Do you think exams are a good way to determine your intelligence?

I have been recently thinking about exams and if they are really effective in assessing your intellect. For example, one of the issues is that if you are 1 mark away from an A* (or other types of topmost grades), it doesn't make you less clever. If you think exams are a ineffective, why and what would you do as a replacement?

Just curious, thanks.

Reply 1

Add!ction

20

No, I spent most of the time in exams trying to fend off panic attacks. Coursework is much better, you're still producing an original piece of work within a time frame and as long as it is your own then it will demonstrate your ability.

I know that exams are there to test your ability to do something in a short space of time but I don't think this skill can be transferred to the world of work. Not properly anyway.

Reply 2

Add!ction

20

No, I spent most of the time in exams trying to fend off panic attacks. Coursework is much better, you're still producing an original piece of work within a time frame and as long as it is your own then it will demonstrate your ability.

I know that exams are there to test your ability to do something in a short space of time but I don't think this skill can be transferred to the world of work. Not properly anyway.

Reply 3

tengentoppa

18

I can already see how this thread will go:

Those who do well in exams: Yes, they are an accurate reflection of my vast intelligence.
Those who don't: No, they do not reflect my vast intelligence.

Reply 4

Nissie1

9

No they're not. I could spend year seven to year ten messing about but work hard for one exam in at the end of year 11 and pass with the same brad as someone who was always serious. There need to be something that takes everything into consideration.

Reply 5

Jamerson

9

Original post by tengentoppa

I can already see how this thread will go:

Those who do well in exams: Yes, they are an accurate reflection of my vast intelligence.
Those who don't: No, they do not reflect my vast intelligence.

Allow me to be the first to dispel that idea :wink:

I do not think that exams are an accurate reflection of intelligence, and I think there should be some sort of better system.

Reply 6

Chlorophile

20

The issue is that there isn't really any alternative - or at the very least, nobody has come up with a realistic one yet. The UK is a particularly bad offender because we have so many exams and we put so much emphasis on them (in comparison to other European countries which are more relaxed) but ultimately, all countries depend on exams - the only thing that varies is to what degree.

I don't like saying this, but it's the truth. Unless people can come up with a good alternative to exams, they need to stop moaning about them. And no, coursework cannot replace exams. Most subjects can't be assessed by coursework and even in those that can, you still need to be able to test the candidate's ability to think and recall under pressure.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 7

ClickItBack

18

Original post by tengentoppa

I can already see how this thread will go:

Those who do well in exams: Yes, they are an accurate reflection of my vast intelligence.
Those who don't: No, they do not reflect my vast intelligence.

Preeeeeetty much this.

Regardless, I'll have a stab at an unbiased answer to the question. First, exams aren't supposed to determine your intelligence per se; they're used to determine your competence at a specific subject.

It then becomes a matter of deciding what 'competence' in a subject actually means. If it means 'how well can you retain and internalise the material, and then reproduce it in timed conditions' then yes, exams are a good measure of competence. If it means 'how well can you take the principles of the subject and apply it over a period of time to a sustained project', then coursework is a better measure.

Ultimately, I think there is a reason that exams are used in schools and they get used less and less as you progress through higher education (culminating in a PhD where you're judged only by your thesis). When you're studying the subject at school level, it's more important to make sure you grasp the basics and are capable of reproducing it well without recourse to outside materials. Once you take the subject to an advanced level, how much of the existing knowledge you can memorise is less important, and it becomes more about what original contributions you can make.

Edit: by the way, switching from exams to coursework doesn't solve the problem of discrete boundaries between grades. If you're one mark short of an A* in your coursework, you get an A, same as you would in an exam.

(edited 10 years ago)

No.

Yes and no.

Take maths for exmample, the best way to find out if someone can do calculus is to make them answer a question on it without any ways of cheating.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 10

TimmonaPortella

21

I've seen the point made on here before that, whilst doing well on exams is not a sign of intelligence, doing badly on exams after working hard is probably a sign of the opposite. I think that is right.

Reply 11

kittyb99

11

Original post by Auditore014

I have been recently thinking about exams and if they are really effective in assessing your intellect. For example, one of the issues is that if you are 1 mark away from an A* (or other types of topmost grades), it doesn't make you less clever. If you think exams are a ineffective, why and what would you do as a replacement? Just curious, thanks.

Surely if it's a borderline mark, such as being one mark off an A*, that does imply you are much less competent at the subject than the person who scrapes into the A*? The borderline marks are always worth more than the ones in the middle of a grade boundary. So at university there is much less difference between a 67 and a 68 than there is between a 69 and a 70. Often to get into the next grade you need to demonstrate a far greater level of skill than is needed to improve slightly within a grade boundary.

Reply 12

ilikesweets

8

I don't think exams determine intelligence, if anything it's more of a memory game.

Reply 13

Chlorophile

20

Original post by kittyb99

Surely if it's a borderline mark, such as being one mark off an A*, that does imply you are much less competent at the subject than the person who scrapes into the A*? The borderline marks are always worth more than the ones in the middle of a grade boundary. So at university there is much less difference between a 67 and a 68 than there is between a 69 and a 70. Often to get into the next grade you need to demonstrate a far greater level of skill than is needed to improve slightly within a grade boundary.

No, that is definitely not how it works at GCSE and A Level. A single petty calculation error could make the difference between an A* and an A at A Level Maths.

Reply 14

The High Priest

Not in the slightest.

Reply 15

feathered-soul

9

Original post by tengentoppa

I can already see how this thread will go:

Those who do well in exams: Yes, they are an accurate reflection of my vast intelligence.
Those who don't: No, they do not reflect my vast intelligence.

Well because its TSR of course there will be those people. :rolleyes:

Exams prove a person's ability to absorb and relay information. Not necessarily their overall "intelligence". I can clearly remember people who sat in my a-levels classes who understood nothing that was being taught but were able to regurgitate the information and therefore got a good mark. Ask to them to actually explain a concept outside of what you had to know for the exam and they had absolutely no idea. There are also those who understand the subject and can do the exam well, but have no common sense or worldly knowledge. I would necessarily deem those people to be intelligent. Good at exams, yes. But overall intelligent, maybe not.

For me personally I'm no good at exams on the whole. I did well in my GCSEs (A*-B) due to having common sense. I then bombed my A-levels (CDDEu) because I just can't sit down and regurgitate facts and figures if they don't have any meaning to me. The A-level I did best in was essay based where you had to actually formulate an argument. That I can do. And that's why now at uni I'm getting firsts. Even in the exams, because the information now means something to me.

Saying that though, I don't think they should be completely scrapped. They are useful ways of testing knowledge. But the way testing is done should be adjusted, to cater for those with different abilities. Including more coursework, presentations, practicals. Give those people who find exams difficult/ too stressful a chance to prove themselves. Anyone who gets a top grade with such varied means of testing is truly intelligent in that subject.

[h="1"]“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”[/h]

Reply 16

J_T_

1

Original post by ilikesweets

I don't think exams determine intelligence, if anything it's more of a memory game.

This definitely doesn't apply for all subjects. Take a subject like maths or physics. You need good reasoning and logic to answer a majority of the questions in those exams which is hard, if not impossible, to gain from just memory work.
However if you take a subject like Biology all I need is a week and a textbook and I'd be fine for the exam.

Reply 17

J_T_

1

Original post by feathered-soul

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

Call me an idiot for not looking for a deeper meaning in that quote but I think it's wrong. Not everyone is a genius, that's not how genetics (or whatever you want to believe) works. Some people are born clever, others not so much. Admittedly everyone has their strong points but there's also those who have none. Even so to say everyone is a genius in a certain field is being optimistic at best.

Reply 18

Chlorophile

20

Original post by J_T_

Call me an idiot for not looking for a deeper meaning in that quote but I think it's wrong. Not everyone is a genius, that's not how genetics (or whatever you want to believe) works. Some people are born clever, others not so much. Admittedly everyone has their strong points but there's also those who have none. Even so to say everyone is a genius in a certain field is being optimistic at best.

The problem is that people have forgotten the meaning of intelligence. You are assuming that cleverness is inextricably linked with academia, which just isn't true. There are so many different types of intelligence, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with traditional school subjects.

Also, I think you're missed the point of that quote. The point is not that every single person has the potential to become the most brilliant and talented individual at a certain field, because it is not meant to be taken literally. The point is that society has decided on a very specific meaning of the word 'intelligence', which does the actual meaning a huge injustice. Our society currently only values a very specific type of intelligence and completely neglects the talents of a huge number of people who could shine but are alienated by an exam system that doesn't fit them.

Reply 19

Care-Free

15

I think most just test your ability to remember vast amounts of information and the write it all down as quickly as possible...which is neither intelligent nor useful in the real world...they're a bit crap really but they do go towards showing your understanding of the subject because you know which pieces of memorised information fit the question.. I usually do pretty well in exams but ask me to sit the same one a few days later and I'd be rubbish because I'll have forgotten almost everything

Do you think exams are a good way to determine your intelligence?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you