Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Closed-book exams are pointless

For my English Literature GCSE, I had to sit the exams in a closed-book fashion. For previous years, this was not the case. This seems like a cunning, devious way for the examiners to basically see who has or hasn't a good memory. However, it is not meant to be a memory test. It is a test to see how well you engage with the chosen material. Now at university, I don't need to sit any exams of that style again, despite my degree being based around literature. What was the point? What was the point in sending us into an exam, expecting us to have memorised quotes throughout multiple entire books, and then only needing to recall maybe a fifth of them? Considering universities don't operate in such a pretentious fashion, it really goes to show how this is a pointless practice that ultimately disadvantages a lot of bright students.
Of course, one should not bring a book with annotations and edits into the exam, but surely a blank book would suffice.

Reply 1

Tolgash

I don't mind closed-text exams. My memory wasn't tested at all. I remembered very few quotes and got quite a high mark.

I'd be very disappointed if prestigious higher-education institutions didn't appreciate the rigour of this kind of exam.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 2

JosephCiderBwoy

Original post by Tolgarda

It is simply pointless, though. How can not having the book benefit you? You could misquote or misreference the primary reading, or even secondary reading.

Reply 3

JosephCiderBwoy

Original post by Tolgarda

The best students don't do that though.

I think you'll find it happens among the brightest of students. This style of exams seems to care less about how well you can analyse a book and more about how much you can remember

Reply 4

Tolgash

Original post by JosephCiderBwoy

I think you'll find it happens among the brightest of students. This style of exams seems to care less about how well you can analyse a book and more about how much you can remember

I don't think so. All of my literature exams were also closed book at GCSE, and they are at A Level too. My knowledge of the texts as well as my ability to analyse them is still being rigorously tested.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 5

_gcx

Study Forum Helper

They're not really heavily reliant on textual detail. You can be pretty vague and paraphrase, it's the analysis and evaluation that makes you score. Means that you're not spending your time frantically flicking through the book in the exam. It's better to have the book, but I don't think it's as catastrophic as often made out.

Reply 6

vicvic38

I've sat both kinds of exams, and honestly if you're eloquent and can argue well, having very few quotes is ok.

For instance, the only quotes from the text I used for my A Level exams was "stupidly good" from Paradise Lost and potentially a few lines from Richard III that I knew because I love that play. I argued primarily through critics and just a good understanding of the text. Got an A.

My GCSE Shakespeare was open book, and honestly it was eh. Didn't need it.

Reply 7

vicvic38

Original post by _gcx

Yeah they're not exactly going to look up your quotes for precision!!

Reply 8

Tolgash

Original post by vicvic38

For instance, the only quotes from the text I used for my A Level exams was "stupidly good" from Paradise Lost and potentially a few lines from Richard III that I knew because I love that play. I argued primarily through critics and just a good understanding of the text. Got an A.

Did you perchance take the OCR exams?

Reply 9

vicvic38

Original post by Tolgarda

Did you perchance take the OCR exams?

I think so, maybe?

I remember the mark schemes only having marks for analysing language when you either had the work (for the coursework) or if a portion of the text had been given (for Richard III and an unseen text.) I can't imagine the scheme of assessment being that different between boards though.