Right don't get me wrong i understand the point but there are some people that don't do well at exams but know the stuff so why can't we be mark on practical.
exams what the point?
- Thread starter the darknees abyss
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Exams are easier to run.
Yes, it's much better to base marks on practical, or just on observation of how well the student does, but it's more difficult. You can get a make an exam a computer can mark.
Yes, it's much better to base marks on practical, or just on observation of how well the student does, but it's more difficult. You can get a make an exam a computer can mark.
I do think exams are becoming increasingly irrelevant in this day and age. Coursework is probably a better indicator of merit - sadly the UK Conservative government is going back to a purely Exam-based education soon. Fortunately I'll just miss it.
Exams aren't really a measure of intellect or how smart you are/good at something, more or less exams area measure of work ethic and what not. As it's been noted above, tests are simply the easier thing to run and manage.
I'd rather have exams than tons of coursework.
Sitting in silence for a couple of hours every day for a week sure beats having to rush and get a ton of work done over a month.
Sitting in silence for a couple of hours every day for a week sure beats having to rush and get a ton of work done over a month.
You say that about Coursework but during GCSE and even A-Levels i had friends who's parents did the majority of the bloody course work for them just sat there and told them what to write in their own words.OhJohnNo said:
Being allowed a % of the grade from possibly someone elses work isn't cool :/ but not having any course work at all isn't either... not being allowed to do it at home would be a step in the right direction.
Definitely easier to run most of the time, but later on in my engineering degree some of my exams would be impossible for any computer to mark. This was mostly in design courses, where we were asked to design specific components of what we were taught during classes; these were open-book exams, and it was even stated it was somewhat meant to emulate the design environment (to an extent, the whole two-to-three hour time-limit is probably out-of-place). To further this, all of our assignments were group projects where we could collaborate and get everything done (to fit, they were also too much for any one person to do); verifying one another's work was actually a requirement, just as it is in the real world. Designing an entire structure was restricted to these group assignments (the same building showed up several times, but the assignment required designing a separate component each time), and the final (semester-length) project was treated similarly.thaluikhain said:
As for why a computer can't mark exams from design courses? Because there's no one perfect answer, ever. Design itself is a bit touchy-feely, you have to come up with a solution and prove that it works for the problem; from there you can look into more economical and/or more practical solutions, but it's almost never a straight answer. Heck, it typically took professors at least twice as much time to mark these exams.
---
Back to exams in general, them being easier to evaluate a person is the main thing. When you need a quick certification, a simple test will suffice. For more elaborate certifications, such as a professional license, you have to look at peer-reviews (sometimes requiring a supervising professional) and other requirements. There could still be an exam at the end of it all, but it could be little more than a formality.
Exams show how determined and motivated you are . With the exception of natural geniuses , the more work you put in studying for an exam the higher your mark. So i think it basically seperates those who work hard and those that don't work very hard . Which is relevant to working . I rather have someone i know puts more effort work for me than someone who doesn't . What use it is to me to have a doctor that puts in 0 effort ?
From what I find, a combination of both coursework and exams work best as an indicator. Some people can't handle the pressure, others flourish in it. For example, the SAT reasoning test requires the student to be quite quick on the draw when it comes to choosing an answer. One of my friends who is a reasonable student couldn't answer half of the questions because she just couldn't decide fast enough. I, on the other hand, have to thank video games for making me into a decisive person.
Officially, an examination exists to test your proficiency in the required skills that have been taught to you over a period of time. They would appear to be what was generally decided on to be a fair example of potential. Everyone gets the same sheet, everyone gets the same amount of time (with some exceptions).
I, along with a fair amount of people, probably imagine them to be archaic and flawed at this point.
Not everyone tests well, despite their knowledge regarding the content. This is due to a myriad of causes, stress/pressure caused by relative importance and a pressing time limit being the most common. It could lead to the results being jilted due to anxiety causing a test taker to second guess themselves in a panic.
In my opinion, there should be more coursework and the grading should be more evenly distributed between tests and the work itself. So that you aren't absolutely fucked if you mess up on that *one* test. Plus, any scumbag can just show up on test days. A good individual wouldn't (or rather, shouldn't) miss an average day because coursework "means nothing".
captcha: fall guy
A plausible way to describe the person with the short end of the stick on a curve grade.
I, along with a fair amount of people, probably imagine them to be archaic and flawed at this point.
Not everyone tests well, despite their knowledge regarding the content. This is due to a myriad of causes, stress/pressure caused by relative importance and a pressing time limit being the most common. It could lead to the results being jilted due to anxiety causing a test taker to second guess themselves in a panic.
In my opinion, there should be more coursework and the grading should be more evenly distributed between tests and the work itself. So that you aren't absolutely fucked if you mess up on that *one* test. Plus, any scumbag can just show up on test days. A good individual wouldn't (or rather, shouldn't) miss an average day because coursework "means nothing".
captcha: fall guy
A plausible way to describe the person with the short end of the stick on a curve grade.
An exam tests your ability to hold information, and produce it later. Not relevant to every subject, I'll agree, but a useful life skill. In coursework, you can research as you go. Life doesn't always give you the opportunity, and exams are good practice at that.
yes get what you mean i find after exams i know most answers but because there's was so much stress i con't forces and think of the right answers.lRookiel said:
Exams irrelevant? Very incorrect.
Exams are actually quite a practical activity, because in the real world you're expected to recall completely random pieces of information on your feet. No one's gonna give you a week to 'research and present', unless you have a very specific job of that sort. Exams test students' to effectively store and recall information. The process by which students study for the exam should be the debated topic, not the exam itself.
Exams are also perfect at isolating which students perform better because it's a totally individually-based test.
But this being said, I think it's good that schools are shifting focus slightly away from exams and more towards performance throughout the study year. It's a good way to balance individual efforts and group efforts.
Exams are actually quite a practical activity, because in the real world you're expected to recall completely random pieces of information on your feet. No one's gonna give you a week to 'research and present', unless you have a very specific job of that sort. Exams test students' to effectively store and recall information. The process by which students study for the exam should be the debated topic, not the exam itself.
Exams are also perfect at isolating which students perform better because it's a totally individually-based test.
But this being said, I think it's good that schools are shifting focus slightly away from exams and more towards performance throughout the study year. It's a good way to balance individual efforts and group efforts.
Sorry to say, but this has nothing to do with the efficiency of exams. Anxiety is definitely a 'normal' problem amongst students, but don't blame the exam for it. I get really anxious at work sometimes, but quitting isn't going to solve anything.lRookiel said:
Exams are still around for a good reason. Because they're efficient ways to guage a student's intelligence, memory and work ethic. The more work you put into studying the higher your mark will be and that's a good way to put an indication of a person's worth into numbers.
I think the OP is just mad that he got a zero in his English exams. Might want to try to use some grammar in your posts.
I think the OP is just mad that he got a zero in his English exams. Might want to try to use some grammar in your posts.