Are exams pointless [closed]

If examinations can be justified, I doubt if it is terms of some single aim. I have myself set more examination papers (in philosophy) than I care to remember. I can't avoid the platitudinous : the aims of my exams were to test accuracy of knowledge, to assess judgement (so I looked for fairness and balance in an answer) and, least important, expression.

These three criteria don't sit in easy harmony with one another. What to do with the answer that shows truly impressive accuracy of knowledge yet is one-sided, not balanced, but brilliant ?

If these criteria - perhaps others have better - define the aims of examinations, those aims are only imperfectly served by any actual examination system.

1 The examiner can only hope to assess a cross-section of what a student might know. No examination paper can cover the whole syllabus or module. It is a matter of no small chance whether for a particular student the 'right' questions come up. I have myself sat both lucky and unlucky exams - exams where I got the questions I had prepared for and others where I didn't. Say, two 'good' questions and several horrors on a single paper. There is always this element of unpredictability and (good or bad) luck.

2 The examinee quite often faces the worry whether s/he has understood the question. (In one exam I realised half-way through my answer that I had completely misunderstood the question. I cancelled everything and started again, just managing to organise my material in time.)

3 Then there is the worry whether the examiner will read the answer as intended, understand the exact point the student is making.

4 Finally - at least here - there's the worry whether memory will work fast enough, or whether you are answering questions in the most 'efficient' order (don't tackle your weakest questions first, they will or may well undermine your morale), and the sheer worry whether you can sort out the essential from the less relevant or irrelevant in time. Time is a dimension of terror in any exam.

Because of these imperfections in any exam system, I think the golden age of the exam is over. Increasingly exams are supplemented (if not replaced) by course work. But this, though a good idea, brings its own dangers of undetected plagiarism and undue help from fellow students or even, it must be admitted, instructors.

So, to wrap it all up, exams are not pointless. They serve the three purposes I outlined at the start. But points 1 - 3 can well induce scepticism. I know : I've been there.