920-327 test - MCS 5100 Rls.4.0 Commissioning and Administration Updated: 2023

Do you believe in yourself? Do you provide yourself the credit you deserve? Self-esteem is an integral part of personal happiness, fulfilling relationships and achievement. This test is designed to evaluate your general level of self-esteem and determine whether you need to work on your self-image. Take this self-esteem test to find out your true sense of self.

Examine the following statements and indicate how often or to what degree you agree with them. In order to receive the most accurate results, please answer each question as honestly as possible.

This test is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or for the treatment of any health condition. If you would like to seek the advice of a licensed mental health professional you can search Psychology Today's directory here.

In the aftermath of the latest North Korean nuclear test, CFR’s Sheila A. Smith says it is imperative for the United States to make it clear "it will not accept a nuclear North Korea." Smith, an expert on Northeast Asia, says the test is also a moment of truth for China and the UN Security Council--to which China and the United States belong--and their commitment to global nonproliferation. U.S. allies Japan and South Korea "will need a very clear and unambiguous statement that the United States remains committed to their defense and will keep them safe," she says.  "And then there is the broader question of how we mobilize both allies and colleagues in Northeast Asia with the broader global nonproliferation initiative."

North Korea announced Monday morning Korean time that it had detonated another underground nuclear explosion, its second since 2006. What do you make of this?

In trying to negotiate with the North Koreans, they have been pretty straightforward on what they were going to do. Again in this case, just as in 2006, they announced they were going to conduct another nuclear test. On April 5, they tested a long-range missile. So we all have been expecting another nuclear test to come. I think the precedent of 2006 with several months in between the missile tests of July and the nuclear test in October led a number of us to expect a similar spread in time. It surprised a number of us that the latest events were only six weeks apart. It was a bit quicker than many of us expected.

I think many people had assumed that with President Barack Obama coming into office the North Koreans would want to see if there was something negotiable to their advantage with the United States. Instead they took a kind of "stick it in your eye" approach, right?

Right. There are several factors here that may be at play. The first of course is what is going on internally in North Korea. Most of the people who are very desparate watchers of the internal dynamics of Pyongyang feel very strongly--and most of our South Korean colleagues feel that way--that there is a succession under way and the succession dynamics have affected both the timing of this test but also the general hard-line position that the North Koreans seem to be taking, vis-à-vis the negotiations. That is one of the elements that is different. Kim Jong-Il has had a stroke and the argument is that he is now setting up his third and youngest son, Kim Jong-un, as his possible successor. We don’t have intimate knowledge of this, but that is the opinion in South Korea and Japan as well.

Assuming there is a succession going on, why this approach, rather than a more evenhanded conciliatory one?

This is all very speculative. Those taking that view say that the idea is to establish the credibility of the youngest son, the successor, and to keep the military convinced that they need to go along with this succession. The military seems to play a significant role in this decision. And what we can read of the internal situation in Pyongyang, demonstrating the nuclear capability is a powerful tool for regime credibility and survivability. You have to think that internally, having a nuclear capability for a regime that needs a fairly repressive demonstration of its power is a fairly plausible argument. And I think everybody in the regime believes the succession itself is a key driver here.

In the United States, many people on both sides of the political fence believe that North Korea needs to be serious about carrying out its commitments it made in negotiations with the United States. North Korea needs to provide a clear verifiable nuclear disarmament plan and it hasn’t done this, and so it has dropped the ball on the commitment it already made. I do think there might have been some calculus in North Korea that it would get a better deal or might start over with the new administration, but there has been a consistent and clear message to Pyongyang that this resetting is not going to happen.

North Korea also says it does not want to go back to the Six-Party Talks [North Korea, South Korea, the United States, Japan, China, and Russia], a slap not only at the United States but also at China, the host for the talks, and the others.

Exactly. Here is where it will take some time to tease out what the intent of the nuclear test was. There was a lot of speculation in accurate weeks that what was really going on was North Korea not wanting to scuttle the Six-Party Talks, but to get the Obama administration into a bilateral conversation on how to break the impasse. There was a lot of conversation about whether the North Koreans would speak to a high-level emissary. For instance, would the capture of the two reporters on the border, who worked for Al Gore’s TV channel, provide an opportunity for a more high-level communication between the new Obama administration and Pyongyang. There was some disagreement among analysts in allied capitals whether a bilateral moment had arrived and whether it would be useful or not. The latest test ends that speculation.

The last time the UN Security Council met in April after the missile test, or satellite launch, however you want to describe it, they really didn’t reach any harsh conclusions.

The missile test took place on April 5 and it was basically announced by the Russians and Chinese that they would not endorse another sanctioning resolution at the UN Security Council meeting in April. Once the test had happened the United States and Japan pushed very strongly, along with South Korea, for a very strong presidential statement, which is something short of a resolution, but one that needed to be issued, that focused on sanctions and that clearly said that the missile test that was conducted in April was in violation of Resolution 1718, which is the United Nations Security Council resolution that was passed in the wake of the 2006 test. The presidential statement made in April by the Security Council was foundational in the sense that it created the case for collective sanctioning action should Pyongyang move to conduct a second nuclear test which it now has. So I expect that there will be fairly strong common ground to start the conversation this afternoon at the United Nations.

I see China was strongly condemnatory.

Absolutely. And here the pressure really is in many ways on China. China has been a key player in the Six-Party Talks of course. It has played a mediating role, or a hosting role, in the Six-Party process, but we tend often to underestimate the extent to which China has put its diplomatic cards on the table with North Korea. And as one of the key players in the Northeast Asian context, in the Six-Party context, China has been forced into a position by Pyongyang that will now make it very difficult for China not to impose sanctions.

The task is twofold for us who watch Beijing. It is not only China’s responsibility to regional stability which it claims a very strong interest in, of course, but it also claims a global commitment to nonproliferation. So the bar is high for China. The Obama administration feels quite confident that Beijing will stand up to that challenge. But China needs to act now quite forcefully.

What kinds of sanctions would you expect?

The language in UN Resolution 1718 has to do with the proliferation of nuclear materials, and that is a fairly broad category of weapons and materials production. There are also sanctions on any kind of financial instrument that may be attached to North Korea’s nuclear program, which generously interpreted could mean just about anything. The focal point will be the several billion dollars deposited by North Korea in Beijing. So I anticipate that will come out as a possible means to punish the North Koreans. But you’ll find that the financial side as much as the nuclear equipment and technology side will be highlighted at the United Nations Security Council.

Back after the first nuclear test the United States Treasury Department imposed sanctions on North Korea banks, as I recall, which seemed to cripple North Korean commerce, and crippled the ability of the elite to import things they wanted, and that’s what led to the breakthrough in the Six-Party Talks, it’s believed. But now it’s a different time. I assume those sanctions will go back on.

I’m assuming that’s one of the things the United States will be looking at. And you’ll find the discussion of last year revisited. The United States delisted North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. I believe that our policy debate will include a reconsideration of that decision. There will be an awful lot of attention paid again to the financial side of this. You’re right to point out the Macao-based bank where North Korean assets were frozen. There are other places today where North Korea holds financial assets--Beijing, Moscow--and this will definitely come under consideration in the diplomacy. Whether it will come out to the forefront I don’t know.

The other side we haven’t talked about is the fissile material. The Six-Party Talks in the end tried to get North Korea to declare its facilities and its plutonium stockpile, which was focused very firmly on Yongbyon and other facilities where plutonium might have been created and stored. There is also the highly enriched uranium project. There was a strong push at the end of the Bush administration to indicate that the United States wanted to know the specifics of that project and they also wanted to know better what [North] Korea had done with Syria in terms of a broader proliferation network. So there is a lot of information yet that goes beyond this specific nuclear test, a lot of information that the United States and other allies in the region will be looking to get from Pyongyang. I expect that will be part of the package that the five parties of the Six-Party Talks will be talking about as they try to talk about the diplomatic end game which we will need to come back to at a later date.

But there’s no indication that North Korea will go back to any table.

No, and I don’t think we should be thinking about going back to any table either. President Obama made a statement this afternoon and he very clearly pointed out where the United States will be heading.

A former State Department official told me he thought from conversations he’s had with North Korean officials that they wanted to be regarded as India--as possessing nuclear weapons but not ostracized.

The idea in Pyongyang is that its nuclear program will simply be accepted as a reality in the region. And the United States--because of its relationships in the region, but also because of this broader global nonproliferation objective--needs to make a very clear statement that it will not accept a nuclear North Korea. In other words the India model is not in the cards. [The Obama administration also has] got to be very attuned, which the president was this afternoon, to the perception of the publics of our allies in the Northeast Asia region, specifically South Korea and Japan. They will be watching the United States response very carefully. They depend, of course, on us for extended deterrence, for the nuclear umbrella that keeps them safe. Japan and South Korea will need a very clear and unambiguous statement that the United States remains committed to their defense and will keep them safe. And then there is the broader question of how we mobilize both allies and colleagues in Northeast Asia with the broader global nonproliferation initiative. That last diplomatic task will be large and it will involve more than today’s Security Council conversation. But this Security Council decision will have a fairly definitive impact on the credibility of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Is your glass half-full or half-empty? On those days when nothing in your life seems to be going right, it can be really tough to see the silver lining among all those clouds. However, it's during these times when the ability to see the good in even the worst situations is so important. An optimistic attitude benefits not only your mental health, but your physical well-being as well. Take this test to see where you fall on the optimism/pessimism continuum.

This test is made up of two types of questions: scenarios and self-assessment. For each scenario, answer according to how you would most likely behave in a similar situation. For the self-assessment questions, indicate the extent to which you agree with the given statements. In order to receive the most accurate results, please answer each question as honestly as possible.

This test is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or for the treatment of any health condition. If you would like to seek the advice of a licensed mental health professional you can search Psychology Today's directory here.

It is the responsibility of faculty to make their tests accessible. That said, there are many times when faculty are unable to provide a necessary test accommodation. In these cases, students may schedule exams with Disability Resources through our Test Accessibility Services (TAS). These are the steps students should take if they wish to use their test accommodations. Please note that Disability Resources only administers exams for students who have affiliated with our office.

1. Talk to your instructor. After you release your access plan to your instructor, be sure to follow it up with an email or face-to-face conversation about the best place for you to take your exams. Please note that tests at TAS must begin no earlier than 8 a.m. and must finish by 4 p.m. Exams scheduled in late afternoon and evening classes outside of these times may be taken at TAS during regular business hours.
2. If your test or quiz is online and unproctored, remind your instructor of your accommodations. They will extend your time in the online test platform. You can use your own computer to take the test in a quiet location.
3. If you are taking exams with your instructor, you’re done! Congratulations! Remember that Disability Resources is available for test accommodations for you in the future if your instructor’s accommodations are not working out. In such cases, it is important to have a conversation with your instructor about this first.
4. If you and your instructor decide you should take your exams with Disability Resources, it is the student’s responsibility to schedule the test in our Test Accessibility Scheduling Service (TASS). You may watch video tutorials of a summary of the system, how to submit a request to take an test with TAS, and how to view all of your requests.
5. Students should request to take exams at the same time as the rest of the class. Exceptions are allowed if extended time would involve the test taking place outside of business hours or would require missing another class. 
6. If you wish to be certain you can take your test with Disability Resources, schedule the test at least 5 business days in advance. If you request to take an test with fewer days’ notice, it is possible we may be unavailable. Once it is 24 hours before your test time (or 72 hours before a Monday exam), you may not use the online scheduling system.
7. You may schedule all of your exams at the beginning of the semester to ensure you have given enough notice. If an test date or time is later changed, please cancel the request in the system and make a new request.
8. To finalize your request, your instructor must approve it in the system. If you have not made your request at least 5 business days in advance, Disability Resources will have to approve it as well. You will receive email notifications when your requests have been approved. If your test date is nearing and you still have not received approval, please contact your instructor and/or TAS.
9. Finally, be sure to show up at TAS for your test on time!

Jeremy Zhe-Heimerman, Assistant Director, Disability Resources
Fahima Aqtar, Graduate Assistant, Disability Resources
Meaghan Doyle, Graduate Assistant, Disability Resources
Cierra Stone, Graduate Assistant, Disability Resources

Memorial Library, B-121A

The three services above are our top choices for the best DNA test. But they weren't the only ones we tested. What follows are some additional options, none of which eclipsed the 23andMe, Ancestry or FamilyTreeDNA in any significant fashion. 

MyHeritage

MyHeritage offers a free tier of service that includes some basic family tree-building and access to excerpts of historical documents. It also includes a report of your genetic makeup across the company's 42 supported ethnicities, the identification of relatives and connections to them where possible. 

We found MyHeritage's user interface far less intuitive and more difficult to navigate than others. It's one of the few companies to offer a comprehensive research database of historical documents, DNA analysis and health screening -- we found the integration among them to be a bit clumsy. In 2018, MyHeritage committed a security breach, exposing the email addresses and hashed passwords of more than 92 million users.

Living DNA

LivingDNA divides its offerings in a different way than others. The $99 Full Ancestry DNA kit provides an overview of your ancestry in 150 geographical regions and information about maternal and paternal haplogroups and access to the company's genetic matching tool. The $120 "wellbeing package" includes reports about your physiological compatibility with vitamins, foods and exercise. And the $179 Wellbeing and Ancestry gives you all of it.

Despite. not selling or sharing data, the company has a very limited family match database; a company representative declined to provide me a specific number but said that it contained less than 1 million profiles. So, if you're looking to identify and make connections with relatives, there are better choices in the market. 

Whole genome sequencing

There are a number of companies -- including Full Genomes, Veritas Genetics, Nebula Genomics and Dante Labs -- that can sequence all of your DNA, otherwise known as your genome. This level of analysis is appropriate for advanced users only. Not only is it expensive -- these tests can run into the thousands of dollars, in some cases -- it requires a sophisticated understanding of both genetics and a range of technical tools required to explore and interpret your results. The least expensive whole genome tests cost about $300. 

For most people, the main rationale for sequencing the whole genome is to dive deep into your genetic health outlook. You can glean your personal risk factors for diseases, drug sensitivities and your status as a carrier; that is, what you might pass on to your kids. All of these efforts can also be undertaken -- to a less intense degree -- with some of the more affordable options outlined above. We suggest starting with Nebula Genomics. You can also upload an existing DNA sequence from Ancestry or 23andMe's DNA database and get Nebula's reports at a reduced price.