Entrance exam has always been a method of assessing students before they enter universities. Although it obviously offers great benefits, many believe that educational institutions should eliminate and adopt other selective measures. In my opinion, this view has both advantages and disadvantages.
On the one hand, entrance examination has evaluative function that should not be wholly abolished. Standardized tests embrace a wide range of foundation knowledge that students have acquired through their learning processes. Organizing entrance exam, therefore, can help educators determine if students are qualified to enter universities and receive a higher education. As a result, universities can not only select valid students but also find out more potential individuals, based on their exam scores. For example, schools in THE United State often rely on entrance exam to select suitable students, and also to opt for stellar ones.
On the other hand, relying solely on entrance exam can be imprudent. Many students encounter anxiety and nervousness entering exam rooms, leading to underachievement and closing their opportunities to enter universities. Furthermore, exam dishonesty, along with other external factors, can still occur. Consequently, this can serve as an incentive for inequality and unfairness, undermining the genuine values of examination. To illustrate, many students cheat in exams to get higher scores and get into universities, while other honest students fail because of anxiety.
In conclusion, I believe that entrance exam has both merits and demerits. While it provides assessment function, it also poses potential unfairness and inequality. Educational institutions should judiciously adopt other approaches along with standardized tests, instead of entirely abolishing entrance exam, to ensure the optimal outcomes.