There is no point. Harvard University got rid of exams because they aren't helpful in the learning process. Instead, they do a bunch of small tests which helps people keep up and prevents cheating. It was cracked
exams what the point?
- Thread starter the darknees abyss
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Exams are a method to test comprehension of material. That said, they are by no means a good method, and there are plenty of other, better ways to do so - for example, having to write a paper discussing a certain topic, and your opinions of it. Because you have to express yourself, you must genuinely consider - and therefore have comprehension of - the topic at hand.
Addendum: Maths require exams because maths are exact questions with exact answers.
Addendum: Maths require exams because maths are exact questions with exact answers.
The main issue I have with them is time limits. In some classes, it's not an issue as they let you go over the allotted time so you can finish while in others they stop you right on the clock when class is over. This especially hurts me in math classes, as it's my worst subject. I can do problems most of the time, but I need a lot more time to figure out what to do as well as go over my steps again to make sure I made no mistakes. As such, exams go from being 'how much do you know,' to 'how much can you finish in 50 minutes.'
Exams/tests/quizes have been shown to increase retention. They are both evaluate knowledge and improve long-term performance. So exams in secondary school are just as much teaching tools as they are evaluation tools. In post-secondary education it's assumed you don't need help studying or learning and you're expected to know what you need to know, the exam is simply verification of that. Exams for the most part in university are designed to be easy for people who actually learned what they were supposed to learn.
That said standardised testing and what it's used for is evil and should be stopped.
That said standardised testing and what it's used for is evil and should be stopped.
I think somebody might need an exam on how to write properly.
OT: Exams are about objectivity. A professor who likes a particular student might give higher grades despite actual merit, whereas exams can be ratified.
OT: Exams are about objectivity. A professor who likes a particular student might give higher grades despite actual merit, whereas exams can be ratified.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
It's simple, exams are a standardized evaluation of how well someone knows the material that they are supposed to know, and how well they are able to recall information under pressure.
Sure, it's nice to say "I don't do well on tests, but I know all the material, just look at my course work" but the problem that that is that you did your course work while staring at a book. It's essentially the same as saying "I know how to use photoshop, look at all the tutorials on I found on google."
Not to mention the fact that different teachers teach subjects differently, put more weight on different concepts, and treat students differently.
Let me use an example:
I live in California, and a few years ago the board of education in California introduced a new standardized test called the "high school exit exam." This was a test that you took in your junior year to show that you are ready to graduate from high school and that you've learned everything necessary for that. When I took the test I thought it was the easiest damn thing in the world, as did everyone else at my school. In fact, most of us could have passed that test in 8th grade. However, even though the test was incredibly easy there was suddenly a huge outcry against it from people living in the inner city.
Schools in the inner city were rather crappy, and therefore didn't teach the material very well, so you ended up having kids who had 3.8 GPAs, being unable to pass this test. The point is that people's grades are directly compared and graded against the other people in their classes. If you have a school that's terrible at teaching, people who barely know the material are still going to do better than people who don't know the material at all or even care to learn it. Just because they do well in a school full of people who don't care about their educations though doesn't mean that they know everything they need to know. Exams are the most objective way to determine if someone knows the concepts they're supposed to know.
Sure, it's nice to say "I don't do well on tests, but I know all the material, just look at my course work" but the problem that that is that you did your course work while staring at a book. It's essentially the same as saying "I know how to use photoshop, look at all the tutorials on I found on google."
Not to mention the fact that different teachers teach subjects differently, put more weight on different concepts, and treat students differently.
Let me use an example:
I live in California, and a few years ago the board of education in California introduced a new standardized test called the "high school exit exam." This was a test that you took in your junior year to show that you are ready to graduate from high school and that you've learned everything necessary for that. When I took the test I thought it was the easiest damn thing in the world, as did everyone else at my school. In fact, most of us could have passed that test in 8th grade. However, even though the test was incredibly easy there was suddenly a huge outcry against it from people living in the inner city.
Schools in the inner city were rather crappy, and therefore didn't teach the material very well, so you ended up having kids who had 3.8 GPAs, being unable to pass this test. The point is that people's grades are directly compared and graded against the other people in their classes. If you have a school that's terrible at teaching, people who barely know the material are still going to do better than people who don't know the material at all or even care to learn it. Just because they do well in a school full of people who don't care about their educations though doesn't mean that they know everything they need to know. Exams are the most objective way to determine if someone knows the concepts they're supposed to know.
I always preferred exams to coursework. I'd spend about a third to half of the allocated time doing the test and checking it a bit and then the rest of the time either dozing off or adding to the grafitti on the desk.
Exams are more concise than coursework. The answers are, more often than not, easier to pick out and state as right or wrong and that means that those marking it can get it done faster. Time is money.
Exams are more concise than coursework. The answers are, more often than not, easier to pick out and state as right or wrong and that means that those marking it can get it done faster. Time is money.
this, with how a few of my teachers grade/pick problems, i'm going to get gray hairs within the next year or so because of how stressful their god damn tests are.lRookiel said:
you spend more time worrying about tests and figuring out what will be on them than actually spending time learning relevant stuff. plus doing 6 fucking pages of work for one problem under stress only to learn you got 2 out of the 4 points on it because you flipped the direction of a moment at the very end...
*seethes in anger*
Also this. I fucking hate it when professors say "oh it took me 50 minutes, you should all be excellent students and it should only take you maybe 70 minutes"DarthSka said:
*gives us an hour and a half, and no one gets done in the allotted time*
Fucker, you wrote the damn thing, of course you got done in a 50 minutes.
I ask question. ('~')
But really - logistics. For a start, not every subject is practical, and practical examinations (eg. observing a discussion of a text in an English class) will in those cases often be more subjective than the actual exam. In terms of things like maths, exams are perfectly reasonable (exclding the pressure that comes from an allotted time, which is unfair), because you either get the right answer or you don't. Actually, the time thing is a pretty large issue I have against exams. It really screws over people who like to think about what they're doing a bit more than other people, or people like me who have slow, laborious handwriting that hurts their hands, and can only do 4 pages an hour. Furthermore, particularly in regards to English, someone can have an advantage simply by having focussed their study on a different aspect of the text than you. I thankfully went full circle in my HSC - the exam asked a question which directly contradicted everything I'd found from the text and I was able to say "Well no actually fuck you, the techniques are exactly the same", but you simply can't ask a question that is open to all interpretations.
Another thing I hate about exams is the formularisation of subjects where a bit of intuition could otherwise have been used, leading to obtuse and stupid guidelines for how to answer questions that completely defy logic. I'm looking at you, chemistry. HSC chemistry had a verb hierarchy, where if a question asked a certain thing, you had to go through all the fucking basics before you could answer it, and include either one or two formulae, regardless of how relevant they were, depending on the level of verb you were asked to do. So if it asked how fossil fuels were formed, you had to explain what a fossil fuel was, what it's used for, what problems are related to it, supply a formula for...I don't know, photosynthesis or some s***...and then maybe answer the damn question. It was terribly stupid and handicapped actual learning of the subject going throiugh all the idiosyncracies of the examination method.
This could get long, but basically I have a lot of gripes with written exams, and generally hate them, but they're the only way to get things done at the moment.
But really - logistics. For a start, not every subject is practical, and practical examinations (eg. observing a discussion of a text in an English class) will in those cases often be more subjective than the actual exam. In terms of things like maths, exams are perfectly reasonable (exclding the pressure that comes from an allotted time, which is unfair), because you either get the right answer or you don't. Actually, the time thing is a pretty large issue I have against exams. It really screws over people who like to think about what they're doing a bit more than other people, or people like me who have slow, laborious handwriting that hurts their hands, and can only do 4 pages an hour. Furthermore, particularly in regards to English, someone can have an advantage simply by having focussed their study on a different aspect of the text than you. I thankfully went full circle in my HSC - the exam asked a question which directly contradicted everything I'd found from the text and I was able to say "Well no actually fuck you, the techniques are exactly the same", but you simply can't ask a question that is open to all interpretations.
Another thing I hate about exams is the formularisation of subjects where a bit of intuition could otherwise have been used, leading to obtuse and stupid guidelines for how to answer questions that completely defy logic. I'm looking at you, chemistry. HSC chemistry had a verb hierarchy, where if a question asked a certain thing, you had to go through all the fucking basics before you could answer it, and include either one or two formulae, regardless of how relevant they were, depending on the level of verb you were asked to do. So if it asked how fossil fuels were formed, you had to explain what a fossil fuel was, what it's used for, what problems are related to it, supply a formula for...I don't know, photosynthesis or some s***...and then maybe answer the damn question. It was terribly stupid and handicapped actual learning of the subject going throiugh all the idiosyncracies of the examination method.
This could get long, but basically I have a lot of gripes with written exams, and generally hate them, but they're the only way to get things done at the moment.
Exams are meant as a fair testing ground for the potential of someone. You cannot cheat them. You get the same questions, and the same amount of time, as everyone else. How well you do is representative of how well you know that subject.
If you get really stressed about them and don't do well, that is also kinda the point. Getting really stressed on the job and not doing well is not something an employer wants. You will need to be able to work well under stress as well as normally.
Not having enough time is also the point. If it takes you 3 hours to complete an exam, you do deserve to do worse than someone that took 1 hour, even if they got 10% less than you in the way of marks. Say you're a doctor and there's a patient in critical care. You need to be able to act fast and do what you need to, rather than spending a lot of time determining what you should do. You should really be able to tell quickly, and get it done. The ideal student would be one that gets it done quickly and accurately, and exams do alright at testing this.
Where exams fail, however, is in keeping up with modern times. Are you allowed Google in an exam? No. Why not?
In a job, if you need to figure out what the cosine rule is to do something, you're not going to sit there and go "Well I'm fucked, I can't remember back to 3 years ago when I learned it". You're going to go "Shit... Um, Google, what's the Cosine Rule?", and get the answer and use it.
It also still tests merit and potential. Those who know the course will spend less time on Google finding answers, and more time answering questions. Make the exam out of practical examples rather than theoretical ones [I.E, for maths, put in an actual application of the mathematical principle that someone would use it for, rather than just saying "Find the derivative of 4x^2+3x+1". I.E: More worded questions. For some reason people hate them, I love them, and they are better questions for showing an understanding of the concept than the questions that just tell you what formula to use and see if you can remember it and substitute in some numbers]. It works off the same principle as the time limit, in that those who know it don't spend as much time figuring it out there and then, finish more of the exam, and get a higher mark. Those who don't know it spend more time figuring it out in the exam, answer less questions, and get a lower mark.
It also gives an advantage to those who are good at using the resources around them and quickly sourcing information, as they can figure the stuff out quickly and answer a number of questions even if they're not entirely sure of the work.
Really, the whole concept of school and that is IMO flawed, but there's not a lot of better ways to do things sadly so... IDK. Maybe one day education will receive the revolution it needs.
If you get really stressed about them and don't do well, that is also kinda the point. Getting really stressed on the job and not doing well is not something an employer wants. You will need to be able to work well under stress as well as normally.
Not having enough time is also the point. If it takes you 3 hours to complete an exam, you do deserve to do worse than someone that took 1 hour, even if they got 10% less than you in the way of marks. Say you're a doctor and there's a patient in critical care. You need to be able to act fast and do what you need to, rather than spending a lot of time determining what you should do. You should really be able to tell quickly, and get it done. The ideal student would be one that gets it done quickly and accurately, and exams do alright at testing this.
Where exams fail, however, is in keeping up with modern times. Are you allowed Google in an exam? No. Why not?
In a job, if you need to figure out what the cosine rule is to do something, you're not going to sit there and go "Well I'm fucked, I can't remember back to 3 years ago when I learned it". You're going to go "Shit... Um, Google, what's the Cosine Rule?", and get the answer and use it.
It also still tests merit and potential. Those who know the course will spend less time on Google finding answers, and more time answering questions. Make the exam out of practical examples rather than theoretical ones [I.E, for maths, put in an actual application of the mathematical principle that someone would use it for, rather than just saying "Find the derivative of 4x^2+3x+1". I.E: More worded questions. For some reason people hate them, I love them, and they are better questions for showing an understanding of the concept than the questions that just tell you what formula to use and see if you can remember it and substitute in some numbers]. It works off the same principle as the time limit, in that those who know it don't spend as much time figuring it out there and then, finish more of the exam, and get a higher mark. Those who don't know it spend more time figuring it out in the exam, answer less questions, and get a lower mark.
It also gives an advantage to those who are good at using the resources around them and quickly sourcing information, as they can figure the stuff out quickly and answer a number of questions even if they're not entirely sure of the work.
Really, the whole concept of school and that is IMO flawed, but there's not a lot of better ways to do things sadly so... IDK. Maybe one day education will receive the revolution it needs.