Are Exam Results Really Important?

[Paddy McGee]

So, when I was looking on my Facebook feed this video just happened to have been shared by one of the miscellaneous pages I follow.

As you can see from the title, it concerns the importance of Exams and general education.

Obviously, this got me thinking about the subject.

Personally, I think the rote learning that we here and in many other nations is something that's letting the students of today down. It's less of a measure of intelligence, in my opinion, and more of a memory examination.

I think there are certain people who adapt well to this system and can climb up the ladder with no problem, but then there are other students who- due to disinterest or some hurdle in the subject- they lose motivation and "slip through the cracks".


Anyway, watch the video(or not) and let us know what your opinion is on the matter!

 

[Ethics]

Exams are just that; exams. They're nothing more, nothing less. In America, we overemphasize the importance of them to the point where we study things that we know will be on the exam, simply because we know they are on the exam and gloss over the details that are likely not. Each state has it's own variation of this equally damning test, but we've all but destroyed our own educational system because of this. Simply put, we were taught what to think, not how to think. Many teachers do push kids to think for themselves, however, and do encourage that; but at the end of the day, these tests are what decide "if they are teaching or not."

Most subjects, while we kind of toss into the air and say "well these are worthless", are not. Many students hate math, and most of can agree we will never use calculus extensively in real life. However, that may be the instruction point for many of any nation's greatest mathematical thinkers. School itself is an experience, and the subjects it teaches are no different. The value each holds is more valuable than a lot of us can fathom. So I'm not sure where the guy in the video was going with that point. Is he asking why teach history to someone who likes math? Terrible idea, but maybe I misunderstood. Don't think I saw that point come full circle at all, and it kind of fell flat.

Math, natural sciences and so forth are tools we need to be educated, independent thinkers, which should be among anyone's highest priorities. It's ridiculous to think they're not worth taking in school.



Guy in the video makes some strong points, though.

 

[Big Casino]

Why are they all black?

 

[Ethics]

I wasn't going to say anything about that.

 

[Dionysos]

I wonder why it is told in the style of a rap talk-song.
I’ve seen that tactic a number of times. An attempt to reach out and be listened to by the ‘hip’ members of today’s youth by the youth for the youth, etc, I guess.

I’ve never been particularly keen on exams. I think that they are a useful exercise, but I don’t believe that they should carry the weight that they tend to do. I’ve luckily tended to do well in most of them, and have never failed, etc, and luckily my grades etc have been good and that hasn’t turned out to be an issue for me.

However, examinations did not seem to me to always be the best way to test knowledge / understanding / intelligence / skill, etc. Examinations are typically rushed, panicky affairs, and they are also memory tests. Markers do allow for this dip in quality, but that doesn’t always make it a sound way to test a person.

Additionally, they can turn out to be handwriting tests, despite the interesting fact that most teachers and university professors actually have handwriting which is as illegible to the unaccustomed eye as cuneiform scrawled on a now crumbled clay tablet.

You can write far better quality essays, etc, when you do it outside of examination conditions, with full access to relevant sources etc, and with time to think and use your brain properly.

I see the value in examinations as a means to force you to think on the spot, quickly, and as a means to test what your memory has retained in class or from your own reading, etc, etc. However, outside of the context of that particular exam the preparation / cramming is often lost within a short space of time following the exam. I've lost my maths, largely speaking. I'm not sure if I had ever conquered my French to a conversational level at all, but somehow managed to blag it for a GCSE before dropping it. Etc.

If the entire course is based around preparing for the exam/s then it becomes quite pointless, and the students might not be being educated in a sufficient manner at all. However, from my personal experience, I’m not sure if this was the case in any extreme way until the weeks or months leading up to the exam period.

I guess that examinations can be a useful exercise, but I’m less convinced that the future of a person should be written (or written off) by results attained (or not attained) by them. Education itself should be the most important thing. That most courses throughout the majority of schools seem to largely be exam-orientated I’ve sometimes felt uneasy about.

I was much luckier at university in that I had few exams, but most of my modules in my degrees were essays I could write with full access to the range of scholarship required, and the time to do it as thoroughly as I could possibly or willingly do (within deadlines, obviously).

But like Moose Lord said, I’m not against educating people broadly in a variety of disciplines which prove useful in their own way. It is pointless specialising too early, as people at school who are still growing up and finding themselves need a broader base from which to stand on more steadily so that they can survey the environment with greater confidence that they won't fall flat on their face. Making young students specialise at an earlier age might be like sending toddlers out into the hills on stilts, and expecting them to hike. (I’ve lost myself on that metaphor. I hope my subconscious mind makes more sense to any unfortunate reader of this post than it did to myself).

Specialisation should really be for university, college or or profession-based qualifications. Or perhaps on a smaller scale with A-Levels (in the UK system), but it is perhaps sensible to keep A-levels slightly broad as well, but then to specialise if you go to university. I’m not sure what the talk-rapper in the video was meaning exactly with that part, but if the above is what he meant, then I’m not sure if specialising would be a good idea.

However, on the examination part… Yeah, I agree that exams shouldn’t rule the person’s future. There needs to be assessment, and inevitably exams are going to be a part of it, but if a person’s future can be determined by what might essentially amount to two weeks of intense examination in the summer heat, then that can be worryingly misrepresentative of said person’s true potential in life.

 

[Davey Gaga]

Something I've worked on at Glasgow University is promoting the theme of Graduate Attributes; in this day and age, just getting a good degree is not enough, so you need to be demonstrating what else you've gained from your time at University (or School) and how those skills are something employers will be looking for. It goes beyond just "looking good on your CV" and getting top of the class, it's about changing the mentality of why you do extra-curricular things. For example, being a board member at one of the Student Unions develops your leadership qualities, organisation skills, teamwork/group chairing etc; working part-time develops your time-management skills - but how does that appeal to employers? It's about giving students the opportunities to be able to develop these skills, and get them to think "how is this developing me as a person?" rather than "what can I write on my CV?".

This isn't a new concept by any means, we're just trying to change the way people think about it.

Relating back to exams - no, they're not the be all and end all. They're a pretty good indicator of how much you can engage with material but they only represent a few qualities, so they're not the only important thing in your life. Having said that, you wouldn't hire a Doctor who failed his degree and got straight Fs just because he's got really good people skills from his volunteering, would you? It's all about balance - ideally, you should be great at everything, but if everyone was great at everything then great would just be average.

tl;dr yes they are important but so are other aspects of your personal development

 

[SaShman]

I think it does largely depend on what you are studying. For example, a friend of mine, who is studying law, often has exams that are worth 70 to 90% of the course which are designed in such a way so that very few people can finish them. I thought that this was absurd but, my buddy has a theory that his exams may be arranged that way so that when the students enter the workforce, and are required to have consultations with clients for example, they are able to recall applicable law things at the drop of a hat; something quite important for a lot of law related professions.

However, when I took my history courses, my professors would either not set an exam or release the essay questions before the exam so the students could form a coherent argument and find sources. The difference between the two scenarios is in the expected graduate attributes. History subjects aim to develop the students' critical thinking and research skills in a variety of settings, so it makes little sense to set an exam that makes up a preposterously large part of the course.

***

I thought the video was a bit whiny to be honest. The whole 'studying something I'll never use' thing, how do you know you'll never use it? I was a little dipshit when I was 15 who used to say that sort of thing. But my interests have changed a lot since then and to be honest , a part of me wishes I did pay more attention in the subjects that I thought I'd never use. I agree with the basic idea that you shouldn't let a grade define you. But this idea is common sense really.. Employers often don't give a shit about grades, self-employed people don't need grades and people who (for example) do shit in high school but wish to study at Uni, can take bridging courses to bring them up to speed with the assumed knowledge.

Criticizing the 'education system' as a whole is difficult because it is way too diverse; depending on the country/city/suburb you are in, the school that you go to, and the level of education (secondary, higher etc..) you are talking about. From personal experience though, I think the quality of teaching is more important than the system under which it operates. I've had teachers which made me feel like an idiot and teachers that truly inspired me to go beyond the classroom and actually learn something; both kinds worked within the same system.

 

[Ed Elric]

I love that video

Anyway, my thought on this is simply this: Everybody has different learning skills and techniques. Everybody has different brain activity and therefore, some learn quickly while others learn at a slower rate. I know he's addressed it in the video itself, but it's because of this known fact of why some students will fail, and why some students are able to excel. For example if you take an exam for History lets say, and you're able to memorize certain events etc, great. But when you take a math exam, its not memorization, it's practice. I know that when I was in school, all they prepared you for was the "TAKS" and now its "STAAR" testing to pass the grade and move on to graduate. I personally believe that school systems don't prepare you on a survival level... as this young man also says. When I was in high school, I never learned how to do my taxes, or how to budget money, apply for jobs etc. They would focus on college, which is awesome yeah... but some people aren't meant for college and would rather take a different life-course. Most of the teachers were lazy graders and didn't give a shit so why should the students? There aren't enough teachers who I would say really try to help their students learn... all they do is give out sheets of papers and tell you to "read" the textbook.


I also want to point out how the system itself is based on a course in which all teachers have to go by and follow the curriculum of said subject. I do not feel like that is necessary. I believe the school system should be more like a trade school or something... based on your interest and your interest alone. I never gave a shit about basics.... what purpose would that solve if it isn't "toward" my major? I want hands-on, experiences. things that aren't required for everyone to take in order to move on... it's bullshit imo.


So no, I don't think exams are important at all.