[lil'babykitten]

Well that's the conclusion I've come to. Anybody disagree?

At about this time for the past, hmm...about six years (probably more), I have had to sit an exam that has had quite a degree of importance attached to it. Now I'm sick of them. And I have never been quite convinced of their overall usefulness. What exactly does it prove? They certainly don't prove someone's understanding of a subject, especially in science since the questions are always too refined.

They are so frequent that there is barely enough time for teachers to actually teach the total contents of the curriculum, so even learning becomes a cramming session (though that problem is not so profound now, at university).

So, during study leave you cram as many facts in to your head as possible and then spew them out in an exam. Come two weeks later, how much of all that do you actually remember? More often than not I think you forget most of it or only remember parts, which probably isn't particularly helpful.

Isn't coursework a much better means of assessment? At least it actually requires a certain degree of research, which means you're far more likely to remember what you've done and you have the chance to analyse the topic in much broader terms.

So, apart from proving your ability to pack as many facts in to your head, for a limited time period only (read, up to and nothing more than the day of the exam), what are exams good for?


:goes back to revision for upcoming exams :

[benb]

They are for people like me who show up to less than half of the classes, take only the tests, read the book 2 hours before an exam, and still get a 3.7 or above.

[Timo]

Exams - A complete and utter waste of everybody's time?

yes indeed, but such "dangerous" ideas as being more comprehensive about what we mean by assessment smack of those free-wheelin' late 60s, and we all know how discredited those hippies are today.

[my own undergraduate college was famous in its 60s rejection of traditional grading scales. But importantly, though grades were out, evaluations were in -- written ones describing comprehensively student assessment]

There are many, many extensive critiques about the the ineffectiveness of exams as part of a learning tool. Yet exams, as a species, persist. Why? The crux of the matter being that exams, though they purport to assess and measure a given student's understanding, also exist to divide students into categories. In turn, there is a relationship between divisions drawn in such a manner and the granting of degrees, accolades and in general, priviledge.

In my own field of architecture there are, in the US, nine exams for licensure. These exams are pretty dismal, I think, but the argument is made that there must be a standard, somewhere, so this is it. And that's what I think exams are: there is no alternative that the majority of schools or universities or licensing boards wish to pursue, so exams are an a priori fact of education and the professions. What actually goes into them, and its "relevance," is always a secondary concern.

Such is the underlying trick to getting somethig out of school: learning something without kow-towing to the ubiquituousness of exams and their attendant mentality.

[vmarks]

That's the thing about test design- the test must be designed to test that which the author of it sets out to measure.

Some tests measure the ability to take the test. Some tests measure the ability to regurgitate learning by rote. Some tests acheive testing application of concepts. It simply depends on the goals of the author.

This is one of the concerns for computerized testing: Are we testing the knowledge, or the ability to interface with the computer?

As for exams, the timing, particularly with regard to the cramming sounds like there's either too much material or not enough course planning. Teaching to the test isn't the solution. Using coursework as the measure isn't perfect either. Coursework as the measure tends to only show proficiency of the material most recently covered. Testing provides an opportunity to measure retention of the material.

[The Godfather]

You remind me of the previous generation of hotties in the Lounge:

Get yo' ass to class!

Now, back on topic, I would like it if there was some sort of Portfolio system for engineering graduates, like artists have.

[itai195]

Originally posted by vmarks:
As for exams, the timing, particularly with regard to the cramming sounds like there's either too much material or not enough course planning. Teaching to the test isn't the solution. Using coursework as the measure isn't perfect either. Coursework as the measure tends to only show proficiency of the material most recently covered. Testing provides an opportunity to measure retention of the material.

Coursework is also a measure that shows how well students socialize with others, which is why I disapproved of how much weight many of my undergrad courses gave it. My school was full of ethnically defined cliques, and if you're not in one of those cliques, well tough luck on your homework!

I'm not a fan of tests either... I don't think they provide an opportunity to measure retention, unless you're talking about short-term retention (remembering what you learned 12 weeks ago, after studying your butt off for a week, isn't really retention).

I favor large, individual projects, personally, and very occasional group projects. In a large programming or research project (yes I was a computer science major) students can demonstrate both comprehensive knowledge of course material and the ability to apply it whether in a program or a research paper. If you want to make sure students don't cheat, make them give presentations and pepper them with questions. That's much more effective than testing IMO, and also much more similar to what people face out in the real working world. It's not grades that are a problem, it's the way grades are determined.

[olePigeon]

I hate Universities who keep attendence.

[The Placid Casual]

If I have to ever sit another exam it will be too soon.

I was meant to take my LLM Masters exams this week, but after all that has happened to me in the last 2 weeks (very long story), I am not.

I have realised that life is just too short.

[voyageur]

For me, preparing a talk or writing a paper is a better learning tool, because there is no better motivation for really understanding something than to have to explain it coherently to an audience, and anticipate where the sticking points might be.

A test can be a learning experience too, if I study for it correctly; but it took me a long time to learn how to study. When I was young, I could rely on my good memory during a test. When I went back to grad school at the ripe old age of 33, my memory was no longer quite as reliable, so I had to really learn the concepts well, so that if I forgot a fact, I could at least figure it again out by knowing the concepts behind it. That was a better way to study.

Timo--by any chance to you attend Hampshire College? Your description fits. That was (is?) a pretty unusual place with some pretty creative thinkers I had some friends there, and took a course there once.

[sek929]

Luckily I don't have many exams being an art major, but for the ones I do have I prefer them to be essay questions, since i remember general ideas and topics far better than cold-hard facts, no matter how much I cram.

I had a Physch class last semester, I didn't take any notes and I got a B in it. The proffessor was interesting and presented the material that way as well. I just sat there, listening, and I did fine. No number of tests and quizzes can make up for a quality prof. IMO

Too much emphasis is put on the test and not on what goes on between tests I think. Thats why I like projects, because you use knowledge gained in the classroom and apply it in a real way, not just up-chucking info in some number 2 pencil bubble.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by benb:
They are for people like me who show up to less than half of the classes, take only the tests, read the book 2 hours before an exam, and still get a 3.7 or above.

A 3.7... what a loser

[ryju]

The only exams I find to be a waste are my grade 12 ones which are ALL going to be multiple choice.

[yukon]

As above explained, it's totally pointless, save for the fact that it's the easiest way to create at least some measure of how well students know a subject. It's quite ironic (or should that be mironic) when you take an exam in Psychology, partly on the subject of how tests are inefficent and incorrect measures of intellegence or knowledge due to culture/gender/ethnic/class bias etc.

Tests may be pointless overall, but they aren't to you, you need them to pass. Not quite sure what to advise anyone on the subject of testing, but I'm not really qualified for it anyway (not that that's stopped me before ;-D )

[wataru]

"Sit an exam?" Is that typical usage in British English or something? I've never heard that phrase.

[Timo]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Timo--by any chance to you attend Hampshire College? Your description fits. That was (is?) a pretty unusual place with some pretty creative thinkers I had some friends there, and took a course there once.

heh, not Hampshire, but yes in N.E. and something like Hampshire's flavor, I suppose.

Now my guess is you're a Smithie

[mitchell_pgh]

Exams shouldn't be what they have come to be. They should be a means of check and balance. It's meant to reenforce what you have learned and to reward those that have put in the extra hours.

Not to judge, but I taught college level graphic design... and the kids that showed up never did poorly on the tests. It was the clown that never showed up and tried to squeeze through with the minimum that hated tests.

[york28]

Yes, they are.

I'm too busy not studying though to get more indepth. Suffice to say that in exactly three days my life will improve greatly.

[Link]

Sometimes there are exceptions to the rule.

Unfortunately a lot of teachers "go by the book", meaning that if you sat there and read the book thoroughly, you'd understand everything the teacher taught.

I've passed history, science, even math classes easily by sitting back for a good long while and reading the book. The science books were perhaps the most interesting, while the history ones if good read off like stories.

It's cool because in the end you've learned a lot and well.. yeah. I never understood the method of teaching by tediously trying to hammer facts into somebody's head over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over etc.

And yes michael, I'm one of those jerks who comes to class every other day, takes the test, and either gets an A- or B+.

Sometimes I sit back and wonder though, sure you can say "those people are just good at the tests", but if everyone is thoroughly educated shouldn't they all be good at the tests?

This is pretty evident in English tests.. if you don't know your English it's that much harder to pass.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by itai195:
Coursework is also a measure that shows how well students socialize with others, which is why I disapproved of how much weight many of my undergrad courses gave it. My school was full of ethnically defined cliques, and if you're not in one of those cliques, well tough luck on your homework!

yup. coursework is not a substitute imo, because so many lazy people crib answers off others.

and testing is only a worthless cramfest if you make it so. keep up with the material during the term and relax the night before the test...

[yukon]

I like it when a teacher teaches "by the book" (in this way). If I miss a class because of some uncontrollable event (I usually go now-a-days), then it's possible for me to learn what I missed. IMHO, teachers are to help with learning, they present the material (the text), and do their best to explain it, to relate it to what students already know, to help when it isn't understood, to just make the class into a more personal thing rather than a mechanical thing (if the teacher knows you, you don't skip, etc).

The reading is always more difficult, but some people are able to understand it, making people come to class even though they would understand the material (assuming the class content is unique), it's certainly not helpful to me at least.

To bring it back to the topic, if the test is just selected sentances from the text with blanks or something, then that's not good. Best to teach concepts using examples, not teach examples and then test for those examples. The difference is, for example, "Because of the harsh treatment of the workers and the dependance on them by the upper class, Marx created a political, economic, and social model in which the workers control the government and the means of production" versus "Karl Marx, son of Mr. and Mrs. Marx, in the year 2045 created the Communist Manifesto, a socialist document, while living in Eurasia." (note which one I know the essential facts for ;-), that's probably my bias showing...there are misstatements in both however).

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Timo:
heh, not Hampshire, but yes in N.E. and something like Hampshire's flavor, I suppose.

Now my guess is you're a Smithie

Good guess!

[Chris O'Brien]

Originally posted by wataru:
"Sit an exam?" Is that typical usage in British English or something?

Yup

[philzilla]

Originally posted by wataru:
"Sit an exam?" Is that typical usage in British English or something? I've never heard that phrase.

you stand for yours?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by philzilla:
you stand for yours?

Thanks for the interesting responses guys. I would pick up on a few points, but I have to revise.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:


Thanks for the interesting responses guys. I would pick up on a few points, but I have to revise.

Good luck lbk! But I'm sure you don't need it.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by wataru:
"Sit an exam?" Is that typical usage in British English or something? I've never heard that phrase.

If I recall correctly, English (and other European) university classes are structured fundamentally differently than American university classes. While American classes usually have a few tests sprinkled throughout the semester, and a final exam that is weighted more in your average, English university classes typically only rely on the final exam, one big test for your whole grade. At least, that's how a friend of mine who spent a year in Sheffield explained it. In fact, I think you don't even register for the classes themselves, you just register for the exam.

(please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going back 7+ years to pull this out of my... umm... head, and I typically can't remember anything...)

I've has a few teachers that gave very useful exams. My freshman honors calculus class comes to mind, but there have been others. That teacher wrote tests that were more than a simple regurgitation of facts or homework exercises, but actually were teaching instruments in their own right. I've had history tests that were like that too, where the process of answering the question and drawing on my knowledge to make an argument was as educational as the class itself.

Unfortunately, classes like this are few and far between, becasue they involve a lot more work on the part of the test grader. It's a lot easier to just slack off, write boring tests, and collect your paycheck. Speaking of which, I need to get back to work...

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
If I recall correctly, English (and other European) university classes are structured fundamentally differently than American university classes. While American classes usually have a few tests sprinkled throughout the semester, and a final exam that is weighted more in your average, English university classes typically only rely on the final exam, one big test for your whole grade. At least, that's how a friend of mine who spent a year in Sheffield explained it. In fact, I think you don't even register for the classes themselves, you just register for the exam.

(please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going back 7+ years to pull this out of my... umm... head, and I typically can't remember anything...)

I've has a few teachers that gave very useful exams. My freshman honors calculus class comes to mind, but there have been others. That teacher wrote tests that were more than a simple regurgitation of facts or homework exercises, but actually were teaching instruments in their own right. I've had history tests that were like that too, where the process of answering the question and drawing on my knowledge to make an argument was as educational as the class itself.

Unfortunately, classes like this are few and far between, becasue they involve a lot more work on the part of the test grader. It's a lot easier to just slack off, write boring tests, and collect your paycheck. Speaking of which, I need to get back to work...

Yep, pretty much how it works.

I did a law degree, and on average only attended 1/3 of the classes over a year, (we had no choice over subjects), and then turned up and did the exam and passed with very good grade. Did this for 3 years straight ending up with a good degree.

People can really go through Uni in some subjects and hardly turn up at all, as long as they do the end of year exam and pass.

There are no attendance requirements.

Some things are now more module based with continual assessment, but it very, very much the exception rather than a rule.

[Sven G]

Personally, I think that exams are completely useless: it would be much better if teachers and students, together, collaborated in some really useful projects, both for an individual and communitarian development (which also happens, but only sometimes, and more at an exceptional level). Sadly - and probably Timo and others know better about this - "projects" developed within an university framework, even if often of excellent quality and ideality, rarely get applied in "real" life, subsequently - otherwise, for example, all urbanistic problems of our cities would have been solved long ago!

(A proposito, nel '68 e dintorni c'era il cosiddetto "voto politico" (ed anche il "prezzo politico"): tanto per dare un'idea dell'inutilit� dei voti "nozionistici"! (For our Italian-understanding readers...) )

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Good luck lbk! But I'm sure you don't need it.

Thanks!

Originally posted by dreilly1:
If I recall correctly, English (and other European) university classes are structured fundamentally differently than American university classes. While American classes usually have a few tests sprinkled throughout the semester, and a final exam that is weighted more in your average, English university classes typically only rely on the final exam, one big test for your whole grade. At least, that's how a friend of mine who spent a year in Sheffield explained it. In fact, I think you don't even register for the classes themselves, you just register for the exam.

That's pretty much it. However (and it varies, depending on the course you're studying) sometimes, over the course of the year you complete coursework which accounts for something like 25% of your final grade. The rest comes from the final exam and so tends to carry more importance.

Lots of people do skip lectures - they are not compulsory. Attendance for seminars however is a must and the tutors take registers. It should probably be the other way round - core material is presented in the lectures, seminars are only for discussion and often go very off topic.

[boots]

Interesting responses.

LBK: they are only worth what they are used for. For me (and by default, my students) they are only one means by which I can tell how well the students are absorbing the material. If the whole class fails a section of the exam, then I have failed to teach that material effectively. They are also useful for identifying exceptional students (both good and bad) to track in future courses. "Give this person a little more attention..." or "this person will really transform the class...you can push this student a little harder b/c they like the challenge."

As a whole, people put too much emphasis on the scores, and not the student. I would love it if I didn't have to assign grades (I'd still have the exams, though). Unfortunately, I didn't order society or dictate societies values. So if I choose not to play that game, it has a negative impact on ALL the students. If I try to play the game wisely, the impact on most of the students is minimized.


So, LBK, they may be a waste of your time, but I find them very valuable.

[Ω]

Where I come from most of the students are cheating bastards. When you give them an assignment to complete most get 90% or higher. Give them a test and most fail.

Tests and Exams stop people from finding the nerd and copying from them.