Exam: A Test of Knowledge?

[muhsin]

Apparently, Scholars and general public on the term “exam” a diverse, opinionated and deep-thinkers group were at one with one another in their view on it, and this view is that: its purpose is to test someone’s knowledge on spoken or written aspects. I am an exception on that matter, really exception. The exception that proves the rule is a certain experience I recently gained.

Viz.:

Despite my friend’s remarkable hunker-down to pass his exam for re-making his past deficiency, he lugubriously failed to re-make it and wonderingly enough, some of his student whom they coincidently sat that very exam together fortunately made it well.

Thus, this odd against odds enfeebled incalculable numbers of peoples’ effort and hope toward the thought of passing exam. It also built a tangible remonstrative feeling in me on what others are saying about exam as the test of knowledge.

Sincerely, who is then supposed to be blamed? Himself? Exam body? Or God?

I, as an individual with a unique mood of acceptance and comprehension, think that the reason behind this is a case that needs not to blame anybody. Exam is not a test of knowledge but lucky, so, just pray to be lucky at the moment of marking your scripts.

This is my view my fellow good people. What’s yours?

[Logos]

Well my opinion is exams *do* test your knowledge, they're usually the culmination of a course of study, and a measuring device as to if and when one moves on in said study. When failing, the key is to learn from one's mistakes, is it possible that your friend can go over their exam results and discuss them with their professor?

[Reason is a cow]

An exam is the written regurgitation of the monkey work that is taught in schools. It is a necessary evil. How else would we brand the sheep?

[cuppajoe_9]

True, some people test better than others. I, for example, have never studied seriously for a final exam, and have never recieved a mark lower than 80. I'm not trying to blow my own horn here, it's just that I have a better memory than most. The fact that I test well is not a perfect indication of what knowledge I have.

[muhsin]

True!
That is a God willing.

[dramasnot6]

a test tests you on how well you can do on that test
:D

[hyperborean]

Most exams do not test intelligence, but instead how well you can memorize your notes.

[ktd222]

I don't think if you took, say physics, memorizing your notes would help. All of the equations that you need are usually given to you. What is required is that you understand the concepts underlying these equations taught in class, and be able to understand a given problem so that you can apply it. What comes first is that you understand the problem, not that you can find the right equation which is applicable. Now isn't this what's called "intelligence"? Now if you taking art history...well...then you're right:D

[hyperborean]

good point. Concepts dealing with figuring out math/physics problems or critically analyzing literature would be good tests of intelligence.

[muhsin]

I thought this thread had already 'perished'. Although this remind me of something I discovered in subsequent to this thread. And this is about one of the most productive and down to earth writer in our continent-Africa talking of Chinua Achebe.
I read in one book which I unfortunetly cannot recall its name nor its author. That Achebe too, to everybody's astonishment during their studies in the university ended up with Second Class Lower grade. The book's author pontified that in relation to this exam is not a test of knowledge because even some Profs then had an argumant over this great misfortune.
Who's next?