What is the Purpose of Exams?

I was inspired to do this post after reading an article about how the A levels in Britain were becoming so easy, one official actually said, “A monkey could sit for the exam”. Of course, Singapore’s standards are slightly different, but there are still some important issues that are worth discussing, first, are our exams easy or difficult? Second, what is the purpose of exams? Third, which is better, easy-to-pass exams, or high-standard but difficult exams?

First, Singapore’s exams are well, doable. It is difficult to set a fixed conclusion on the level of difficulty of our papers, since there are different standards and levels of difficulty across subjects. The nature of subjects also creates challenges in determining the difficulty of the exam.

For instance, Chinese is fun, but dead. It’s not very difficult per se, but the way it’s taught makes it difficult.

Doing well for exams ultimately depends on a combination of personal effort, attitude, a passion for the subject, and a degree of personal aptitude.

As for whether or not exams in other countries are too easy, the problem is related to the issue of grade inflation (what Singapore students are familiar to as “moderation”). But there is a critical difference. Moderation refers to adjusting the results to reflect estimated performance during the actual exam, because for some schools (like my secondary school) in-house exams are ridiculously tough. Grade inflation is really inflating the grades so that more students appear to do well.

But it begs the question, are students really worthy of their grades?

Second, on the purpose of exams.

What is the purpose of exams? A measure of intelligence? A process to enable promotion within the educational system? A system of competition to reward the industrious and penalize the idle? All these reasons are possible, but they neither serve, nor support the true purpose of education, to impart knowledge and skills.

Some might argue that they test students whether they remember their stuff. But education isn’t simply remembering stuff. Given the ever increasing quantity of knowledge and information in the world today, it is practically impossible.

So what should exams be? Rather than test content, they could test skills. Skills need not be remembered, they should be internalized. To the point it really becomes “in the blood”.

Lastly, on the preferable exam system.

Perhaps exams really are a “necessary evil”, because we ultimately need some system of competition to enforce standards, to reward the industrious and penalize the idle. This is what makes our education system so tough, and yet so successful.

Therefore, rather than say “we don’t want exams” we should explore this question instead: “what kind of exam system do we want?”

In this post I brought up two possibilities, in response to the article I’ve read.

One, an easy exam, or a tough but high-standard exam.

Of course, there are problems with my definitions. “easy” and “tough” are fundamentally ambiguous and relative concepts. These two terms differ between two individuals within the same educational system, between different educational systems, and between students from different streams or faculties. A Singapore student might find a math problem a piece of cake, while an American student of the same level might struggle.

But nonetheless, there is still value in the notion of “easy” and “tough”. This has to do with the purpose of exams. If exams are meant to be competitive in nature, that they should be “tough”, the “tougher” the better. There is no point in passing students for the sake of passing them. This will have a detrimental impact on educational standards.

Of course, making exams tough doesn’t mean leaving students out to die. Teachers must have the means to teach as well, especially in teaching the necessary thinking skills which are of utmost importance. Besides, since exams shouldn’t be intellectual bulimia, wouldn’t a “tough” exam system where students simply have to remember and regurgitate yet more stuff defeat the whole purpose of education?

As I come to the end of my post, I’ve realized that I’ve gone quite far from the article. it’s exaggerating perhaps to say that a monkey can sit for a human exam and pass, but the idea is quite clear: that exams for humans probably no longer serve a human purpose.