Are exams really an effective way of judging academic capability?

Well then what's the point in having interviews? Once you find out someone has half a brain, you're then going to want to find out some other things about your potential employee are you not?

So I suppose it's just a common case of survival of the fittest then.

Grades might show that a person is clever/intelligent, but not that he/she will necessarily work hard or even give a damn about the work they're applying for. The thread title is 'Are exams really an effective way of judging academic capability?', and I would say the answer is yes, in most cases. And in any case, you need some vague intelligence to be able to 'play the system'. Employers could use this to judge someone's academic capability certainly, but not to judge whether or not they will be suited to the job - that's where interviews come in.

Of course, but one would be nothing without the other.
Don't forget, however, that an employer doesn't get a chance to meet you for an interview until they have selected you, the basis for that decision being how effectively you have sold yourself and your qualifications to them. Hence we're back at exam results.

If the person isn't intelligent, he wouldn't get hired regardless of their dedication to this position. Good grades do not mean that someone will be a good employee; it merely means that the person is capable of being a good employee.

If someone can't handle the former, they're certainly not going to be able to handle the latter.

Do you want people who are mediocre to get ahead instead?

That's true, but just because somebody can handle the former, doesn't necessarily mean he is going to be able to handle the latter, and as such you'll again need the intervew to be in the best position to judge a candidate's potential, and cannot merely rely on the fact that he was able to perform under timed conditions in an exam to say that he is best suited to the job.

No, but maybe it'd be an idea to make exams less about pot luck and give people a more equal opportunity? That way, the truly talented and not 'mediocre' candidates would be able to stand out anyway.

How could you say that exams are about luck when the same people constistently either do well or badly on them? I certainly don't think I got lucky that I got 35 As out of the 40 classes I took in uni. And I hope the people who consistently got Cs don't think that they were unlucky. Luck can determine one or two grades, but certainly not most or all of them.

Hmm... but you have to agree a lot of the process is going into an exam hoping the topics that come up are your strong ones.

Alternately, you could learn all the topics, so you wouldn't have to worry abou this. From personal experience, the classes where I had to rely on luck are the classes that I didn't do too well in. As I mentioned, you can get lucky or unlucky every once in a while, but what separates the top students from the mediocre ones is having the ability to leave Lady Luck by the wayside.

Only 1 AM here and the Yankees are winning (not that a Brit would understand ).

It's just so much effort to thoroughly prepare for exams. I think my approach to exams is one day going to bite me in the ass. Badly.

Apparently not. I understand that the GCSE in Leisure and Tourism poses such teasers as:

Name three modes of transport that a tourist can use to travel in London?

Fackin hell.

Perhaps if everyone worked equally hard, then they'd be good indicators of academic ability, but I know I didn't work as hard as my friends. So if we'd worked at the same pace, then the grades would have been different.

Perhaps if everyone worked equally hard, then they'd be good indicators of academic ability, but I know I didn't work as hard as my friends. So if we'd worked at the same pace, then the grades would have been different.