Off My Chest
RULES:
I am looking for mods!
1. The "good" part of our community means we are pro-empathy and anti-harassment. However, we don't intend to make this a "safe space" where everyone has to be a saint. Sh*t happens, and life is messy. That's why we get things off our chests.
2. Bigotry is not allowed. That includes racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and religiophobia. (If you want to vent about religion, that's fine; but religion is not inherently evil.)
3. Frustrated, venting, or angry posts are still welcome.
4. Posts and comments that bait, threaten, or incite harassment are not allowed.
5. If anyone offers mental, medical, or professional advice here, please remember to take it with a grain of salt. Seek out real professionals if needed.
6. Please put NSFW behind NSFW tags.
view the rest of the comments
That's not without its flaws. A lot of students who understand the material very well are also bad test-takers.
Still more reliable these days than take home assignments where even if the student did it themselves isn't verifiable.
And if you get to a university level and can't pass tests that many have done for decades then are they really in a position to get a degree? Jobs that require certification are going to have those exams to be able to work in the field anyways.
So if a basic university exam can't be passed better they be filtered out before wasting time and money
Yeah, it's probably the best solution we have at the moment. Still, I think it's important to acknowledge the flaws so we can collectively think of solutions for them.
There isn't a straightforward answer to this. You're going to see a lot of disagreement on the purpose of a degree. Some argue that it's a testament to your proficiency in that area. Some say it should reflect your ability to hold a job related to that degree. There are probably others I'm not thinking of. Test-taking abilities are a decent proxy for these objectives, but it doesn't perfectly reflect either.
If it is a career that doesn't need a degree then could also argue they don't even need to go the conventional academic route to succeed in the field with lot of free resources and universities even putting up lectures online for free if learning is the only goal.
But, for university I think just ability to pass a test is a really bare minimum bar to pass in route to degrees that require certification. These aren't grade school kids being asked of it but adults.
So I think the whole trying to accommodate for inability to take an exam or discussions of is it really applicable to measuring proficiency among poor test takers at a university level no longer applies. University I think is about networking and exams are just a really easy method to catch people who shouldn't waste further years and money, since passing them is going to end up hurting them more in the long run.
one of the most valuable lessons i got at hyper expensive private school for high school was that in y11 and 12 (last 2 years for australia) was how to take a test
taking tests is a learned skill, and if everyone learns to do it that problem somewhat goes away
there’s always problems, but everyone benefited substantially from the proper training
This is the common but wrong way to look at testing.
Testing is used to evaluate students' understanding of the material. They are meant to be assessments to help the teacher figure out where their students are excelling or failing to understand & rework lesson plans accordingly.
So the fact you spent a bunch of time 'learning' to take tests means your educators likely either didn't know what the hell they were doing or learned how to teach 30+ years ago.
Imo the suggestion that testing as some great equalizer is not correct.