Exams - love them or hate them you've got to take them
Created | Updated Jan 28, 2002
The following is an essay I wrote as part of my GCSE english course in persuasive writing. I have contributed it to the guide in response to a discussion on the evil of exams.
The task was... "Examinations are a complete waste of time." Compose an argument against this statement.
Here's what I wrote:
Examinations are a complete waste of time - provided you have no intention of enjoying a good career, being employed in work that you like doing and having some spending money left at the end of the month. In other words, enjoying life. The purpose of examinations is to find out just how good you are at something, and classify your ability in a way that employers can appreciate. Without some concrete evidence of your capabilities, nobody is going to want to take you on - exams provide that concrete evidence.
In today's increasingly competitive employment market, having a set of reasonable exam results under your belt is not only helpful - it's essential. Without them, you may still find work, but it will be low paid and you won't enjoy it. Exams give you a measure of choice in your career, letting you decide when and where you earn your income. The better your exam results, the more choice you have, and this puts pressure on you to do well.
Of course, nobody's good at everything. Many people hate exams because of the fear of doing badly and the repercussions that that might cause. Some people would say that the demoralising effect of failing exams outweighs the advantages - that people who fail suffer more than those who pass benefit. The fact is, if you're not very good at something then testing you differently isn't going to make you any better at it. There has to be some kind of standard test, for all the reasons explained above, and there isn't really any practical alternative to exams.
One idea is to arrange a schedule of interviews with candidates, during which questions can be put across and answered orally, which most people would find less intimidating than a written paper. There are several obvious problems with such a system. To start with, there just isn't time to arrange a one to one interview in each subject for each candidate. Considering the numbers involved, the concept quickly becomes ludicrous. Also, in most subjects writing things down is vital - I for one would be unable to answer most of the questions on maths papers without space for working out. Finally, ask any language student which of their exams they fear the most - in my experience, nine out of ten times it is the oral exam that holds the greatest terror.
Alternatively, some would argue that the teacher's opinion should form the basis for pupil assessment. The major flaw with this plan is that a teacher's point of view is hardly concrete evidence. It is an unfortunate fact that not all teachers are completely objective, and like all personal opinions even that of a teacher does not represent hard proof of a pupil's ability.
Finally, coursework is already an accepted and important part of the examination process. Some people, preferring the increased time available and reduced pressure, contend that coursework should become the primary part of a pupil's examination, or even replace exams completely. For one, I would disagree vehemently. Yes, there is less pressure, but much more work involved. Even as it stands, for a fairly meagre portion of my English GCSE mark I will have to enter far more raw hours of time and effort in coursework than I will on the remainder that is gained during exams. Now, I acknowledge that I'm lazy, and in any case I usually cope quite well with exams (although not always, as I recently found out). However, the far greater time available for coursework means that for some people, an average or below average ability in a subject can be disguised by raw hard work. Of course, hard work is laudable in any situation, but the exam is a test of ability - not willingness to put in hours.
In conclusion, then, exams are not there to demoralise, stress out, or petrify students, although they often have these effects. They exist as a tool, allowing the strengths and weaknesses of pupils to be assessed, so that they have a head start when they come to be seeking a job, and without which the whole process of education would be for nought.
The task was... "Examinations are a complete waste of time." Compose an argument against this statement.
Here's what I wrote:
Examinations are a complete waste of time - provided you have no intention of enjoying a good career, being employed in work that you like doing and having some spending money left at the end of the month. In other words, enjoying life. The purpose of examinations is to find out just how good you are at something, and classify your ability in a way that employers can appreciate. Without some concrete evidence of your capabilities, nobody is going to want to take you on - exams provide that concrete evidence.
In today's increasingly competitive employment market, having a set of reasonable exam results under your belt is not only helpful - it's essential. Without them, you may still find work, but it will be low paid and you won't enjoy it. Exams give you a measure of choice in your career, letting you decide when and where you earn your income. The better your exam results, the more choice you have, and this puts pressure on you to do well.
Of course, nobody's good at everything. Many people hate exams because of the fear of doing badly and the repercussions that that might cause. Some people would say that the demoralising effect of failing exams outweighs the advantages - that people who fail suffer more than those who pass benefit. The fact is, if you're not very good at something then testing you differently isn't going to make you any better at it. There has to be some kind of standard test, for all the reasons explained above, and there isn't really any practical alternative to exams.
One idea is to arrange a schedule of interviews with candidates, during which questions can be put across and answered orally, which most people would find less intimidating than a written paper. There are several obvious problems with such a system. To start with, there just isn't time to arrange a one to one interview in each subject for each candidate. Considering the numbers involved, the concept quickly becomes ludicrous. Also, in most subjects writing things down is vital - I for one would be unable to answer most of the questions on maths papers without space for working out. Finally, ask any language student which of their exams they fear the most - in my experience, nine out of ten times it is the oral exam that holds the greatest terror.
Alternatively, some would argue that the teacher's opinion should form the basis for pupil assessment. The major flaw with this plan is that a teacher's point of view is hardly concrete evidence. It is an unfortunate fact that not all teachers are completely objective, and like all personal opinions even that of a teacher does not represent hard proof of a pupil's ability.
Finally, coursework is already an accepted and important part of the examination process. Some people, preferring the increased time available and reduced pressure, contend that coursework should become the primary part of a pupil's examination, or even replace exams completely. For one, I would disagree vehemently. Yes, there is less pressure, but much more work involved. Even as it stands, for a fairly meagre portion of my English GCSE mark I will have to enter far more raw hours of time and effort in coursework than I will on the remainder that is gained during exams. Now, I acknowledge that I'm lazy, and in any case I usually cope quite well with exams (although not always, as I recently found out). However, the far greater time available for coursework means that for some people, an average or below average ability in a subject can be disguised by raw hard work. Of course, hard work is laudable in any situation, but the exam is a test of ability - not willingness to put in hours.
In conclusion, then, exams are not there to demoralise, stress out, or petrify students, although they often have these effects. They exist as a tool, allowing the strengths and weaknesses of pupils to be assessed, so that they have a head start when they come to be seeking a job, and without which the whole process of education would be for nought.
