It is commonly believed that exams do not accurately reflect a student’s competences. However, some believe contrary to the above. In my opinion, I am supportive of the majority belief that a student’s capabilities cannot be measured accurately through the use of exams. This essay aims to discuss both views and highlight why exams would be an erroneous approach to the assessment of a student’s abilities.
Exams can be viewed as largely generic intended towards the assessing of a general population of students with varying capability. It would be fair to assume that employing such a generic approach may exclude or inaccurately assess a student, whose capabilities may fail to be captured in conventional exams. For example, a dyslexic student who is in reality is incredibly creative may not receive positive assessment of their abilities at examinations. Therefore, it is fair to consider that exams may not always be the best assessor of talent.
In contrast, it is believed by some that exams are a fair and accurate method of student assessment. Examinations allow to establish a common baseline and maintain the element of fairness in its approach to student assessment. To explain with an example, a mathematics exam held for a class consisting of common equations to be solved by the students, whose responses will be graded without subjectivity will yield an objective report of individual performance without bias, while also establishing a baseline considering the overall results. This scenario supports the view of exams being a precise measurement of students’ abilities.
In conclusion, exams cannot be seen as a tool to accurately measure student competencies due to its inherent limitations in scope especially in the case of outlier students. However, the uniformity and the objectivity of exams validate its existence as a testing tool to assess students.