4 ms·

I think this illustrates a disconnect between what the teacher wants to accomplish and how the educational system works. At the end of the day, the goal of the

I think this illustrates a disconnect between what the teacher wants to accomplish and how the educational system works. At the end of the day, the goal of the students is to pass the exam, not to learn mathematics. If they have learned some by the end of the course, that's a bonus, but the way the system is structured this is inherently a side-effect. Some tests require that the students understand the topic in depth, but the map will never be the territory and I think framing this as "students and teachers need to work together to make better classes", misses the actual problem of exams being detrimental to learning.

civilized 5y ago
Exams may sometimes be disruptive to learning, but they exist for a compelling reason: they help ensure that students exiting the class have actually learned the material. All students want the credential of having passed the course, but not all students are willing and able to learn the material. If we care who learned the material, we have to verify who learned the material. To eliminate exams, we would have to either (1) change the world so it doesn't matter who actually learned what they earned credentials for in school, or (2) make all students so intrinsically motivated that they all reliably learn the course material without any need for verification. Does anyone think that either of these goals is realistic?
- Tainnor 5y ago
  It's also conceivable (theoretically) to just decouple teaching from examination. Anyone may participate in any class (no entry requirements), but there's a certain bar for passing exams and getting a degree. To a certain extent, this possibility already exists with textbooks, openly accessible video lectures, etc., but there's also a lot of people who would still benefit from in-person teaching even if they'd never get to the same level of understanding as people who are going to earn a degree.
  - civilized 5y ago
    That's actually a very interesting idea. What if it changed the game so that instead of exams causing stress and discouraging learning, people were incentivized to learn at their own pace and eventually pass the exam? This situation already exists with many professional credentials, such as CPA, CFA, FSA, etc. They tell you what will be on the exam, provide practice problems, lots of study materials are available from different sources, and you take it when you're ready. There's also college exams that have a similar function (CLEP is the acronym I think?) but they're not really highlighted as a preferred path to students.
    - professoretc 5y ago
      > There's also college exams that have a similar function (CLEP is the acronym I think?) but they're not really highlighted as a preferred path to students. That's correct. But not all schools accept it, and if a school accepts it they may not accept all the different exams. (CLEP exams mostly cover general-ed subjects.) Most schools also have an in-house option to test-out of classes, but it may be up to the individual departments to determine whether they want to allow that. Schools may also disincentivise testing-out in other ways... When I wanted to test out of the intro-to-computers course which was, at the same, required of all students, I had to pay the normal per-unit fee (as if I had taken the course normally) plus a special "challenge fee".
  - quacked 5y ago
    I wish this was how college worked; everything is free, except to sit for an exam and then to obtain the degree itself. Colleges could structure degrees and majors by examination and interview, rather than by "credit hour", which itself is a meaningless assessment of comprehension. As an example: "The University of College offers a Degree in Electrical Engineering, offered at the following levels: - Associate (At least a 60% in the following examinations: Classical Electricity, Circuit Design, ...) - Bachelor (Meets Associate requirements plus at least an 80% in the folowing examinations: Signal Analysis...) - Master (Meets Bachelor requirements plus at least a 90%...) - Doctor (Meets Master requirements plus three original research publications...) " HOWEVER--this would require the total dismantling and reform of the student loan industry, academia itself, and the secondary market that's sprung up around college being a "part of life" for young adults. "College" is a many-billion dollar industry and very few peoiple want it disrupted to the degree that it would require to move to an examination-based format, with the exception of builders and technicians (engineers, etc.) who are actually trying to filter on skill when they hire.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      The German system goes with a different take: it is almost free because much of the burden is placed on the student, no TAs to grade homework that isn’t graded anyways, just one final exam to determine your grade for the course. No fancy sport centers or dorms or other facilities that Americans find mandatory but don’t really matter that much.
      - quacked 5y ago
        I know a few Germans--the only issue I have with that system is that they're required to take the class before sitting for the examination. This has two effects; one, it makes a degree vanishingly difficult for anyone that doesn't have a lot of time, and two, it makes it impossible to use your degree to accurately reflect your skill level once you're out of college. I think it ought to be appropriate for a degree to take decades, with examinations taken and passed at leisure. Most entry-level jobs that require degrees are far easier than college degrees, anyway.
- quacked 5y ago
  Yes, I do think both of those goals are realistic, although certainly difficult to achieve. I typed six or seven drafts of a comment trying to approach you from a convincing angle and realized that it was probably hopeless, because we likely have too many conflicting assumptions about society, morals, human nature, etc. to come to an agreement in a web forum. I would like to extend to you an invitation, and that is to read the following essay: > The Six-Lesson Schoolteacher by John Taylor Gatto: https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html If you find this essay accurate and intriguing, consider sending me an email (address in profile) and I'll send you a large set of essays I've collected that discuss the same principle (i.e. that modern education is harming society more than it's helping). If you find the essay naive and inaccurate, then there's likely very little that we would agree on at all, and it's not worth a 10-message reply chain where we argue over semantics. (Although I admit I enjoy a comments section rumble, as my post history reveals.)
  - civilized 5y ago
    I'll have a look. We will definitely agree that there is a lot wrong with US schooling but the devil's in the details. Broadly, there's a lot to like about human nature, but I don't believe in it to that degree. I like the other commenter's idea to decouple learning from exams, but I'm not sure it would work at all ages, and it mostly just solves the problem that I, personally, had in school: being forced through things I already knew or learned extremely quickly. Others have different problems I'm sure. I will say Montessori has solutions to some of the problems in this essay and my kids go to a Montessori school.
- Scandiravian 5y ago
  I am in disagreement with the statement that exams provides proof that the student has learned the topic. In my opinion, exams show which students have figured out how to beat the exam. There might be some that do this by learning the topic, but in my experience the path of least resistance to a good grade has been to study the exam - not the topic of the course that it's based on. As an example, I was one of the three people (out of 250 students) in my physical chemistry class that got the highest possible grade. I gained no understanding of the topic at all during that time - what I learned was to recognise which formula to use for specific problems on the test. I don't know what any of the results meant or what said result could be used for, simply that it was correct. This correlates well with the observations made by Google and other large companies that analyse how to identify valuable hires. Turns out that there's no correlation between grades and workplace performance. So if the exam result offers no information of the students ability to do a job in "real life" and at the same time introduce incentives that conflict with actually learning a topic, then I think it's better to significantly limit their importance or outright get rid of them. I haven't been able to find any positive gains from having exams, but if someone has some resources on this, I'd be very curious to see it :-)
  - civilized 5y ago
    I agree that exams don't always do a great job of measuring actual competency, but I'm not sure they are worthless either. > This correlates well with the observations made by Google and other large companies that analyse how to identify valuable hires. Turns out that there's no correlation between grades and workplace performance. These observations probably suffer from a confounding effect known as range restriction. Basically, if Google generally only hires people with a GPA of 3.0 or above, they may have some idea of how GPA variation above that level correlates with job performance, but they don't know about it below that level. So they won't know if people with GPAs of 1.5 will do just as well at Google as people they normally consider. Suppose Google started hiring people with much lower GPAs than they do today. Anyone want to make a bet what the outcome of that experiment would be? Well, Google knows, and that's why they don't do the experiment.
    - Scandiravian 5y ago

civilized 5y ago

Exams may sometimes be disruptive to learning, but they exist for a compelling reason: they help ensure that students exiting the class have actually learned the material. All students want the credential of having passed the course, but not all students are willing and able to learn the material. If we care who learned the material, we have to verify who learned the material. To eliminate exams, we would have to either (1) change the world so it doesn't matter who actually learned what they earned credentials for in school, or (2) make all students so intrinsically motivated that they all reliably learn the course material without any need for verification. Does anyone think that either of these goals is realistic?

Tainnor 5y ago
It's also conceivable (theoretically) to just decouple teaching from examination. Anyone may participate in any class (no entry requirements), but there's a certain bar for passing exams and getting a degree. To a certain extent, this possibility already exists with textbooks, openly accessible video lectures, etc., but there's also a lot of people who would still benefit from in-person teaching even if they'd never get to the same level of understanding as people who are going to earn a degree.
- civilized 5y ago
  That's actually a very interesting idea. What if it changed the game so that instead of exams causing stress and discouraging learning, people were incentivized to learn at their own pace and eventually pass the exam? This situation already exists with many professional credentials, such as CPA, CFA, FSA, etc. They tell you what will be on the exam, provide practice problems, lots of study materials are available from different sources, and you take it when you're ready. There's also college exams that have a similar function (CLEP is the acronym I think?) but they're not really highlighted as a preferred path to students.
  - professoretc 5y ago
    > There's also college exams that have a similar function (CLEP is the acronym I think?) but they're not really highlighted as a preferred path to students. That's correct. But not all schools accept it, and if a school accepts it they may not accept all the different exams. (CLEP exams mostly cover general-ed subjects.) Most schools also have an in-house option to test-out of classes, but it may be up to the individual departments to determine whether they want to allow that. Schools may also disincentivise testing-out in other ways... When I wanted to test out of the intro-to-computers course which was, at the same, required of all students, I had to pay the normal per-unit fee (as if I had taken the course normally) plus a special "challenge fee".
- quacked 5y ago
  I wish this was how college worked; everything is free, except to sit for an exam and then to obtain the degree itself. Colleges could structure degrees and majors by examination and interview, rather than by "credit hour", which itself is a meaningless assessment of comprehension. As an example: "The University of College offers a Degree in Electrical Engineering, offered at the following levels: - Associate (At least a 60% in the following examinations: Classical Electricity, Circuit Design, ...) - Bachelor (Meets Associate requirements plus at least an 80% in the folowing examinations: Signal Analysis...) - Master (Meets Bachelor requirements plus at least a 90%...) - Doctor (Meets Master requirements plus three original research publications...) " HOWEVER--this would require the total dismantling and reform of the student loan industry, academia itself, and the secondary market that's sprung up around college being a "part of life" for young adults. "College" is a many-billion dollar industry and very few peoiple want it disrupted to the degree that it would require to move to an examination-based format, with the exception of builders and technicians (engineers, etc.) who are actually trying to filter on skill when they hire.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    The German system goes with a different take: it is almost free because much of the burden is placed on the student, no TAs to grade homework that isn’t graded anyways, just one final exam to determine your grade for the course. No fancy sport centers or dorms or other facilities that Americans find mandatory but don’t really matter that much.
    - quacked 5y ago
      I know a few Germans--the only issue I have with that system is that they're required to take the class before sitting for the examination. This has two effects; one, it makes a degree vanishingly difficult for anyone that doesn't have a lot of time, and two, it makes it impossible to use your degree to accurately reflect your skill level once you're out of college. I think it ought to be appropriate for a degree to take decades, with examinations taken and passed at leisure. Most entry-level jobs that require degrees are far easier than college degrees, anyway.
quacked 5y ago
Yes, I do think both of those goals are realistic, although certainly difficult to achieve. I typed six or seven drafts of a comment trying to approach you from a convincing angle and realized that it was probably hopeless, because we likely have too many conflicting assumptions about society, morals, human nature, etc. to come to an agreement in a web forum. I would like to extend to you an invitation, and that is to read the following essay: > The Six-Lesson Schoolteacher by John Taylor Gatto: https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html If you find this essay accurate and intriguing, consider sending me an email (address in profile) and I'll send you a large set of essays I've collected that discuss the same principle (i.e. that modern education is harming society more than it's helping). If you find the essay naive and inaccurate, then there's likely very little that we would agree on at all, and it's not worth a 10-message reply chain where we argue over semantics. (Although I admit I enjoy a comments section rumble, as my post history reveals.)
- civilized 5y ago
  I'll have a look. We will definitely agree that there is a lot wrong with US schooling but the devil's in the details. Broadly, there's a lot to like about human nature, but I don't believe in it to that degree. I like the other commenter's idea to decouple learning from exams, but I'm not sure it would work at all ages, and it mostly just solves the problem that I, personally, had in school: being forced through things I already knew or learned extremely quickly. Others have different problems I'm sure. I will say Montessori has solutions to some of the problems in this essay and my kids go to a Montessori school.
Scandiravian 5y ago
I am in disagreement with the statement that exams provides proof that the student has learned the topic. In my opinion, exams show which students have figured out how to beat the exam. There might be some that do this by learning the topic, but in my experience the path of least resistance to a good grade has been to study the exam - not the topic of the course that it's based on. As an example, I was one of the three people (out of 250 students) in my physical chemistry class that got the highest possible grade. I gained no understanding of the topic at all during that time - what I learned was to recognise which formula to use for specific problems on the test. I don't know what any of the results meant or what said result could be used for, simply that it was correct. This correlates well with the observations made by Google and other large companies that analyse how to identify valuable hires. Turns out that there's no correlation between grades and workplace performance. So if the exam result offers no information of the students ability to do a job in "real life" and at the same time introduce incentives that conflict with actually learning a topic, then I think it's better to significantly limit their importance or outright get rid of them. I haven't been able to find any positive gains from having exams, but if someone has some resources on this, I'd be very curious to see it :-)
- civilized 5y ago
  I agree that exams don't always do a great job of measuring actual competency, but I'm not sure they are worthless either. > This correlates well with the observations made by Google and other large companies that analyse how to identify valuable hires. Turns out that there's no correlation between grades and workplace performance. These observations probably suffer from a confounding effect known as range restriction. Basically, if Google generally only hires people with a GPA of 3.0 or above, they may have some idea of how GPA variation above that level correlates with job performance, but they don't know about it below that level. So they won't know if people with GPAs of 1.5 will do just as well at Google as people they normally consider. Suppose Google started hiring people with much lower GPAs than they do today. Anyone want to make a bet what the outcome of that experiment would be? Well, Google knows, and that's why they don't do the experiment.
  - Scandiravian 5y ago