Well, I have the opposite opinion. First of all because tests don't remotely represent the nature of doing work. It's a momentary expenditure of energy, and all

Well, I have the opposite opinion. First of all because tests don't remotely represent the nature of doing work. It's a momentary expenditure of energy, and all of rides on perfect performance that day. Luck, rote memorization, and some skill development. So in my view, I read it as "Why should I have to do bs when I'm lucky and tend to do well on tests?" In my cs classes, I did terribly on tests, and got 100% on all the work, so I failed. Why? Well I have chronic sleep issues and miserable short term memory that's gotten worse over time, and the mid-term was 40%. I also just don't really care about the outcome, because it doesn't represent my ability to do any of the tasks in the real world. Oh, I was too slow in writing out the exact java syntax for a generic implementation of a priority queue implemented with an array? Tests aren't inherently virtuous. You have to believe in them to do well, and you have to feel adrenaline in the process. Usually has nothing to do with incremental progress, measurable skill, or anything valuable really. I can now recall various key bits of key events from the Byzantine empire, but did I do well on the test? No, I was a bit tired that day. Both should be balanced, and relevant. The tests and the homework should meaningfully test whether or not I can do what they intend to indicate. Not "He couldn't sit there for 3 straight hours from 6pm to 9pm on one night of the year writing out java in pencil in a dead silent room.