The majority/most people(individuahals) have an opinion that formal ‘pen and paper’ examinations are not the best way assess educational attainment, while others believe that this type of exams are reliable. I think that formal pen and paper examinations are not the best to measure the student’s skills/abilities.
Some people think that exams can fully reveal student’s ability and skills because/as/since they contain such parts, which cangive an evaluation to their skills. They include such subjects as mathematics, history, literature, physics and etc, which
we study at school. Knowledge of these is essential, and the formal examination maintains each part to test the students’ capapilities. However, examinators often do not consider, that a person might be very strong in one thing and bad in other. For example, in society people divide each other to humanitarians and techies. I do not think that these terms are accurate, but their meanings are quite relatable. So in such situation a figure can fail an exam just because there is a subject that is not as easy for them. Thus overall score is not fair, and this can close the opportunity for a truly worthwhile person.
I support the majority’s opinion more, that the formal “pen and paper” exam can evaluate only hard skills. In my opinion, these abilities are not useful in real life situations and problem solution. They do not test humane qualities, human’s soft skills, which are basic, but still very important. Even if a student is able to pass the formal quiz, it does not signify that they are a fully capable person in life, unless their humane qualities are as valid as hard skills. For example, if a person is good at hard paper work and so on, but they lack simple social qualities, they barely can get above of an office worker. No matter this, I also agree that we need workers, who can do such work in large amount for a long time.