..and why they shouldn't be, is the full title of this piece.
The major reason is that they don't give the full picture. It's a small part of what a student or applicant is. The other problem with exams are that they often become a game rather than a real test of knowledge, application or skill. The written exam as it is done in the education system is, more often than not, a test of how well you play the exam game-hence the undue importance of coaching classes. They can cook up the menu to order, and train you to crack any exam on earth, provided there's a pattern to the exam.
The purpose of an examination may not just be to test your regurgitation skills, but maybe also to test how you can think about a problem, or even state what is the problem. Too much emphasis on solving a given problem begs the question- is it the right problem, in the first place? A good example may be chasing GDP growth without looking at the Human Development Index, in national terms. You may achieve one at the cost of the other, so teaching tradeoffs or thinking about these in an exam may be important.
Life is multidimensional, and exams should also reflect that..a score alone cannot define a person, who may have talents that are not measured by it. Sometimes a narrow skill is required which an exam may test for a particular job, but in most cases, we need a broad set of thinking skills that can be applied in multiple ways. That, most exams fail to test. Maybe it's time to relook at it, pandemic or no pandemic...
No comments:
Post a Comment