Do you think time limits in exams are unfair?
Scroll to see replies
I never really had a problem with time limits before university, but after doing university exams I think some of the time limits are ridiculous. As a maths student, I like to take my time to avoid clumsy errors, and I find with some of the exams you would have to work extremely quickly and without hestitation to give a full answer for everything.
Think of it in terms of being an employer, you might have two candidates who both achieved a 2.1, however candidate A didn't rush and unfortunately didn't have to time to answer everything, whereas candidate B finished a bit quicker and achieved the maximum possible mark he would of earned given an endless amount of time. While those two may have the same mark on paper, I think I know which one I would rather hire (that is of course, if we're hiring soley on academic achievement).
Think of it in terms of being an employer, you might have two candidates who both achieved a 2.1, however candidate A didn't rush and unfortunately didn't have to time to answer everything, whereas candidate B finished a bit quicker and achieved the maximum possible mark he would of earned given an endless amount of time. While those two may have the same mark on paper, I think I know which one I would rather hire (that is of course, if we're hiring soley on academic achievement).
Yeah, part of the reason I dropped English Literature was that I was being examined under a system which I felt was unfair and didn't allow me time to play to my strengths. Otherwise I loved the subject, but I don't think time limits in essay-writing type exams are realistic. I don't think the paper should be limited to rectify this, rather, just give the option of longer exam sessions.
Original post by imyza
I think it's fair because it shows more of what we can do under pressure. Also, people would turn up that have barely revised and still get a good mark yet the people that have practiced doing it to a time limit probably would not.
I don't speak entirely from experience, but I think the psychological pressure affected by definite time limit is of a different type than that caused by the need to meet deadlines in the workplace, if you see what I'm saying?
There's a couple of ridiculous limits.
OCR Advancing Physics paper 1 - 1 hour.
You don't have time to look at the formula book that you get given :/ It literally is 1 minute per mark.
Then there's edexcel general studies at 1hr 30. It takes under an hour tbh.
OCR Advancing Physics paper 1 - 1 hour.
You don't have time to look at the formula book that you get given :/ It literally is 1 minute per mark.
Then there's edexcel general studies at 1hr 30. It takes under an hour tbh.
No, I think it's fair. Examiners aren't stupid, they set those time limits for a reason: to test us to see how much we can produce in that time. The time limit itself is a test. Knowledge under duress (and what duress- hardly- it's not that bad).
I think that we need to decide exactly what the examination system is there for - do we actually want to test peoples' knowledge in a particular subject, or do we want to test their exam and revision technique? Increasingly I feel that exams are a test of exam technique as much as they are a test of knowledge in a particular subject, and I do seriously question whether placing people under a short time limit is appropriate in all instances.
I can understand that in science and maths exams a time limit is particularly useful, because if you were simply given all day to do the exam you would be able to just do each question a dozen times and work through all the possibilities until it became obvious you had got the correct answer. I do question, however, how useful time limits are in essay-based exams. The teaching of subjects like English Lit and History encourages students to engage in wider reading and measured analysis, with referencing of third-party sources being compulsory and students being encouraged to synthesise individual arguments rather than to simply regurgitate what they have learned without giving it any individual thought.
Then once the coursework is handed in, students are told to ditch that - they'll have to write X number of essays in 60/90/120 minutes and they're told that the skills of time-management and exam technique are just as important (if not more important) than innate knowledge. In a particularly ironic twist of fate, they might even told that it's often better not to perform the kind of penetrative (hurhurhur) analysis that has set the tone of lessons for two years throughout the whole of the paper because there simply isn't time. Unlike a piece of coursework where the student has time to develop their own point of view on the title and construct a personal argument, the student is under such time constraints that they don't necessarily have time to even consider fully which question to answer.
Personally, I feel that there should be a greater focus upon coursework, and I do not accept allegations that it is too open to corruption. I agree that some coursework at GCSE level was pointless and there was potential for cheating, but I think that at A-level this would be almost impossible. The level of work required to produce a satisfactory piece of A level coursework effectively precludes cheating or plagiarism anyway - the English Lit A2 coursework which I did had one book which was relatively obscure and therefore did not even have Sparknotes or York Notes to go with it. I felt that my English A2 coursework was probably the best test of my true ability in and understanding of the subject, significantly more so than any exam. Probably the best test of intellectual maturity (which surely is the goal of tertiary education, especially considering that many people still start careers after Sixth Form) was the Extended Project (which I did in dissertation form), and I definitely feel that it was testing the right areas in the right ways, as opposed to exam mark schemes which often fail to do so.
I can't think of many jobs where you have to write by hand with the endgame being to complete a long piece of written work (not that A levels are designed primarily as a test of employability, anyway). Unless you are considering a career as a scribe...
I can understand that in science and maths exams a time limit is particularly useful, because if you were simply given all day to do the exam you would be able to just do each question a dozen times and work through all the possibilities until it became obvious you had got the correct answer. I do question, however, how useful time limits are in essay-based exams. The teaching of subjects like English Lit and History encourages students to engage in wider reading and measured analysis, with referencing of third-party sources being compulsory and students being encouraged to synthesise individual arguments rather than to simply regurgitate what they have learned without giving it any individual thought.
Then once the coursework is handed in, students are told to ditch that - they'll have to write X number of essays in 60/90/120 minutes and they're told that the skills of time-management and exam technique are just as important (if not more important) than innate knowledge. In a particularly ironic twist of fate, they might even told that it's often better not to perform the kind of penetrative (hurhurhur) analysis that has set the tone of lessons for two years throughout the whole of the paper because there simply isn't time. Unlike a piece of coursework where the student has time to develop their own point of view on the title and construct a personal argument, the student is under such time constraints that they don't necessarily have time to even consider fully which question to answer.
Personally, I feel that there should be a greater focus upon coursework, and I do not accept allegations that it is too open to corruption. I agree that some coursework at GCSE level was pointless and there was potential for cheating, but I think that at A-level this would be almost impossible. The level of work required to produce a satisfactory piece of A level coursework effectively precludes cheating or plagiarism anyway - the English Lit A2 coursework which I did had one book which was relatively obscure and therefore did not even have Sparknotes or York Notes to go with it. I felt that my English A2 coursework was probably the best test of my true ability in and understanding of the subject, significantly more so than any exam. Probably the best test of intellectual maturity (which surely is the goal of tertiary education, especially considering that many people still start careers after Sixth Form) was the Extended Project (which I did in dissertation form), and I definitely feel that it was testing the right areas in the right ways, as opposed to exam mark schemes which often fail to do so.
Original post by overtherainbow
in the real world you dont get as long as you want to do a job and people with slower writing speeds in jobs would still be expected to finish in the same time as someone else...
I can't think of many jobs where you have to write by hand with the endgame being to complete a long piece of written work (not that A levels are designed primarily as a test of employability, anyway). Unless you are considering a career as a scribe...
(edited 12 years ago)
Work can often mean deadlines and so this is good practice for life.
Original post by Rachel08
Some of them are fine e.g. maths, 1hr30, as most people can finish within that time and still have a minute or two to check.
more like 40 minutes left to check.... no me gusta
Edexcel physics exams could use another half an hour IMO.
The questions are tricky, if they want to the students to use their heads in the exam instead of just going off wrote memory like in maths, they need that extra bit of time to think about what the question is asking.
The questions are tricky, if they want to the students to use their heads in the exam instead of just going off wrote memory like in maths, they need that extra bit of time to think about what the question is asking.
Original post by aspiringwhatever
No, it's not fair. I write super fast, like super duper fast and I still have problems finishing my exam on time. Therefore people who have a normal writing pace are screwed. Like in one of my exams I had to do about 10 eight mark questions and about 10 four to five marks questions in 1 hour and 15 minutes. Please tell me how that is reasonable? I knew all of the material really well due to a photographic memory and as I already mentioned I write super fast and I still wrote until the last second. Nobody else in my class finished, and no one is dumb in my class.
EDIT: Oh right I am being negged because I write fast and have a photographic memory. How mature
EDIT: Oh right I am being negged because I write fast and have a photographic memory. How mature
Please tell me what exam you did? Because that clearly sounds like bull.
U
If you have a photo graphic memory and still cant keep
To time you're definitely waffling.
Original post by aspiringwhatever
No, it's not fair. I write super fast, like super duper fast and I still have problems finishing my exam on time. Therefore people who have a normal writing pace are screwed. Like in one of my exams I had to do about 10 eight mark questions and about 10 four to five marks questions in 1 hour and 15 minutes. Please tell me how that is reasonable? I knew all of the material really well due to a photographic memory and as I already mentioned I write super fast and I still wrote until the last second. Nobody else in my class finished, and no one is dumb in my class.
EDIT: Oh right I am being negged because I write fast and have a photographic memory. How mature
EDIT: Oh right I am being negged because I write fast and have a photographic memory. How mature
If you have a photo graphic memory and still cant keep
To time you're definitely waffling.
i think multiple choice questions in exams are unfair they don't assess you on your knowledge but just try to trick you
All those saying that the time limit is 'a test in itself', 'good practice for working life', 'stops you waffling' or 'is fair because everyone's in the same boat' are missing the point. Surely you would agree that the purpose of the exam is to test your knowledge of the subject matter and your ability to apply that knowledge in an unseen context. Tight time limits only serve to discourage deep original thought and actively encourage you to dump everything you know onto the page. Therefore they penalise great students and boost those who cram or rote learn material.
I hope some of you (particularly those at university) will agree with me when I say that it is incredibly frustrating having to write an essay in 45-60 minutes and having no room to bring in actually quite subtle and sophisticated points because you've spent most of them time laying foundations and getting the bread&butter points down.
We want to see quality over quantity. Increasing time limits by 15 mins extra per question + 15 minutes reading time will produce higher quality answers from the best candidates because they have the time to plan and think. I think this sort of time extension is reasonable and any waffling it produces will simply be to the detriment of that candidate's grade.
Agreed.
I hope some of you (particularly those at university) will agree with me when I say that it is incredibly frustrating having to write an essay in 45-60 minutes and having no room to bring in actually quite subtle and sophisticated points because you've spent most of them time laying foundations and getting the bread&butter points down.
We want to see quality over quantity. Increasing time limits by 15 mins extra per question + 15 minutes reading time will produce higher quality answers from the best candidates because they have the time to plan and think. I think this sort of time extension is reasonable and any waffling it produces will simply be to the detriment of that candidate's grade.
Original post by TheFatController
I think that we need to decide exactly what the examination system is there for - do we actually want to test peoples' knowledge in a particular subject, or do we want to test their exam and revision technique? Increasingly I feel that exams are a test of exam technique as much as they are a test of knowledge in a particular subject, and I do seriously question whether placing people under a short time limit is appropriate in all instances... ... ...
Agreed.
(edited 12 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Writing after the end of an exam
- Am I allowed a Calculator for university Computer Science exams?
- Do you think it's unfair for students to have extra time + laptops?
- My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.
- Why do Northern Irish students get less student finance?
- Aren’t exams cruel?
- english literature coursework
- please- i am losing hope
- 2023 GCSE summer resits
- I've used my calculator in a maths exam by accident, should I tell someone?
- Issues with jobs because I cannot drive
- Given AI technologies like ChatGPT, are GCSE and A-level exams fit for purpose?
- Is this fair and does this make her insecure
- PwC flying start vs A+F at top university
- Is it worth taking an A-Level in your Native language (Urdu)?
- Durham Marking Boycott as a Second Year
- bad predicted grades :(
- How much do people actually revise for collections
- Why Does this QMUL not Care about the students (medicine)
- AS Further Mathematics CCEA 2023 Paper
Latest
Trending
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]A-levels
17
Trending
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]A-levels
17
