They are the best way. That doesn't mean they're a good way.
Maths exams are perhaps the best way to test Maths (maybe remove the time limit?), but others are not so good.
Maths exams are perhaps the best way to test Maths (maybe remove the time limit?), but others are not so good.
(edited 9 years ago)
It's more a memory test. The best way would be open book examination, but even then people write stuff without understanding it.
The finnish education system shows that standardised exams doesn't necessarily facilitate performance. Then again if you look at the east asian countries who are doing the best in the world in terms of exams have a growing economy to show for it.
For me personally they don't really measure performance, but they do measure motivation and commitment, certainly more so the higher you get into education. Its whether people are motivated enough to memorise trivial and sometimes pointless information.
Btw...an alternative wouldn't be difficult, it would actually be cheaper for the government (the finnish education system)
For me personally they don't really measure performance, but they do measure motivation and commitment, certainly more so the higher you get into education. Its whether people are motivated enough to memorise trivial and sometimes pointless information.
Btw...an alternative wouldn't be difficult, it would actually be cheaper for the government (the finnish education system)
It depends on the person and the subject.
Just because one person can do well in an exam doesn't mean they are any better than someone who doesn't. It does depend on the subject as well though because, for example, I know for a fact my sister is excellent at looking after kids and anything to do with kids but she couldn't pass an exam in childcare. Some people a really good at creative writing but can't pass English exams. But then, for a subject like maths, if you can solve a maths problem anywhere then you can do it in an exam so, in that context, exams are the best way of testing people's capabilities.
I personally think that, for jobs such as childcare, construction, decoration etc. people shouldn't have to sit an exam or have a certificate to get the job because it's about personality and practical skills rather than knowledge. However, for jobs in the sciences, humanities etc. exams are an important proof of knowledge!
Just because one person can do well in an exam doesn't mean they are any better than someone who doesn't. It does depend on the subject as well though because, for example, I know for a fact my sister is excellent at looking after kids and anything to do with kids but she couldn't pass an exam in childcare. Some people a really good at creative writing but can't pass English exams. But then, for a subject like maths, if you can solve a maths problem anywhere then you can do it in an exam so, in that context, exams are the best way of testing people's capabilities.
I personally think that, for jobs such as childcare, construction, decoration etc. people shouldn't have to sit an exam or have a certificate to get the job because it's about personality and practical skills rather than knowledge. However, for jobs in the sciences, humanities etc. exams are an important proof of knowledge!
They're a pretty crap way of assessing personal competence, especially since in their current incarnations they're massively based around memorisation which in the age of Google is pretty much unnecessary. However, there's not really much of a practical way to assess people that would work better - coursework is the obvious alternative, but there would be massive problems with plagiarism (thanks in no small part to the aforementioned Google!).
A better idea might be, at least at the upper echelons of education i.e. A-levels and degrees etc, to focus exams less on memorising and applying facts, and more on understanding arguments and being able to extrapolate your reasoning to new and unfamiliar situations. In this day and age, knowledge is far less important than understanding and creativity, in my opinion.
So yeah, exams as they are are a bit naff, but it'd be difficult to come up with an entirely separate alternative; however there is room to improve on what we choose to examine on.
A better idea might be, at least at the upper echelons of education i.e. A-levels and degrees etc, to focus exams less on memorising and applying facts, and more on understanding arguments and being able to extrapolate your reasoning to new and unfamiliar situations. In this day and age, knowledge is far less important than understanding and creativity, in my opinion.
So yeah, exams as they are are a bit naff, but it'd be difficult to come up with an entirely separate alternative; however there is room to improve on what we choose to examine on.
Original post by facetiousx
The finnish education system shows that standardised exams doesn't necessarily facilitate performance. Then again if you look at the east asian countries who are doing the best in the world in terms of exams have a growing economy to show for it.
For me personally they don't really measure performance, but they do measure motivation and commitment, certainly more so the higher you get into education. Its whether people are motivated enough to memorise trivial and sometimes pointless information.
Btw...an alternative wouldn't be difficult, it would actually be cheaper for the government (the finnish education system)
For me personally they don't really measure performance, but they do measure motivation and commitment, certainly more so the higher you get into education. Its whether people are motivated enough to memorise trivial and sometimes pointless information.
Btw...an alternative wouldn't be difficult, it would actually be cheaper for the government (the finnish education system)
Their academic performance has little to do with their economy. All the smart people go to university abroad lol, thats why there's been a huge influx of Chinese people on Britain lately. Their economy grows because of their cheap labour and complete disregard for copyright laws.
Original post by fajitamunch
Their academic performance has little to do with their economy. All the smart people go to university abroad lol, thats why there's been a huge influx of Chinese people on Britain lately. Their economy grows because of their cheap labour and complete disregard for copyright laws.
I guess, but I wouldn't exactly say their economy is entirely based on that. They're modernising at a really fast pace and thats partly linked to education, s'pose their population size helps too.
Anyway this is a really complex topic
kinda veering off the point I was trying to make ahaQuick Reply
Related discussions
- uk education system
- Oxford vs Cambridge
- does first year medicine count towards degree
- Degree
- A level chemistry required practical help
- Problems with the school system
- An alevel in a year?
- Biology
- What do you need to know about the preparation for the GRE exam?
- Are my gcses good enough for cambridge?
- GCSE Hot Tips
- Music - University or Conservatoire?
- CORMS in IGCSE BIOLOGY ??
- I'm going to fail my drama GCSE!
- Always dehydrated
- Is 32 a Good ACT Score?
- Unit 11 Cybersecurity Scenario?
- Unit 7 exam help - preparation
- Referencing
- Did abysmal in my A Level, unsure of where to go from here.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]A-levels
10
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]A-levels
10
