There seems to be an increasing trend towards assessing students

through exams rather than continuous assessment.

Do you think the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

Nowadays, the use of timed examinations are becoming an increasingly popular and utilised

form of assessment although not everyone agrees that this is an effective means of measuring

student performance. In my opinion, I firmly believe that examinations are not a fair or dependable

way to assess students.

There are some benefits with examinations. Firstly, the risk of cheating is minimal in a

tightly controlled environment. This means that the work, or ideas, produced are purely those of the

candidate and are in no way influenced by, or copied from, anyone else. Also, examinations can be

seen as preparing students for similar situations in the future, such as when they may attend job

vacancy assessments. They are often given timed tasks to complete in these to check their

competence and, by being exposed to exams previously, pupils are more likely to perform well.

However, despite these advantages, I personally believe that the use of examinations is a

highly flawed and antiquated system in need of a major overhaul. Firstly, not all students possess

the ability to handle the high-pressured examination environment successfully. In this way, a

student who produces constantly high-quality work throughout the year will achieve disappointing

results if they lack the skill to cope with the often extreme stress an exam can exert. Further, in my

view, examinations are not a test of intelligence, which comprises logic, abstract thought and

problem solving, but are more focused on memory and the ability to recite facts. As such, those who

possess the former talents are not tested in a way that can highlight their personal strengths.

In conclusion, timed examinations put some students at an unfair disadvantage due to their

demands and therefore are not an accurate way of gauging true intelligence levels.

Words : 295