The ability to memorise facts and good written communication skills are useful in a lot of jobs though. For a lot of jobs, beyond knowing a basic level of maths, english and being able to use MS office, a large part of your performance will rely on your ability to learn new things and remember them. There are few jobs where you'd excel if you couldn't remember information. Interpersonal skills are also important- but it's harder to test these, and that's why jobs also interview.
Equally, the more you can remember of a subject, the more you can build on at the next stage.
What else does everyone think exams should be testing?
Turn on thread page Beta
Are exams good indicators of academic ability watch
- Community Assistant
- 19-02-2018 19:29
- 26-02-2018 23:38
Academic ability does not exist, exams purely test your ability to apply logical reasoning to problems and the capabilities of your memory functions. These things can be manipulated within a confined spectrum (usually through cognitive techniques, practice, nootropic drugs) they are not set in stone. You could argue that exams are inherently unfair, as there are natural variations in the cognitive processes between different people. Exams do not take these into account. Emotions and psychological states can have a significant impact upon your academic output.
For instance, people experiencing a Schizophrenic delusion cannot understand that their delusion is in any way false. Understanding the falseness of their delusion is outside their realm of processing their reality. They might have an idea that it is irrational, but they will not be entirely and completely sure.
Intelligence exists but not in way most people typically imagine it as. Intelligence is multi-faceted, certain aspects of intelligence are appreciated by society, while other aspects may not be or may be appreciated in more subtle forms (ability to interpret a facet of life and structure that into an amusing joke). imho it involves the complicated interactions between different portions of the brain. The neurodevelopment of an individual's brain and neuroplasticity is somehow involved i imagine. That would explain why people who experience a stroke have to re-learn a particular bodily function.
Intelligence is overrated anyway, intelligence does not determine your worth as a person. Although i can't imagine most of users of TSR to understand this, considering they're pretty immature and pretentious.
- 26-02-2018 23:49
IMO someone who gets a 1st class degree form Oxford but doesn't contribute or add to something is no better than someone who flunks A levels. It proves you're good at taking exams, nothing more nothing less.
- 06-03-2018 02:59
My personal opinion is no. Even Robert Kiyosaki said heating in a exam in school is considered bad but in the real world it’s considered co-operation and teamwork. Also most of the crap you learn in school u forget. And not to forget most people get educated to find a paycheck job which i find to be stupid. So therefore not smart.
- 07-03-2018 12:20
Exams show how speedy one is in solving real life problems
(Original post by gerib17)
- 07-03-2018 12:23
Questions in the title. Exams can be considered as irrelevant forms of academic indicators of progress. Some want to try and cheat.
My view however is that for some subjects it’s a case of having a good memory and that’s it. For example, MFL. The good things that come out of exams is that it tests your ability for subjects that you can advance at A-Level. Also that it is timed conditions makes it better because it tests students timing on answering questions about the subject. Obviously the quicker the better.