No doubt, examinations in any form are highly important to assess the depth of knowledge acquired by students. I strongly agree that only formal academic examinations, whether written or practical, are real measures of pupils’ knowledge and ability in universities. However, regular assessments and projects do not represent a true picture. Although these assessments show the capacity of students’ learning, formal examinations cannot be replaced by such assessments and projects because the ability to handle pressure and meet timelines is ensured through formal examinations.
Further, formal examinations test the ability of students to handle pressure, unlike in assessments and projects. Formal examinations check whether students can maintain their composure under tough circumstances. For example, a student in a formal examination is asked to complete a given paper in a separate environment that may not be within one’s comfort zone. Contrarily, in assessments and projects, there is no such pressure of an examination-like environment. Students complete their tasks while continuing their other activities.
Moreover, formal examination systems work under high time constraints. Students feel extra pressure to complete tasks within a timeframe. Otherwise, they would not be given credit for questions not completed in time. For example, usually in universities, there are different categories of examinations involving different time frames. In this way, students are examined to see whether they possess other essential qualities like the ability to handle pressure, to complete tasks in time, and to work under time constraints.
To conclude, it is evident that formal examinations measure the abilities of students more accurately than mere assessments and projects. Formal examinations have a broader scope than just the measurement of academic knowledge, involving other essential qualities. So, I completely agree without any iota of doubt that formal examinations are the true measures of knowledge and ability.