Do you think exams are a good way to determine your intelligence?
Scroll to see replies
Not exactly - for some subjects they sort of can, but not completely anyway.
It's kind of interesting how you can get full marks or you can just scrape the grade, but you can get an A* either way and no one will care how many marks you got; it's all about the final grade. The one who gets full marks is clearly more intelligent [or just better at regurgitating information, for that matter] however there is no distinction between their grade, so they're both A* students. That's a good thing for some of us though. :P
What exams are better than are coursework and controlled assessments. I think these are terrible for a lot of subjects.
Sadly, school is all about passing exams; it's hardly about learning!
It's kind of interesting how you can get full marks or you can just scrape the grade, but you can get an A* either way and no one will care how many marks you got; it's all about the final grade. The one who gets full marks is clearly more intelligent [or just better at regurgitating information, for that matter] however there is no distinction between their grade, so they're both A* students. That's a good thing for some of us though. :P
What exams are better than are coursework and controlled assessments. I think these are terrible for a lot of subjects.
Sadly, school is all about passing exams; it's hardly about learning!
Original post by EastGuava
It's kind of interesting how you can get full marks or you can just scrape the grade, but you can get an A* either way and no one will care how many marks you got; it's all about the final grade. The one who gets full marks is clearly more intelligent [or just better at regurgitating information, for that matter] however there is no distinction between their grade, so they're both A* students. That's a good thing for some of us though. :P
It's kind of interesting how you can get full marks or you can just scrape the grade, but you can get an A* either way and no one will care how many marks you got; it's all about the final grade. The one who gets full marks is clearly more intelligent [or just better at regurgitating information, for that matter] however there is no distinction between their grade, so they're both A* students. That's a good thing for some of us though. :P
I completely disagree with you here, especially with the bolded part. The idea that someone with 100% is better than someone with 95% is nonsense. If you're getting such a high mark, you very obviously know your stuff. In most cases, the difference between a low-medium A* and a high A* is how good someone is at ironing out silly mistakes. If you look at the marks lost by people with ~95%, they're generally for extremely minor things like petty calculation errors rather than a poorer conceptual understanding. There is going to be next to no difference between people scoring 100% and 95% and as a result, I think it's extremely important that we have banding.
I'll use myself as an example as to why getting 100% doesn't mean you're better than someone who got lower. I'm really bad at English Literature - I have absolutely no understanding of poetry or the texts we studied - yet I got 100% across my entire English Literature GCSE because I learnt all the analysis, I read all the examiners' reports and learnt what I need to put into my essay for it to be worth 100%. In my class, there were plenty of people who were infinitely better than me at Literature and had an outstanding understanding, but they scored lower than me. This isn't because I am better than them, it's because I was better at playing the exam system. This is one (out of many) reasons why it's important to have banding, to minimise the impact of exam technique.
Original post by J_T_
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.
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.
Of course. What I was getting at is that even if you do have the brains to think things through logically, and you are generally bright, you may not do so well in exams because of pressure, memory failing you, time constraint etc. You may get a B in an exam but your capabilities are probably that of an A or A*.
So yeah, what I said was meant from this angle, not the angle where people with low capabilities can get a's or a*'s because they have a sharp memory.
Original post by Chlorophile
I completely disagree with you here, especially with the bolded part. The idea that someone with 100% is better than someone with 95% is nonsense. If you're getting such a high mark, you very obviously know your stuff. In most cases, the difference between a low-medium A* and a high A* is how good someone is at ironing out silly mistakes. If you look at the marks lost by people with ~95%, they're generally for extremely minor things like petty calculation errors rather than a poorer conceptual understanding. There is going to be next to no difference between people scoring 100% and 95% and as a result, I think it's extremely important that we have banding.
I'll use myself as an example as to why getting 100% doesn't mean you're better than someone who got lower. I'm really bad at English Literature - I have absolutely no understanding of poetry or the texts we studied - yet I got 100% across my entire English Literature GCSE because I learnt all the analysis, I read all the examiners' reports and learnt what I need to put into my essay for it to be worth 100%. In my class, there were plenty of people who were infinitely better than me at Literature and had an outstanding understanding, but they scored lower than me. This isn't because I am better than them, it's because I was better at playing the exam system. This is one (out of many) reasons why it's important to have banding, to minimise the impact of exam technique.
I'll use myself as an example as to why getting 100% doesn't mean you're better than someone who got lower. I'm really bad at English Literature - I have absolutely no understanding of poetry or the texts we studied - yet I got 100% across my entire English Literature GCSE because I learnt all the analysis, I read all the examiners' reports and learnt what I need to put into my essay for it to be worth 100%. In my class, there were plenty of people who were infinitely better than me at Literature and had an outstanding understanding, but they scored lower than me. This isn't because I am better than them, it's because I was better at playing the exam system. This is one (out of many) reasons why it's important to have banding, to minimise the impact of exam technique.
OK, I see. I did say in brackets that they could be better at regurgitating information - exam technique and all could be added to this, so I didn't think it's necessary for someone who gets full marks to be smarter than someone who just manages an A* - it all depends on the circumstances really.
I'd agree that there is hardly any difference between 100% or 95% A*s, but the grade boundaries are not always like this. For example, if I'm not mistaken, GCSE Edexcel Maths required 83% for an A* last year. This doesn't mean that if someone got 83% they're worse than another person who got 100% because I agree that it's really easy to make silly mistakes, especially in a subject like Maths. In this case, however, the difference between 83% and 100% is quite a bit larger than the requirement of an A* for other exams boards or subjects and therefore getting 83% would not be tantamount to achieving 100% as opposed to 95% vs 100%. Even then you could say the paper was more difficult, hence the lower grade boundaries, so the person with 83% still did brilliantly, but the 100% student got their A* with 100%. I mean, I know this still doesn't make the 83% student dumber because they might have had a bad day or something, but their 83% just doesn't sound very impressive - not that anyone will know their percentage so they still got the top grade.
If we look into this further, there will be someone who got 82%. Now they're not dumber than the one with 83% just because they got 2 marks less, but they're labelled as an A grade student instead...and that isn't really amazing.
Original post by EastGuava
OK, I see. I did say in brackets that they could be better at regurgitating information - exam technique and all could be added to this, so I didn't think it's necessary for someone who gets full marks to be smarter than someone who just manages an A* - it all depends on the circumstances really.
I'd agree that there is hardly any difference between 100% or 95% A*s, but the grade boundaries are not always like this. For example, if I'm not mistaken, GCSE Edexcel Maths required 83% for an A* last year. This doesn't mean that if someone got 83% they're worse than another person who got 100% because I agree that it's really easy to make silly mistakes, especially in a subject like Maths. In this case, however, the difference between 83% and 100% is quite a bit larger than the requirement of an A* for other exams boards or subjects and therefore getting 83% would not be tantamount to achieving 100% as opposed to 95% vs 100%. Even then you could say the paper was more difficult, hence the lower grade boundaries, so the person with 83% still did brilliantly, but the 100% student got their A* with 100%. I mean, I know this still doesn't make the 83% student dumber because they might have had a bad day or something, but their 83% just doesn't sound very impressive - not that anyone will know their percentage so they still got the top grade.
If we look into this further, there will be someone who got 82%. Now they're not dumber than the one with 83% just because they got 2 marks less, but they're labelled as an A grade student instead...and that isn't really amazing.
I'd agree that there is hardly any difference between 100% or 95% A*s, but the grade boundaries are not always like this. For example, if I'm not mistaken, GCSE Edexcel Maths required 83% for an A* last year. This doesn't mean that if someone got 83% they're worse than another person who got 100% because I agree that it's really easy to make silly mistakes, especially in a subject like Maths. In this case, however, the difference between 83% and 100% is quite a bit larger than the requirement of an A* for other exams boards or subjects and therefore getting 83% would not be tantamount to achieving 100% as opposed to 95% vs 100%. Even then you could say the paper was more difficult, hence the lower grade boundaries, so the person with 83% still did brilliantly, but the 100% student got their A* with 100%. I mean, I know this still doesn't make the 83% student dumber because they might have had a bad day or something, but their 83% just doesn't sound very impressive - not that anyone will know their percentage so they still got the top grade.
If we look into this further, there will be someone who got 82%. Now they're not dumber than the one with 83% just because they got 2 marks less, but they're labelled as an A grade student instead...and that isn't really amazing.
That is true, but it's more applicable to GCSE than A Level. At A Level (particularly within the sciences and mathematics), the UMS cap is at 100% raw, so the above doesn't apply. But it is a valid point nevertheless.
Exams determine how good your memory is. Chances are if it's ****, you fail. If it's good, you pass. I've typically performed well in my exams though. Atm, I could easily explain all the topics I'm studying to someone but when it comes to written exams I sometimes forget things because of anxiety impacting on my memory.
Nope, they just test your memory.
exams determinate your knowledge not intelligence.
Exams are the worst form of assessment, expect for all the others - coursework.
Original post by the_pie_man
Exams are the worst form of assessment, expect for all the others - coursework.
I take that back, work experience and reference is probably the most reliable assessment.Maybe also a controlled assessment but that's very expensive.
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.
Just curious, thanks.
Exam are base on Rememing information. i don't think determine your intelligence. Most intelligence people can pass a exam without studying. therefor exams dont really prove anything
In some ways yes, as, in the case of English, it asks you to show off your writing skills in conjunction to the texts under pressure. However, I do think some things just make it more stressful for students, like this year's exam we aren't allowed a copy of the text meaning we have to remember several quotes as well as which language devices to incorperate and how; this is made all the more difficult that we have no idea what we're going to be asked about. I can't remember the whole play.
I've only ever scored below an A once in my life, I still think exams are a god awful way of measuring intelligence.
My IT teacher from my secondary put it quite succinctly and rightly however, they are not there to measure your intelligence, but rather your commitment and effort to a given task. Ultimately, those who put in the hours revising are those who succeed in exams. Universities and employers want those who are able to get right back up after being knocked down, not those who just happen to have a high IQ. Some of the highest scoring, hardest working people I know wouldn't strike you as 'intelligent', but they are still going to be heading off to world class universities.
My IT teacher from my secondary put it quite succinctly and rightly however, they are not there to measure your intelligence, but rather your commitment and effort to a given task. Ultimately, those who put in the hours revising are those who succeed in exams. Universities and employers want those who are able to get right back up after being knocked down, not those who just happen to have a high IQ. Some of the highest scoring, hardest working people I know wouldn't strike you as 'intelligent', but they are still going to be heading off to world class universities.
TBH, exams are essential to measure ones intelligence. Exams will always occur in the many years to come.
Think about it, if there were no exams , how would we measure if someone's intellectual calibre?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Think about it, if there were no exams , how would we measure if someone's intellectual calibre?
Posted from TSR Mobile
School and university exams do not determine intelligence. Unless it's a test of your critical thinking/aptitude/arithmetic/abstract reasoning.
School and university exams are designed to test how well you have studied and understood the curriculum. For that purpose, exams are very bad, terrible in fact, they do a really poor job of testing how well you've studied and understood the course. But exams are easy, quick and convenient, that's why exam boards and institutions use them. Not because they're a good way to assess and judge students, but because anything else would simply be inconvenient for the people who are testing you.
School and university exams are designed to test how well you have studied and understood the curriculum. For that purpose, exams are very bad, terrible in fact, they do a really poor job of testing how well you've studied and understood the course. But exams are easy, quick and convenient, that's why exam boards and institutions use them. Not because they're a good way to assess and judge students, but because anything else would simply be inconvenient for the people who are testing you.
Yes, and I'm someone that doesn't even do that well in exams (I'll be happy if I get CCD in my a-levels). People say they test your memory, but that isn't true IMO. I can't speak for maths/science subjects but I do all essay based subjects and while you do need to memorise things, you also need to know how to structure an answer, back up your points, etc.
I definitely think exams are a valid method of testing your intelligence. How else are you supposed to measure it?
I definitely think exams are a valid method of testing your intelligence. How else are you supposed to measure it?
They do and they don't...
First off, I do quite well in exams, yet I didn't revise for my GCSE's that much... I understood what was being taught, and therefore I just figured out everything in the actual exam rather than learn it. This is all well and good for GCSE's, but this does not work for A levels, which requires you to learn some basic facts that require too much outside understanding to understand the principals behind them, which would take me more than 2 years. Therefore, some basic learning is required.
Does this prove your intelligence though? If exams were all based upon skills testing, and thinking skills, yes, it does test your actual intellect. However the exam system we have now does not require you to actually understand anything for GCSE and maybe AS level, and you can get almost full marks by just learning absolutely everything. However, using chemistry as an example, A2 level requires full understanding and full knowledge to get close to 100%, therefore I would argue that A2 chemistry does test your intelligence.
However, upon saying this, you do not need to understand everything to get an A grade at A2, only the A* boundary really tests intelligence.
This begs the question "What is intelligence?". Is it knowledge, or understanding, or both? I would argue that one can appear intelligent by acquiring a vast amount of knowledge, yet one can only usefully utilise that knowledge if they understand it to the full extent, thereby knowledge without understanding is not true intelligence. Understanding however, automatically proceeds to knowledge, whereas knowledge does not necessarily proceed to understanding, unless the person with the knowledge has the ability to understand.
Due to this, I conclude that understanding is the basis for intelligence, and only upon the acquisition of understanding can one proceed to begin the hard work required to master their topic to make further use out of it.
Does the current exam system test this? I would argue not, as one can pass well without understanding. I would therefore argue theta exams should be set upon two stages. The first of which is a skills based understanding paper, alike to general studies, but subject focused, where a understanding of the subject and mechanisms is essential- a online interactive platform may be the best way to do this. I would then prepose a second knowledge based test, which it is possible to revise for.
I would take the fraction of correct answers from the understanding test and multiply it by the raw marks, or even a UMS equivalent for the knowledge test, giving a result in which higher scores are better. I would then rank these results, and take percentages of the ranks for the grades, to assess intelligence in that subject.
If anyone disagrees with any of my logic, I am willing to consider any amendments or corrections.
I hope my ideas on this matter have been interesting.
First off, I do quite well in exams, yet I didn't revise for my GCSE's that much... I understood what was being taught, and therefore I just figured out everything in the actual exam rather than learn it. This is all well and good for GCSE's, but this does not work for A levels, which requires you to learn some basic facts that require too much outside understanding to understand the principals behind them, which would take me more than 2 years. Therefore, some basic learning is required.
Does this prove your intelligence though? If exams were all based upon skills testing, and thinking skills, yes, it does test your actual intellect. However the exam system we have now does not require you to actually understand anything for GCSE and maybe AS level, and you can get almost full marks by just learning absolutely everything. However, using chemistry as an example, A2 level requires full understanding and full knowledge to get close to 100%, therefore I would argue that A2 chemistry does test your intelligence.
However, upon saying this, you do not need to understand everything to get an A grade at A2, only the A* boundary really tests intelligence.
This begs the question "What is intelligence?". Is it knowledge, or understanding, or both? I would argue that one can appear intelligent by acquiring a vast amount of knowledge, yet one can only usefully utilise that knowledge if they understand it to the full extent, thereby knowledge without understanding is not true intelligence. Understanding however, automatically proceeds to knowledge, whereas knowledge does not necessarily proceed to understanding, unless the person with the knowledge has the ability to understand.
Due to this, I conclude that understanding is the basis for intelligence, and only upon the acquisition of understanding can one proceed to begin the hard work required to master their topic to make further use out of it.
Does the current exam system test this? I would argue not, as one can pass well without understanding. I would therefore argue theta exams should be set upon two stages. The first of which is a skills based understanding paper, alike to general studies, but subject focused, where a understanding of the subject and mechanisms is essential- a online interactive platform may be the best way to do this. I would then prepose a second knowledge based test, which it is possible to revise for.
I would take the fraction of correct answers from the understanding test and multiply it by the raw marks, or even a UMS equivalent for the knowledge test, giving a result in which higher scores are better. I would then rank these results, and take percentages of the ranks for the grades, to assess intelligence in that subject.
If anyone disagrees with any of my logic, I am willing to consider any amendments or corrections.
I hope my ideas on this matter have been interesting.
The people who say exams are a test of your memory don't know what they're talking about. Exams are a test of your understanding of what you've been taught and how you can apply it to different and potentially unknown situations. If exams were just a test of memory, they'd be piss easy and I'd get 100% every time.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How do you get moved up a set ?
- uk education system
- Is it bad if a girl is dumber than the guy?
- Are exams just a test of memory?
- I am so stupid
- kings clearing
- how to cover all of gcse maths content in one month
- Feel like an academic failure, may be genuinely stupid.
- I feel like I'm of very low intelligence, so I will fail in life
- How can i get from an E grade to an A* in A-level chemistry???
- Is this really going to happen?
- an issue on a level grades
- Masters with a 2.2 UG degree?
- GCSE
- How do people who mess around and hardly study at school get such good grades?
- A-levels or access course? To get into university
- applying to A*A*A courses
- urgent
- What are some tips for reducing test anxiety?
- A level stress help
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 1 week ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 1 week ago
I tried to apply to Disabled Student’s Allowance but…Last reply 1 week ago
For harrasment does someone get a warning first or no warningLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Work Experience - ACCOMODATION (harwell campus)Last reply 2 weeks ago
I think I’m decently pretty but I don’t get asked out …Last reply 4 weeks ago
Please help I accidentally ran a red and am terrifiedTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 1 week ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 1 week ago
I tried to apply to Disabled Student’s Allowance but…Last reply 1 week ago
For harrasment does someone get a warning first or no warningLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Work Experience - ACCOMODATION (harwell campus)Last reply 2 weeks ago
I think I’m decently pretty but I don’t get asked out …Last reply 4 weeks ago
Please help I accidentally ran a red and am terrified
