Exams, are they credible enough to measure someone’s credibility?
How does it work, if I write an answer of two to four lines and absolute shit for another two to four pages in my Economics paper and am given almost full marks? (full marks are somehow never granted [mystery] to anyone)
How does it work, if I write an absolute correct definition in my own formal words, but given a zero because a definition has to be repasted from the text book?
How does it work, if a ‘human’ checker has to check hundreds of papers in limited period? (And not be influenced by his mood swing)
There’ll be numerous such questions challenging the sacredness of the exam. Do examinations actually test a student’s skill in that subject or his skill to copy paste the textbook? Isn’t the question here is that a student should learn, by means of a textbook or through any other source? So how does it matter that he writes a sentence in active or passive voices? He isn’t changing the fundamentals; he’s not changing the alphabets to ‘zelphabets’ (starting from z)…
God, I’ve my exams on and am writing this post (frustration)… anyway, it’s January and this is my first post this year, so a very happy new year (to the few readers of this blog).
Hope that some influential reads this and have some sympathy on us and change this ill-efficient system.
PS. Mr. Sibal, a serious recommendation, stop the quota crusade, but start the 'Developmental Crusade' in our educational machinery.
