There is an ongoing debate about whether to maintain standardized tests, or to rely on personal characteristics to emphasize individualities. Finding a solution to this dilemma is more than ever urgent. On the one hand, some maintains that standardization is the most accurate predictor of a performance, providing affordable criteria to judge people with consistency. Imagine what would happen if tests to apply for medicine at the university were arbitrarily created and evaluated. It would be a tragic messy.
On the other hand, personalized criteria could lead to candidates that exalt their inherent diversity. Interviews for a job application could reveal hidden personalities which are frustrated by prototypes of ideal likelihood. However, these approach may reveal some risk risks. In the evaluation process only qualified examiners should assess the interviews and thus, evaluate the profiles according to different metrical scales. Furthermore, the risk must be reduced at maximum to confer reliability to the process.
In conclusion, given the advantages and disadvantages of both perspectives, I pause a balanced position. I’m truly convinced that we should more and more evaluate the mixture of performance with the test and the potential, hidden in all of us and ready to be carried out.