Exams....

Right... i am not sure if i am the only one who feels this here, but timed exams... i believe are a waste of time...

I have nearly come up to the end of my last exam and college is nearly over for me.

I just feel that you can't judge a person by one hour in a room writing on paper... its all about technique in exams, your either good with it or not. Think about the pressure, your led to believe that without quality qualifications you will never become that successful. So that one hour writing now turns into one of the most important things you have ever done.

I really dislike the way also, you work so hard a good part of your childhood to just get a letter by your name. Wow i'm an "A" i just think its depressing thinking about it like that and there is so much more to life.

What does everyone else think?

Waste of time having multiply exams at younger ages perhaps - i.e. standard grades or O levels. Children do have a lot of pressure then and are forced to do well. You are right.

However, saying that all exams are a waste of time is just ignorance. You have to understand that exams are essential to memorising and measuring what you have learnt for your specific area of career choice. I believe you, being in college, have choosen your future 'path' and specialising in that area. This is where your exams represents your career. Makes you a professional in your expertise, and a large part of being a professional is being extremely knowlegdeble in that area.

And how do we test that you are knowledgable in that area? Examinations - mostly written. Memory plays an important part of our society. It may have deterated due to computers, but we need these basic learning capabilities to expand from or soceity will fall.

What do you suggest we do with examinations?

Scrap them...

I think things should be largely coursework based.....

The ammount of work although larger, is spread out over a larger ammount of time, therefore the ammount of time and effort you put in will represent your final level..

Well, what about careers that require a large amount of memorising, like Knowlegde/Information workers who need to know how to use data and quickly. Larger periods of time doesn't train your brain to be quicker. There are some careers that could benefit from these larger periods of study, but they are more aimed at those who will use more practical skills like multimedia developement, or graphical design... but how do we still test their knowlegde of their work? Like, how patents are created, copyright legislations, or how to carry out tasks in an ethically way - they gotta know what ethics to use. They use time examinations. The only difference you are asking is that they become longer; still the same timed examinations.

Would you want your doctors to be qualified using just project assessments?

As my old Current Events teacher Coach Williford used to say, until a better method of testing can be realized, exams are going to be the standard.

I do see your point, believe me i do...

But i think in a way they can be unfair...i have seen people study and revise constantly for that hour and a half paper. Where as for example i don't revise at all yet get a better grade, hardly fair is it?

What if they mess up in the exam? The stress gets to them? A recent death in the familly or any other factor influencing their performance. No matter how good they may be on a day to day basis they would be measured how they do in that short space of time.

I can see how one could argue that exams and tests are too taxing on young children, but in college things are different.

I was homeschooled after five-and-a-half years of public school, and I learned so much more from reading books out of a pure thirst for knowledge as opposed to having a mean teacher crack the whip over my head. Of course, my mother had structured math and such nessecary skills that I had to learn, but anything other than that was probably a field trip or a really interesting book or educational program. Learning became fun again. That's probably the only reason that I attack college with such zeal.

I see college as a gateway to a career path. If your going to be a politician, you need to know the laws. If you're going to be a history teacher, you need to know history. The way that a college can know that you are qualified is to test your knowledge. If you don't want to learn the material, you'll have to start out bagging groceries most likely. Sure, test taking technique is important but you can't do all that badly if you just know the facts, and all the test taking technique in the world alone won't get you an A.

I have to agree with you about timed exams. I'm a really good test taker, but I'm also very slow and thorough. If I've given all the right answers, but the time runs out 3/4ths of the way through, I've just gotten a C. Whoop-de-do. Does that mean that I'm a C student? No. I see no justification to time exams. At my local community college that I currently attend, every campus has a testing center, so why can't a teacher that likes to hand out long tests just send us there? Heck, having all my tests there would make life easier.

Edit:
Take your situation above MissFairy. You say the timed examinations are too short. Is this a fault of the system? I don't think so. Time examinations don't just test your knowlegde (which I should've stated earlier) but also your prioritisation skills. Knowing what and how important the answers you need to put down and get your message across. You could agrue that this depends on the final job you do, however it would be safe to say that in a professional position you need to know what you are doing (efficently and effectively), and fast.

You are right. Sometimes exams are unfair. However, there is no better way to test knowlegdeof that area. There is an underlying factor that should have more limelight; there is always a second chance. A year later or a resit. It has to be made across that exams are stressful, but aren't as stressful as people always expect them to be. They worry themselves up due to a narrowminded approach that they will fail and expectation of all the bad things happening to them. This fictitious and over exaggarated idea is a large part of developing pressure before exams.

Then wouldn't be a point of view that should be change more so than the actually process of timed examinations?

I still want there to be a form of examining students for progress etc...i wouldn't want to go to college and everyone get the same.

As you say....to because an "x" you need a qualification in "x"

But its also about who you are, how many employers would want to take on an "a" grade student if they were arrogant, or just had no common sense. Whereas someone like me, your average "c" guy, with a great work ethic the determination to do my best by my chosen work placement

Of course what i just said is dependant on the job, as an A grade doctor will go further in theory than a C grade one.

Also "Samus" you are right about the resit option, but then don't you think some people may not give it there all, as they think they can just re-take it later.

Originally Posted by ChrisJ_89

I still want there to be a form of examining students for progress etc...i wouldn't want to go to college and everyone get the same.

As you say....to because an "x" you need a qualification in "x"

Not all colleges are like that. More and more authorities are realising that people have more skills than just examinations. I've had first hand experience of this.
I did horrible in my exams when I was 15/16. So bad I only had two just scraped pass qualifications to my name. However I still tried to apply for a HNC course in Web Development with no authentic qualification I did ANY computer subject before. At the interview I explained how much I enjoyed and being fasinated by technology (especially the internet) and just reassured him that I would work my very best. And here I am today, at University completing my Internet Technologies degree with high hopes of carrying on and doing my honours.

Originally Posted by ChrisJ_89

But its also about who you are, how many employers would want to take on an "a" grade student if they were arrogant, or just had no common sense. Whereas someone like me, your average "c" guy, with a great work ethic the determination to do my best by my chosen work placement

Yeah, this is right. Companies do see an X,Y,Z beside your name and do consider the offer, but that doesn't mean they solely will take the one with the highest grades - some do in fact put applicants through alot of tests to see how compatible they are with their organisation.

Originally Posted by ChrisJ_89

Also "Samus" you are right about the resit option, but then don't you think some people may not give it there all, as they think they can just re-take it later.

But one could also agrue that if a person has longer to do something then perhaps their motivation doesn't continue on through to the end and thus failing due to laziness.

Deffo, never really considered half the things that have been mentioned...i think its all down to the individual and how they work really.

How is your degree course going? I did think about Uni, but for me, there is nothing specific i would want to take, so i don't want to risk all the debts that are attached to Universitys in England just to go to pass the time.

I am really looking forward to getting a full time job, earning abit of money and just trying to work my way up in something, thats what i aim to do.

Sometimes it is better working your way up than heading for the top level first. Companys have been known to train staff members due to their committement and personality to be of a higher authority in the business. Again a personal example (I'm just full of them n___n ) my brother just started working in Burger King as a regular 'team member' a few years ago and now has become a general manager, not just to BurgerKing but the whole floor of fast food delis. This was due to them sending him to classes and training him specifically to be a manager.

Well, actually University is much stressful than college (I should know, I was at college for 2 years before Uni). In college I didn't have end exams, I infact had complete projects throughout the year :] And only now have I got an timed examination of a high standard which is 50% of the marks o: But I stick through it knowing that it will infact make me a better professional in my area of specialty.

Yeah, its amazing how people can progress like that.

My cousin, started stacking shelves for Sainbury's....now hes a buyer for them, gets a company car, travels all over the country for them, nice house, good car amazing from where he started!

( Back on topic anyways... anyone else have any views on the above? )

Originally Posted by ChrisJ_89

Scrap them...

I think things should be largely coursework based.....

The ammount of work although larger, is spread out over a larger ammount of time, therefore the ammount of time and effort you put in will represent your final level..

I totally agree with you there.
At uni I put a lot of work into my coursework and assignments, however they don't carry much weight, usually over half the marks for the course come from the mark that you get in the final exam. It doesn't seem fair that after the months of hard work that I put into assignments, that I should slip a grade because of a few stuff ups in the final exam.
Things should be more balanced, I hate the fact that the majority of our marks come from just one test.

There are more accurate ways to test a person's abilities in a given field.

However, they're much more difficult to standardize, take far more time, and require a large number of professors per class.

So exams are used because they're short, standardized, and reasonably accurate.

I don't care for them myself, but they're a necessary evil.