court. Therefore the increased policy-making power in Congress results in a decrease in the significance of the laws passed by Congress. This is bad because members of Congress are elected by the consent of the governed whereas the 9 justices are appointed without any opportunity fore the governed to indicate their consent.
These federal judges may even start or take over whole state programs without any consent of the governed. Maine's mental health system, provides a recent example of that. So we have courts striking down laws made by Congress at the same time that they're broadening their authority over administrative agencies without congressional authorization to do so.
The framers of the Constitution (with the possible exception of Alexander Hamilton) with the nomination procedures of today's political system which is unquestionably more democratic than ever before. For unlike in the days when our forefathers relied on closed congressional caucuses to select candidates, today's nominees are truly a result of the consent of the governed. For all voters are able to choose their nominees in primaries and caucuses. This increases people's sense of the legitimacy of government. A greater amount of voter participation results in a higher degree of legitimacy.
Legitimacy--or the belief on the part of their people that their government has the right to make decisions that affect their lives--is an extremely important part of gaining the consent of the governed. The framers of the Constitution would probably agree that our current "sunshine laws" (Freedom of Information Act, open congressional hearings, televising of congressional floor sessions, etc.) have resulted in greater feelings of legitimacy among the American people. For these laws have increased the people's ability to monitor the actions of their government and the votes of their representatives. Which government would be granted more legitimacy by its people: one that does its business in secret with little accountability or one that operates in the open where citizens can watch? The answer seems obvious.
In conclusion, our forefathers would be exceedingly angry with the increase in policy making by appointed judges, the unconstitutional appropriations caused by judicial actions, the unpopular decisions made by courts, and the severe lack of recourse on the part of those who suffer from court decisions. On the other hand, they would be impressed by much that's happened in the contemporary nominating process. Our forefathers liked democracy and feared arbitrary authority. They would find the former in the nominating process and the latter in the enlarged policy-making role of the courts.
[Word count = 877]