What is wrong with all examination?

Hi Lisa,


When I did A level Physics I was that sniffer for one of my papers! Actually more like streamer, the neighbour's tree outside my bedroom window had burst into pollen the day before. I did appallingly - this of course (before anyone asks) was back in the days when no-one dreamt of claiming "mitigating circumstances". 


And, to be fair there were other reasons I did badly in my A levels, I'd got through my O levels by the time honoured process of swotting up the night before, regurgitating it in the exam, and forgetting it all again the day afterwards! (A technique I have since been known to occasionally use for meetings  So it does come in useful, but not in the way it was intended.) This approach doesn't work for A levels. These days even more so: when helping my son and daughter through theirs I was very impressed with the way A level questions are now structured, you really do need to have understood the whole course to do well in them. But even given that, I still think they're 50% a test of your ability to write neatly at speed - very poor (on both counts) in my case!


I can see that exams are great for schools and for examiners, they are easy to manage and give a clear and simple answer. And on average they probably just about work. However I am sure there are very many bright and capable children they fail. And equally many others who think they understand a subject when what they've mainly learnt is how to pass the exam.


Personally I absolutely loathe exams (even though I'm now actually quite good at them, provided they don't involve lots of writing). Which is a pain as I love learning new things, and having a goal to aim at! It's also true that I got very fraught when writing my Master's thesis. but at least when I did submit that I knew I'd been over it carefully and it was the best I could do.


Cheers,


Andy

Hi Lisa,


When I did A level Physics I was that sniffer for one of my papers! Actually more like streamer, the neighbour's tree outside my bedroom window had burst into pollen the day before. I did appallingly - this of course (before anyone asks) was back in the days when no-one dreamt of claiming "mitigating circumstances". 


And, to be fair there were other reasons I did badly in my A levels, I'd got through my O levels by the time honoured process of swotting up the night before, regurgitating it in the exam, and forgetting it all again the day afterwards! (A technique I have since been known to occasionally use for meetings  So it does come in useful, but not in the way it was intended.) This approach doesn't work for A levels. These days even more so: when helping my son and daughter through theirs I was very impressed with the way A level questions are now structured, you really do need to have understood the whole course to do well in them. But even given that, I still think they're 50% a test of your ability to write neatly at speed - very poor (on both counts) in my case!


I can see that exams are great for schools and for examiners, they are easy to manage and give a clear and simple answer. And on average they probably just about work. However I am sure there are very many bright and capable children they fail. And equally many others who think they understand a subject when what they've mainly learnt is how to pass the exam.


Personally I absolutely loathe exams (even though I'm now actually quite good at them, provided they don't involve lots of writing). Which is a pain as I love learning new things, and having a goal to aim at! It's also true that I got very fraught when writing my Master's thesis. but at least when I did submit that I knew I'd been over it carefully and it was the best I could do.


Cheers,


Andy