I remember a teacher I knew bringing up this conversation about examinations and the test of knowledge; if indeed examination is what defines the intelligence of students and the understanding of the knowledge that the teacher had dished out. As students, not many think about this or have such considerations. Examination as a means and system to measure students’ understanding and knowledge has been existing for long. It's hard to think otherwise.
That statement calls for consideration and a different perception of what examination offers and what it actually determines, as the prompt has presented. Is examination actually a measure of intelligence or is it just a test of memory? And why is this proof of knowledge really important when the application has a different bearing? I wish to also ask if it's the only viable means of testing knowledge and measuring intelligence.
I think it's a viable conversation because examinations are involved in several areas of life, not just academics. Many people in academic settings or other endeavours of life are required to take one examination/test or another to ascertain their knowledge and understanding and for qualification or promotion purposes, perhaps as a result. It makes it hard not to face one examination or another. But the question remains whether it actually serves what it's meant to.
Some of these things suggest that there may be flaws in the system. One of the intriguing points lies in the fact that people can cheat in examinations and still pass, even when they know little to nothing about what was contained in the examination questions. That itself challenges this approach as a measure of intelligence, or even as a test of memory, making an argument against it as a viable and sufficient system or means to determine the needful.
There are situations where the teachers, lecturers or whoever is in charge of the assessment have their preferred way of answering it. Hence, those who didn't go that route are considered to have failed even when they didn't. There are several concerns to look at that make this system out as one with some loopholes. Another question is whether it indeed challenges those taking the examinations on what they really know and have learnt rather than just passing and getting good grades or whatever the result.
I've thought about it too, especially considering that there are people who do better otherwise than in the examination settings. And their intelligence could just differ from what was required. But it has me also thinking if there's another viable means to measure intelligence and understanding of an individual on the specific subject. This is one of the questions such conversations raise, leaving examination as the means to achieve what's needed.
Through all that, we could find it to be a system with some loopholes and flaws. However, not entirely. In the absence of another that serves to determine credibility, a measure of intelligence and understanding, this is what we have. Maybe something else might come up in the future to sufficiently challenge and replace examination as a means to ascertain all that. Unless that, examination continues to serve as the determinant to be used and adhered to.
Image is AI generated.