Learning just to pass exams.

Scroll to see replies

i know this sounds kind of stupid to ask, but i'm thinking what strategies would be needed to improve how our exams are made? so then, that way gcse and A level are based more on intelligence rather than memorising the syllabus?

also... in an attempt to make our exams harder, gove has made changes to gcse and A level, is it really in anyway improving our intelligence?
i don't think it is. instead, it just means that we do less resits (well for A level that is)

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 21

dranaaex

Personal experience has told me that learning the content and fully understanding it does not guarantee a good grade at a-level. It's all about memorizing markschemes and doing ALL the past papers available.

Don't blame the students, its just what the system has taught has to do.

Reply 22

interstitial

Original post by dranaaex

Yep, this is exactly the problem. Mark schemes are just so picky with what they allow that in some cases going into too much detail might actually not get you any marks at all :s-smilie:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 23

notathuggee

Original post by dranaaex

i rate

Reply 24

C0balt

It's so heartbreaking when I ask my teacher "why on earth this is that?" they just answer with "ain't got time for that, we need to finish the syllabus"

Reply 25

interstitial

Original post by C0balt

It's so heartbreaking when I ask my teacher "why on earth this is that?" they just answer with "ain't got time for that, we need to finish the syllabus"

My teacher does this all the time (and in the end we never did get it finished), but I'm cool with it because we cover so much interesting stuff in class that it's worth doing more work at home XD

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 26

SilverAlex

It's all about passing exams, they should give points fairly.
English and History should be worth more than the social sciences whilst the real sciences and maths should be worth more points than all of them.

Reply 27

RayApparently

I think that is sufficient for GCSEs and even A-Levels (to a limited degree) it is in further education where we should truly shine.

Reply 28

SilverAlex

Mark purely on the quality of an argument put forward in a writing subject, not on the amount of statistics/dates/names unless it contributes to the argument.
Honestly, a lot of subjects are marked like that anyway.

Reply 29

BlueSam3

The problem isn't with people learning to pass exams. It's with people being taught to pass exams. The educational system has put increasingly large amounts of emphasis on exams recently (despite it being pretty much universally acknowledged as an awful predictor of actual ability), and this has hurt the system across the board. The fact is, you pretty much have to do that (as awful an idea as it is in general), because that's what the system is designed for you to do. The problems are endemic to it - The students can't change it, since most don't have the time and ability to do both the learning to pass the test and the actual learning part; the teachers can't change it, since they are continually forced to seek exam results over all else; the school administrations can't change it, because not pressuring for exams screws a school over hard; and the people that could actually change it wont, because not one of them has ever actually had anything whatsoever to do with teaching since they left school, and as a result, none of them have a clue what they're on about.

Reply 30

melody19

I agree with this. Although I say this but really don't know how else you would test these subjects. But like someone said above, if you only memorise the facts you can't do that well, you need some understanding but having said that I know people that do very well by literally (literally used in its actual sense) memorising their notes word for word.

But I'm one of those people who has to understand what I'm learning and I enjoy it as well, I refuse to accept just the facts I have to know the reasons behind it haha the teachers sometimes get veeeeery annoyed at me and other students probably think I'm really annoying too cause I ask too many questions. :colondollar:

Reply 31

la95

I think the idea that 'exams test memory, not intelligence' is flawed from the outset. For one thing, there's no rigid definition of intelligence or what it incorporates, and I'd imagine that in fact, memory is a huge part of what we call 'intelligence'. For example, one could have the potential to be a marvellous mathematician, but surely memorising things like formulae and how to apply and use them is a huge part of that?

That leads on to my next point: phrases like 'applying one's knowledge' are bandied about a lot in relation to exams, the idea being that applying what you've learnt is indicative of intelligence. But surely you learn how to apply something? I admit that certain things, e.g. maths or grammar, seem to be easier for some than for others in terms of learning how to apply them, but surely it's a learning process for all?

Thus, I don't really see how we can possibly have exams that aren't essentially memory exercises. It's also important to recognise the function of GCSE/A Level exams - they're essentially a means of exploring one's educational interests, hoop-jumping to get the necessary grades for university, and, to put it crudely, sorting people on the basis of what I believe to be effort as well as aptitude (in fact, probably effort the overwhelming majority of the time). If hard-working individuals invest a lot of time and effort in learning their subjects in order to achieve good grades, then why prevent them from obtaining a place at university to study their subject of choice by setting ridiculously difficult and complicated exams that only the top 1% of students will be able to succeed in?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 32

LadyEcliptic

A lot of it isn't actually about intelligence - it's how well you can regurgitate the information, but how to you out a score on intelligence?
I for one, struggled with maths - I tried, but couldn't grasp it so dropped it. But, I do have a genuine interest in Biology and now I love Chemistry, and love reading around the subject rather than what you learn in school.

Reply 33

la95

Original post by SilverAlex

That's ridiculous. So you're suggesting that your completely arbitrary opinions of the value of various subjects should determine how many 'points' students get for them?

Let's assume you mean UCAS points by 'points' (not that it particularly matters - UMS marks would have the same effect in this scenario). Let us imagine that I have an enormous interest in sociology (a social science) and it's what I'd like to study at university. Consequently, I select sociology, psychology and ancient history. I get A*A*A*, but given the nature of my subjects, that's only worth 240 points. Somebody else does maths, physics and chemistry and gets CCC, but given the nature of their subjects, this is worth 240 points. Do you honestly think that works?

Reply 34

BlueSam3

Original post by melody19

Look at the Finnish education system. Very few exams at all, no league tables, and continually demolishes pretty much every other system on the planet in pretty much every measure.

Reply 35

melody19

Original post by BlueSam3

Look at the Finnish education system. Very few exams at all, no league tables, and continually demolishes pretty much every other system on the planet in pretty much every measure.

I've just briefly looked into this but it already seems really interesting! Wow thank you for showing me this! :smile:

Reply 36

llys

Exams serve their purpose pretty well. There is a reason why we don't just use IQ tests to determine whether someone should go to university.

Original post by la95

Reply 37

PricklyPorcupine

Well, yeah, pretty much. Some people will find what they are learning interesting or go look into it further, but most just learn it to pass without actually understanding or being interested in it. That's not education imo.

Reply 38

xDave-

That sounds about right. For example, my maths books gave no time to the history of maths, nor its functions. I don't think I even knew Pythagoras was a person, let alone that he'd made some theorem. We just did 'pythagoras', whatever the hell that meant to us. We didn't learn anything about what we could do with it, what it's for, etc.

Reply 39

interstitial

Original post by xDave-

Yep, this is what I find the most annoying and it seems to pop up in maths more than any other subject. Nothing is really explained in full detail and if you're someone who likes to understand why things work, you'll be left wondering why a derivative gives the gradient of a function and other strange things.

Posted from TSR Mobile