The Student Room Group

Is an exam-based education system rigorous or unfair?

Recently, I have been interested in the differences between American and British education. One of the largest differences is that we have exams that are very heavily weighted whilst significant portions of American grades are based on class factors e.g. participation, work throughout a semester etc.

Is the British system a test that is rigorous and able to create students who are more intelligent and able to work well under pressure?

Is the British system unfair to those who have mental health issues that cause pressured situations to decrease their chances of passing, or unfair to those who have short-term memory deficiency?

Does the system create an education that functions only within the set curriculum and doesn't encourage subject exploration or decolonialisation of the syllabus?

Scroll to see replies

I've always thought that exams are fair as everyone has the same test etc its just a matter of how hardworking the individual is. e.g. if they revise a lot and put the work in they will get better qualifications and therefore a better job and better pay than someone who cannot be bothered and doesn't revise and fails their exams.
Exam-based is better. It's very objective whereas the american system seems like it's not very standardised and subjective.
Original post by Secular_Priest
Recently, I have been interested in the differences between American and British education. One of the largest differences is that we have exams that are very heavily weighted whilst significant portions of American grades are based on class factors e.g. participation, work throughout a semester etc.

Is the British system a test that is rigorous and able to create students who are more intelligent and able to work well under pressure?

Is the British system unfair to those who have mental health issues that cause pressured situations to decrease their chances of passing, or unfair to those who have short-term memory deficiency?

Does the system create an education that functions only within the set curriculum and doesn't encourage subject exploration or decolonialisation of the syllabus?


I have a friend from California and she has things called finals which are tests on your subjects I think at the end of each term and they count a lot towards your grade point average. In her school, the highest GPA you can have I think is 4.0 and universities over there will ask for your GPA for example 3.4 GPA to be accepted into them. These series of tests seem to be more of a consistent testing system instead of just a series of exams at the end of two years. These tests are done internally in the schools and so I feel like the public style exam that we do over here makes it a lot more daunting. However, my friend and her mum seemed to think that our system sounded easier although to me I think ours sounds harder! In terms of mental health, I feel like our exams in the U.K are worse in that respect.
Original post by conconnie
I have a friend from California and she has things called finals which are tests on your subjects I think at the end of each term and they count a lot towards your grade point average. In her school, the highest GPA you can have I think is 4.0 and universities over there will ask for your GPA for example 3.4 GPA to be accepted into them. These series of tests seem to be more of a consistent testing system instead of just a series of exams at the end of two years. These tests are done internally in the schools and so I feel like the public style exam that we do over here makes it a lot more daunting. However, my friend and her mum seemed to think that our system sounded easier although to me I think ours sounds harder! In terms of mental health, I feel like our exams in the U.K are worse in that respect.


I think that is an important distinction to make. Our exams are public whilst most American exams are internal. In a country so large, I can see advantages and disadvantages to both but I prefer our public system.

I would hate to be an admissions officer in an ivy league uni in America though :/
I think testing someone once is not a fair representation of their knowledge. But equally a series of coursework assignments proves only that someone can collate information together, often without understanding what any of that information means. The true test of someone's knowledge is in an open-ended viva voce, but that is simply administratively unworkable.
(edited 6 years ago)
Exams are as fair as you can get really. It is kinda annoying how such a small amount of time decides your achievement for a 2 year course though. Like I do often preform worse in the actual exams than in past papers I do while chilling in my room listening to music.
The thing is the US system is much more at the mercy of individual teachers (the overall grade is determined by the teacher, and only certain aspects are externally moderated/examined - so if your science teacher is a creationist and you believe in evolution, you will be getting failing grades consistently, particularly with the lack of national curriculum) and the long running requirements much more heavily penalises those with long term or chronic illnesses, and those with permanent disabilities, as well as those with mental health issues even still, in a different.

Moreover, the US system promotes learning to take a specific type of exam and doesn't heavily support subject knowledge acquisition. While it's "easier" in some respects and has less focused periods of stress, it is without question a considerably weaker education for the individual - which is reflected in the aggregated perspectives of the population, a significant minority of whom don't believe in evolution, and until very recently an outright majority did not believe in anthropogenic climate change.

This is speaking as an American, who has primarily grown up in the UK with a few exceptions of living in the US, who has mental health problems that have affected my education.
Original post by Secular_Priest
I think that is an important distinction to make. Our exams are public whilst most American exams are internal. In a country so large, I can see advantages and disadvantages to both but I prefer our public system.

I would hate to be an admissions officer in an ivy league uni in America though :/


This might or might not be accurate but watching Gilmore Girls, the main character went to a private school where it was way harder to get a high-grade point average compared to the public school she previously went to. And although it was harder to get a high GPA it was more respected. So I feel like there is also a big advantage to private schools there as they automatically have to work harder to get higher grades which is more respected and there is no changing that. But that being said, in British private schools although they might get better teaching and therefore advantages, at the end of the day all the tests taken are the exact same and so there is no discriminating between how one person had to work compared to another to get that high grade.
I actually disagree with the idea that exams are better. I think there are so many more factors to take into consideration than just their grade in terms of their achievement. For example, there could be someone who could be studying SO much for exams and participating in lessons, but during exams they may struggle due to idk anxiety or something - basically they may have the work ethic, but just not very good exam performance. But being given a grade from exams doesn't define them. Also, many people think that society is fair - those who do well in exams are obviously the ones who try harder, but I don't think so because there are so many things you need to take into consideration e.g if they have a higher household income, they can probably afford tuition etc. So I just think people who are richer are at an advantage with exams. However I agree with the fact that exams are objective, but I'm just seeing it from a sociological perspective
Reply 10
Original post by Secular_Priest

Does the system create an education that functions only within the set curriculum and doesn't encourage subject exploration or decolonialisation of the syllabus?



Absolutely 100% yes. This is by far the biggest issue in my mind, more so than questions of fairness or rigour.
(edited 6 years ago)
The US system is absolutely appalling in that regard. Teachers should not have that much influence over grades. Introduces far too much room for discrimination/personal bias. In my opinion examinations with externally moderated coursework on the side where necessary is absolutely the way to go. Someone's participation in class, and homework record, matters absolutely zilch if they can perform well, and hence should have no influence on their grade. Equally, someone could have a perfect homework record, participate in class, but fundamentally be weak in the subject. In my opinion, these two candidates should not receive the same, or even similar grades. It's the candidate's ability in the subject that should count.

Continual assessment grossly disadvantages candidates that blossom late into the year. They might be racking up full marks on recent assessments, but be held back by Cs/Ds in earlier modules. Students should not be punished for working differently.

Also,

Does the system create an education that functions only within the set curriculum and doesn't encourage subject exploration or decolonialisation of the syllabus?


This is why I would encourage the revival of the Advanced Extension Award and an equivalent for GCSEs, that challenge more able candidates, and encourage deeper exploration of their subject.
(edited 6 years ago)
Personally, i think that exams are great as i would hate to have to treat every lesson i go to as an exam that will contribute to my final grade. IMAGINE THE STRESS. However, there are still lots of problems with exams, for example, someone could be having a bad day on the day of their exam ( for example, if that person's perants tragically died in a plane crash the day before the exam), this would obvious hinder their chances of success.
I think exams are good, I know it different for people with mental health difficulties, but you're more in the zone and ready to do your best work. If you can't be bothered to revise then you know...
Exam based is more rigorous,as the other method is too subjective and can lead to personal bias, where as in the exam system everyone has a fair chance, put it this way if the teacher/lecturer doesn't like you, then you are screwed, I've had biasness in the past when a teacher tried to fail my project work.
Original post by conconnie
I have a friend from California and she has things called finals which are tests on your subjects I think at the end of each term and they count a lot towards your grade point average. In her school, the highest GPA you can have I think is 4.0 and universities over there will ask for your GPA for example 3.4 GPA to be accepted into them. These series of tests seem to be more of a consistent testing system instead of just a series of exams at the end of two years. These tests are done internally in the schools and so I feel like the public style exam that we do over here makes it a lot more daunting. However, my friend and her mum seemed to think that our system sounded easier although to me I think ours sounds harder! In terms of mental health, I feel like our exams in the U.K are worse in that respect.


Wouldn't it be more daunting that the tests are controlled by the school with assumedly limited oversight?
Original post by Mohamedjama
Personally, i think that exams are great as i would hate to have to treat every lesson i go to as an exam that will contribute to my final grade. IMAGINE THE STRESS. However, there are still lots of problems with exams, for example, someone could be having a bad day on the day of their exam ( for example, if that person's perants tragically died in a plane crash the day before the exam), this would obvious hinder their chances of success.


That is what mitigatimg circumstances are for.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Secular_Priest
Recently, I have been interested in the differences between American and British education. One of the largest differences is that we have exams that are very heavily weighted whilst significant portions of American grades are based on class factors e.g. participation, work throughout a semester etc.

Is the British system a test that is rigorous and able to create students who are more intelligent and able to work well under pressure?

Is the British system unfair to those who have mental health issues that cause pressured situations to decrease their chances of passing, or unfair to those who have short-term memory deficiency?

Does the system create an education that functions only within the set curriculum and doesn't encourage subject exploration or decolonialisation of the syllabus?


It’s, difficult to say.

Because exams are about memorisation, but also skills based. So in many ways they are a fair, if stressful, measure of academic ability.

Coursework is controversial in the sense that you can write a brilliant piece of coursework, but there’s nothing to say you didn’t have strong guidance from a teacher or serious help from the internet.

I can’t think of an alternative that’s fairer than exams, but I do think it doesn’t necessarily always reflect how capable you are or aren’t in a subject.

πŸ”₯
Original post by _gcx
Wouldn't it be more daunting that the tests are controlled by the school with assumedly limited oversight?


Having experienced both because my school also does its own internal exams, I would say the public exams were a lot more daunting as there was no chance of leniency or re-taking till months afterwards.
Exams aren't fair, really. Why should someone's academic intelligence be tested via a 3 hour exam and nothing else? You can know a particular topic inside out yet not get a great mark in an exam because of loads of reasons - stress, mental health problems, having a bad day in general. Obviously the harder an individual works, the more likely they'll perform better, but it's not a black and white issue and the idea that everyone who doesn't do well in exams just doesn't revise or doesn't put the effort in is laughable.

Quick Reply

Latest