People have different views on the effectiveness of matriculation examinations as a reliable measure of attainment in school. In my view, end-of-course examinations remain a very critical component of the entire education system.
Externally assessed examinations are the most ideal tool for gauging a learner’s intellectual capabilities. Firstly, terminal assessments are a reliable indicator of the knowledge and skills acquired by an individual during a course of study. Secondly, results obtained from supervised tests provide key information that can be used to make educational decisions about progression to the next level of education. For example, universities in the USA use standardised scores as part of the admissions process. Lastly, standardised tests and examinations also help identify students’ aptitudes and interests which they can then use to make career choices.
On the other hand, summative examinations have several drawbacks, as a benchmark to measure academic performance. Examinations are no different to a lottery, as they may test only a small portion of the entire curriculum and a student who has not been fortunate to revise the aspects tested on could be deemed weak. As a result, this may not be a true reflection of what a learner is able to achieve. Furthermore, failure in school leaving examinations does not always translate to failure in life. End-of-course assessments are high stakes and stressful events often putting students under pressure leading to panic and anxiety attacks often resulting in poor attainment. Consequently, continuous assessments can be considered a viable alternative.
In conclusion, I understand why people might be cynical and skeptical of examinations as a standard for evaluating school success, but it seems examinations remain a very important yardstick in determining educational achievement.