The point of the 'Anonymous Marking' flap?

Ineedaflash

When we only put exam numbers and not student numbers or names on the front cover, why the need to sign and seal the corner of the booklet?

I've always done it, normally because I've had a couple of minutes to spare at the end of an exam, but wondered why nonetheless.

There's spaces to put your name and student number on the flap. You seal it over so that whoever is correcting can only see your exam and seat numbers. Hence it is anonymous.

Ineedaflash

But wouldn't it be just as anonymous by not filling it out?

As opposed to expressly being asked to fill it out and fold it over by some invigilators?

Kwekubo

It's there as a backup in case you write your examination number down incorrectly.

RedFFWolf

Another point being solely that any lecturer, particularly one you may have some "beef" with or are very "pally" with, doesn't know your name (as they shouldn't know your number), hence no bias marking.
(This is assuming you get those answer booklets that don't require you to fill in your actual name except in the anonymous section - I'm not sure what is the case across the college if there are different ones).

When the lecturers correct the answer, for the most part they are not responsible for tallying up the scores. They'll probably pass it on to the one person in the department (perhaps a lecturer, but who wouldn't have been marking, or at least marks first and then sees the details) or secretary perhaps or even some external person depending on the course probably in which case, the anonymous bit will be removed and checked most likely.

That being said, I'm sure there are lecturers that peek!

galwayjohn89

Are we meant to fill that bit in?!?

languagenerd

What annoys me about them is that when you write your name and number at the bottom, the black ink on the other side sometimes transfers onto the first page of the booklet! Which makes them entirely pointless...

After noticing that, I always put the exam paper between the cover and the page so it transfers onto that instead.

Vuzuggu wrote: »

Are we meant to fill that bit in?!?

Yeah! It says it at the top of the paper... Have you never noticed everyone licking the corner of the answerbooks at the end?!

PurpleFistMixer

I find that flap thing just opens almost instantly anyway. Maybe my saliva is just bad or something.

Lawliet

I'm always tempted to bring some blue tack in with me to close it, especially when I have five books; I feel like idiot sitting there licking paper for ages.

Interferon Gamma

I have an exam on friday that needs eleven booklets. >_< The glue tastes bad enough already.

I wouldn't mind but the nature of the exam means you would never use more than the first page of the booklet too. Seems like such a waste.

partyatmygaff

Are we meant to fold over the flap? >_>

It shouldn't make a difference right? The two exams i've sat so far are in a different department so none of the lecturers would recognise my name anyway.

gutenberg

I remember my old head of department telling me that apparently the executive officers there would go through the stack of exam scripts when they arrived and make sure the anonymous marking flap was sealed properly before handing them on for marking to lecturers. I don't know if they're all that conscientious though...

dabh

Well maybe perhaps 98% of candidates sit in the correct set, know that their exam number is the five-digit number on the student id card, and correctly fill in the exam number and the seat number.

If for any reason the seat number does not agree with the exam number, which is correct?

Some may think that the module code is the exam number. If the only identification for the script is the seat number, is this sufficient to identify the candidate, or is there a danger that the result may be mis-attributed?

What if candidates mistakenly think that their exam number is the same as the one they used the previous year? It happens.

A number of cases will arise each year where departments have to consult with the Exams Office to discover from invigilators' reports who was recorded by them as sitting in a particular seat, in order to identify an anonymous script whose cover has not been correctly filled in.

There have been cases of candidates not filling in either exam number or seat number, and not putting any details under the sealed flap!

If there were no sealed flap, to be opened if all other means of identifying the candidate have failed, then a significant number of scripts would remain unattributable.

ArtOfEscape

After four years in college, I've finally figured out to tip some water from my bottle into the bottle cap, dip in my fingertip and use that to seal the flap. Looks ridiculous but a hell of a lot nicer than that nasty taste :P

ArtOfEscape

ArtOfEscape wrote: »

After four years in college, I've finally figured out to tip some water from my bottle into the bottle cap, dip in my fingertip and use that to seal the flap. Looks ridiculous but a hell of a lot nicer than that nasty taste :P

Or you could just put your finger in your mouth and then run it along the edge....

Maybe it's just me, but I find that a lot less elaborate.

galwayjohn89

Ha nope Ive never sealed the flap nor have I seen anyone do it. Most people just fill it in and not seal which is what I do.

PurpleFistMixer

Interferon Gamma wrote: »

I have an exam on friday that needs eleven booklets. >_< The glue tastes bad enough already.

I wouldn't mind but the nature of the exam means you would never use more than the first page of the booklet too. Seems like such a waste.

Sounds like the exam I had this morning... 20 questions, do 10, each in separate answer books... Seeing the invigilators trying to carry massive stacks of answer books is funny, but wasting hundreds of pages is not.

ArtOfEscape

ArtOfEscape wrote: »

After four years in college, I've finally figured out to tip some water from my bottle into the bottle cap, dip in my fingertip and use that to seal the flap. Looks ridiculous but a hell of a lot nicer than that nasty taste :P

If you have a sports bottle you can just put your finger over the end and it's enough. Too much water is as bad as no water. I just lick it and play with it with my finger until it's finished.

Richieee

Deleted User wrote: »

I just lick it and play with it with my finger until it's finished.

tenandtracer

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

I find that flap thing just opens almost instantly anyway. Maybe my saliva is just bad or something.

PurpleFistMixer

: (

boblong

I don't really understand why you should have to seal it over. If a marker really really wants to find out who you are they aren't going to be out-foxed by a flap of resealable paper.

blucey

RedFFWolf wrote: »

Another point being solely that any lecturer, particularly one you may have some "beef" with or are very "pally" with, doesn't know your name (as they shouldn't know your number), hence no bias marking.
(This is assuming you get those answer booklets that don't require you to fill in your actual name except in the anonymous section - I'm not sure what is the case across the college if there are different ones).

When the lecturers correct the answer, for the most part they are not responsible for tallying up the scores. They'll probably pass it on to the one person in the department (perhaps a lecturer, but who wouldn't have been marking, or at least marks first and then sees the details) or secretary perhaps or even some external person depending on the course probably in which case, the anonymous bit will be removed and checked most likely.

That being said, I'm sure there are lecturers that peek!

ya think? heres the reality. All exams are corrected by the lecturer and are input into a spreadsheet. That is one that is keyed against your seat/exam number. And we often have the exam seating sheet so we can check, again, that yes we have 74 submitted scripts which were submitted to the invigilator. The number of times a count check and an individual check is done is high. This is to ensure that we dont lose scripts. So at the inputting of grades in the spreadsheet stage we know who is whom. Anyone who thinks that this flap defends against malign intent is fooling themselves. Its a pleasant sop to us all akin to security theatre. In many places also then theere is a set of internal reviews to ensure that no mad results are apparent - this protects students "hey, Smith has three firsts and a F2" and then we find a missing paper for smith or it was misread as 24 not 74 etc.
There is no true anonymity. There cant be if grades are to be assigned to named individuals.

RedFFWolf

blucey wrote: »

ya think? heres the reality. All exams are corrected by the lecturer and are input into a spreadsheet. That is one that is keyed against your seat/exam number. And we often have the exam seating sheet so we can check, again, that yes we have 74 submitted scripts which were submitted to the invigilator. The number of times a count check and an individual check is done is high. This is to ensure that we dont lose scripts. So at the inputting of grades in the spreadsheet stage we know who is whom. Anyone who thinks that this flap defends against malign intent is fooling themselves. Its a pleasant sop to us all akin to security theatre. In many places also then theere is a set of internal reviews to ensure that no mad results are apparent - this protects students "hey, Smith has three firsts and a F2" and then we find a missing paper for smith or it was misread as 24 not 74 etc.
There is no true anonymity. There cant be if grades are to be assigned to named individuals.

So, you're a lecturer yourself? I know it was in a sense almost a naive post of mine, but I wasn't putting my heart on my sleeve when I speak of anonymity - I know there's no true anonymity, but at the least an attempt or some rationale behind it (even if it's known they'll see later). Perhaps I was just completely wrong! Or maybe it's not fair to say all departments do it the same way!
The question though I'd ask is there marking done first and then would they see who they have marked?

(And I'm speaking kind of rhetorically in my questions, it's starting to divert off-topic a little).

blubloblu

As long as the name is revealed only after the correcting is done, that's good enough isn't it?

sock puppet

boblong wrote: »

I don't really understand why you should have to seal it over. If a marker really really wants to find out who you are they aren't going to be out-foxed by a flap of resealable paper.

Have to? I've never once sealed it.

FloatingVoter

Never sealed it either. Too much effort for a pointless gesture.

blucey

RedFFWolf wrote: »

So, you're a lecturer yourself? I know it was in a sense almost a naive post of mine, but I wasn't putting my heart on my sleeve when I speak of anonymity - I know there's no true anonymity, but at the least an attempt or some rationale behind it (even if it's known they'll see later). Perhaps I was just completely wrong! Or maybe it's not fair to say all departments do it the same way!
The question though I'd ask is there marking done first and then would they see who they have marked?

(And I'm speaking kind of rhetorically in my questions, it's starting to divert off-topic a little).

One doesn't give a stuff who wrote the paper...it's about getting them marked. Then at input stage you might notice a name you recall...
Key thing is how MANY students out no name, seat number etc on the paper. fill.it.in please so we can allocate grades..

Good luck.

Lawliet

I never bothered with seat number since I'm in a different exam center to the rest of my class, I didn't think it was too important...

Brian

They need saliva samples of students so they can clone anyone who gets firsts across the board.

languagenerd

RedFFWolf wrote: »

When the lecturers correct the answer, for the most part they are not responsible for tallying up the scores. They'll probably pass it on to the one person in the department (perhaps a lecturer, but who wouldn't have been marking, or at least marks first and then sees the details) or secretary perhaps or even some external person depending on the course probably in which case, the anonymous bit will be removed and checked most likely.

I don't know if it's quite as stringent as that! Surely it doesn't matter if they see your name after they've marked it? It's only before that that it might be a problem...

FloatingVoter

Brian wrote: »

They need saliva samples of students so they can clone anyone who gets firsts across the board.

You're close - it is done so they can eat the tasty brains. Zombies are amongst us.

Have been drinking all day....wtf.

RedFFWolf

languagenerd wrote: »

I don't know if it's quite as stringent as that! Surely it doesn't matter if they see your name after they've marked it? It's only before that that it might be a problem...

Yeah that's what I mean. If I misled my post to read that it was a problem, then my apologies. I never suggested it was a problem to read the names and then mark, (but if my post read like that, then my apologies), just what some lecturers may do in some situations; although that being said, I do know of some strained relations between student & lecturer that have been influential in marking grades, which is of course problematic.

Some departments might just have their own way of organising - maybe there was a set guideline (perhaps just for pragmatics sake even) at one stage, but maybe some have used their own ways since.

Personally, I don't really care about any of it if they know me or not. However, I would like to think of other students who'd want to stay anonymous.

blucey

RedFFWolf wrote: »

Yeah that's what I mean. If I misled my post to read that it was a problem, then my apologies. I never suggested it was a problem to read the names and then mark, (but if my post read like that, then my apologies), just what some lecturers may do in some situations; although that being said, I do know of some strained relations between student & lecturer that have been influential in marking grades, which is of course problematic.

Some departments might just have their own way of organising - maybe there was a set guideline (perhaps just for pragmatics sake even) at one stage, but maybe some have used their own ways since.

Personally, I don't really care about any of it if they know me or not. However, I would like to think of other students who'd want to stay anonymous.

As I mentioned, there is no true anonymity nor can there be. So, chill. Just make sure to make your self identifiable so we can allocate whatever marks you get. How do people think that Billy Nomates gets his grades assigned to him if somewhere along the way....we cant assign the marks on the sheet to Mr Nomates?

asdfghjz

blucey wrote: »

As I mentioned, there is no true anonymity nor can there be. So, chill. Just make sure to make your self identifiable so we can allocate whatever marks you get. How do people think that Billy Nomates gets his grades assigned to him if somewhere along the way....we cant assign the marks on the sheet to Mr Nomates?

Couldn't you just assign them based on exam number. If there's continuous assessment to be factored in it could be dealt with at the secretary's office.

RedFFWolf

blucey wrote: »

As I mentioned, there is no true anonymity nor can there be. So, chill. Just make sure to make your self identifiable so we can allocate whatever marks you get. How do people think that Billy Nomates gets his grades assigned to him if somewhere along the way....we cant assign the marks on the sheet to Mr Nomates?

I don't actually have a problem with any of this, I'm aware when I already agreed with you previously regarding anonymity
The only thing said (in my previous post) in relation to anonymity is that some students would want it (personally knowing at least one who would) - I'm not trying to rant or argue anything in favour or against, I only originally posted my thoughts in response to what the OP asked (and then after numerous quotes it just seem to come along to this point).
(I know I said it can be problematic with personal issues some may have, but I'm not using this to suggest something has to be reconsidered or anything similar).

blucey

RedFFWolf wrote: »

I don't actually have a problem with any of this, I'm aware when I already agreed with you previously regarding anonymity
The only thing said (in my previous post) in relation to anonymity is that some students would want it (personally knowing at least one who would) - I'm not trying to rant or argue anything in favour or against, I only originally posted my thoughts in response to what the OP asked (and then after numerous quotes it just seem to come along to this point).
(I know I said it can be problematic with personal issues some may have, but I'm not using this to suggest something has to be reconsidered or anything similar).

they might want anonymity. But i suspect they want their grades more...
Its a pleasant sop, which BTW presupposes that faculty such as moi are inherently incapable of acting professionally. But hey...

blucey

asdfghjz wrote: »

Couldn't you just assign them based on exam number. If there's continuous assessment to be factored in it could be dealt with at the secretary's office.

We could. Or we could, you know, trust faculty to do a professional job. Heres the thing. Going that way would in effect remove exam boards. Now the amount of times exam boards, where GASP we see the full set of grades BY NAME, make decisions in favour of students (that 28 if it was a 30 would allow compensation so she could come back only in one not all subjects ; that 72 if a 76 would allow an average that grants a gold medal etc) would astound you. And no, it doesnt go the other way in my 20 years of experience. Be careful for what you ask for ...:)

secretambition

blucey wrote: »

We could. Or we could, you know, trust faculty to do a professional job. Heres the thing. Going that way would in effect remove exam boards. Now the amount of times exam boards, where GASP we see the full set of grades BY NAME, make decisions in favour of students (that 28 if it was a 30 would allow compensation so she could come back only in one not all subjects ; that 72 if a 76 would allow an average that grants a gold medal etc) would astound you. And no, it doesnt go the other way in my 20 years of experience. Be careful for what you ask for ...:)

Firstly, while I believe that the great majority of academics are people of great integrity, if it we could guarantee a faculty would do a professional job based on trust alone, we would not need any security measures.

Secondly, even if all staff were 100% fair all the time, making it a quesiton of trust messes with students heads too much. "That lecturer doesn't like me." "The other lecturer really likes all the people in the front row and will award them the top marks and in a class this small, they can only give so many firsts."

Thirdly, I believe you when you say that discretion is always exercised in a students favour and never against, but this is unfair to the others. If all students are competing in the same jobs market and one has magically gone from 72 to 76 (a high first and a gold medal), they have been given an unfair leg up. They have been elevated into the category of "extra-special, amazing..."

I think a large part of the reason behind students doing badly is not being clear what is required, particularly with essays and questions where marking is subjective. I would make marking much more concrete with strict marking schemes so that a paper is clearly a 38, a 64 or a 72 and then students would be happy to take what they get imo.

NeuroCat

secretambition wrote: »

Firstly, while I believe that the great majority of academics are people of great integrity, if it we could guarantee a faculty would do a professional job based on trust alone, we would not need any security measures.

Secondly, even if all staff were 100% fair all the time, making it a quesiton of trust messes with students heads too much. "That lecturer doesn't like me." "The other lecturer really likes all the people in the front row and will award them the top marks and in a class this small, they can only give so many firsts."

Thirdly, I believe you when you say that discretion is always exercised in a students favour and never against, but this is unfair to the others. If all students are competing in the same jobs market and one has magically gone from 72 to 76 (a high first and a gold medal), they have been given an unfair leg up. They have been elevated into the category of "extra-special, amazing..."

I think a large part of the reason behind students doing badly is not being clear what is required, particularly with essays and questions where marking is subjective. I would make marking much more concrete with strict marking schemes so that a paper is clearly a 38, a 64 or a 72 and then students would be happy to take what they get imo.

I think it is fair given that someone could have 80% in their C.A which denotes a very large amount of effort on the part of the student and they may mess up part of one of their exams reducing them below the amount required for a gold medal, when clearly they may well deserve it due to the amount of effort they put in during the year.

For students who aren't doing quite well, it's reassuring to know that examiners aren't out to fail them in exams. Plus it's hardly diluting the quality of your degree if a student is prevented from failing but instead attains a 2:2 or 3.

In short, I think its quite a good system which ensures students who have put in the effort attain the grades they deserve and students who, for whatever reason haven't done as well may not necessarily fail completely.

RedFFWolf

blucey wrote: »

they might want anonymity. But i suspect they want their grades more...
Its a pleasant sop, which BTW presupposes that faculty such as moi are inherently incapable of acting professionally. But hey...

Ah yeah, sure I suppose that's really it for as good as all of them (except one I know who just gets embarrassed at her answers, but also of course feels good with a good grade)

Good point about the inherent incapability implication; I never thought of it that way, but perhaps that works as a bit of a consolation I hope

secretambition

NeuroCat wrote: »

I think it is fair given that someone could have 80% in their C.A which denotes a very large amount of effort on the part of the student and they may mess up part of one of their exams reducing them below the amount required for a gold medal, when clearly they may well deserve it due to the amount of effort they put in during the year.
.

Are you not basically arguing for people being allowed to rewrite the rules of the competition to suit themselves. The student who put a huge (disproportionate) amount of effort into their C.A. (whatever that is - I'm guessing continuous assessment?) should have known they would pay the price in another area. We could all do brilliantly in everything if we put endless time into it, but we know there are other things we have to get done too. Another, more responsible student, would have put more time into the exam, and is in effect being penalized. Maybe the latter student could have gotten 80% in their C.A. if they had chosen to put more time into it and took the attitude that "I'm well-liked. I will be looked after when it comes to the exam."

Rhadamanthus

Speaking from the perspective of someone who is in a course with no continuous assessment and little coursework (point being, many of my subjects are 100% annual exam) I think it's perfectly fair and equitable that the results are subject to minor discretionary tweaks. A two/three hour paper written under stressful and hurried conditions may not necessarily reflect a student's overall calibre. This isn't to devalue exams, of course. They're excellent for testing knowledge and recall of course material, if probably not necessarily brilliance. They're a useful, if imperfect, barometer and that's totally fine by me.

That said, I imagine the exams themselves are still the limits of the tweaking, in the sense that they might just be taken more holistically. I mean, I don't think that any member of faculty would look at a script and say: "I really like this student and think they are very capable. I will thus give them 87% immediately". That would be a case of pure bias, but I don't think that's what this discretionary perspective is used for. If a student performs well in five out of six exams, say, and demonstrates some impressive material in a select few answers, should doing poorly (relative to those other exams) in that one other exam really debar that student from getting an average reflective of the high standard of the other five? It's probably fair to answer that either way, admittedly, but I myself think that it would be manifestly unfair to allow one incident of potential misfortune to effectively kneecap a student's overall performance. A holistic reading of the student's scripts and seeing what they add up to is more just in certain circumstances, maybe. Conversely, in the case of a borderline fail/bad fail/etc, I think it's also perfectly fair to have regard to the student's overall performance and at least make it a factor for consideration, as the potential penalty shouldn't be imposed lightly. The difference between resitting one exam, resitting them all, or repeating a year is enormous, and a decision that (even if these hypothetical circumstances allowed it) shouldn't be decided on one poor paper in vacuo (which, admittedly, it probably wouldn't be anyway, even under the strict procedures).

So personally, I don't think that it really seriously undermines the integrity of the exam system. Or even if it does, the equity that is achieved through a reasonably discretionary approach outweighs the detriments of perfect adherence to a student's singular script. Ultimately, I imagine it's just an attempt to iron out potential unfair anomalies that can arise by virtue of the inherently flawed/limited nature of an exam system in the first place.

Lawliet

I don't think it's irresponsible to put lots of effort into continuous assessment. Exams don't suit everyone -people with learning disabilities and attention disorders, or even just people who find it difficult to cope with all the pressure and stress, are probably going to under preform compared to their peers no matter how much work they did. If you know your results aren't going to reflect your ability it makes total sense to pick up as much marks as possible before the exam.

secretambition

Lawliet wrote: »

I don't think it's irresponsible to put lots of effort into continuous assessment. Exams don't suit everyone -people with learning disabilities and attention disorders, or even just people who find it difficult to cope with all the pressure and stress, are probably going to under preform compared to their peers no matter how much work they did. If you know your results aren't going to reflect your ability it makes total sense to pick up as much marks as possible before the exam.

Exams aren't a measure of how "deserving" you are in a moral sense because you did lots of hard work. They are a measure of your competence at sitting the relevant exam. They are a statement to any employer or custmoer/patient/client who relies on your skill that you are competent. Assinging marks to people based on anything other than competence of performance is manifestly unfair to the people who rely on the grades and to the other students. (I do think there is a real issue with students understanding what is wanted and marking schemes need to be stricter to be fair to students, but that is a separate issue)

If you think exams aren't the appropriate way to examine competence in some area, change the system, but don't turn the exam into a fudge and a joke with little credibility.

I think if you have a subject where an essay is 20% and an exam is 80% and a student puts a crazy amount of work into the essay and are underprepared for the exam as a result, they are being irresponsible and self-indulgent by just focusing on the aspect of the course you are good at. I think that for this to be entertained is grossly unfair to the responsible student to takes a serious attitude to managing their time and workload and says I can only afford X hours on this essay.

blucey

secretambition wrote: »

Firstly, while I believe that the great majority of academics are people of great integrity, if it we could guarantee a faculty would do a professional job based on trust alone, we would not need any security measures.

Secondly, even if all staff were 100% fair all the time, making it a quesiton of trust messes with students heads too much. "That lecturer doesn't like me." "The other lecturer really likes all the people in the front row and will award them the top marks and in a class this small, they can only give so many firsts."

Thirdly, I believe you when you say that discretion is always exercised in a students favour and never against, but this is unfair to the others. If all students are competing in the same jobs market and one has magically gone from 72 to 76 (a high first and a gold medal), they have been given an unfair leg up. They have been elevated into the category of "extra-special, amazing..."

I think a large part of the reason behind students doing badly is not being clear what is required, particularly with essays and questions where marking is subjective. I would make marking much more concrete with strict marking schemes so that a paper is clearly a 38, a 64 or a 72 and then students would be happy to take what they get imo.

And if people are given a leg up because they have somehow smashed one question, have done extremely ok (say 2.1 all round) the other three years, have done v well this exam session that one q apart, and the "calculated" degree is 2.2 because the average is 58, but that q alone has brought them down, you would do what....?
Mind, this is a whole other thread on whether to have exam boards or simply print out a spreadsheet....

(note: a read of the economic arguments on rules v discretion might throw light on the issues)

Lawliet

secretambition wrote: »

Exams aren't a measure of how "deserving" you are in a moral sense because you did lots of hard work.

I implied nothing about someone doing well in CA being morally deserving of a higher grade.
I said that maxing your CA marks makes sense for people who are good students but tend under perform in exams regardless of how much study they do. You're talking about people doing well in CA at the expense of their exams, and that's not what I'm talking about.

secretambition

blucey wrote: »

And if people are given a leg up because they have somehow smashed one question, have done extremely ok (say 2.1 all round) the other three years, have done v well this exam session that one q apart, and the "calculated" degree is 2.2 because the average is 58, but that q alone has brought them down, you would do what....?
Mind, this is a whole other thread on whether to have exam boards or simply print out a spreadsheet....

(note: a read of the economic arguments on rules v discretion might throw light on the issues)

How do you do so badly in one question that it brings your whole grade from a solid 2.1 down to a 2.2? How much of your final degree grade is a single question worth? It depends on how many subjects you have and how many questions on each paper and weighting, but you would probably be talking about someone who was answering a question when they hadn't prepared it. This is probably the person who plays Russian roulette, decides topics A, B, C and D are coming up, and D doesn't. They would probably have gotten a great grade if A, B, C and D had come up because they only prepared those 4 topics. The student sitting beside them in the exam hall however, diligently prepared topics A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J. As a result, this student is prepared whatever comes up, and may well have done worse than our gambler had the gambler been in luck with regard to the topics on the paper, because this more conscientious student has divided their time amongst 10 topics as the syllabus directed them to, rather than 4.

secretambition

Lawliet wrote: »

I don't think it's irresponsible to put lots of effort into continuous assessment. .

Was this not directed at a previous post of mine since I was the first person to start talking about it being irresponsible to spend too much time on essays? In that post I did talk about a disproportionate amount of effort at the expense of exams, and since I was very much under the impression you were responding to something I had said, I thought you might be too.

PurpleFistMixer

secretambition wrote: »

Exams aren't a measure of how "deserving" you are in a moral sense because you did lots of hard work. They are a measure of your competence at sitting the relevant exam. They are a statement to any employer or custmoer/patient/client who relies on your skill that you are competent.

... competent at sitting the relevant exam, as you just said. Is that a mark of overall competence? Is it even a mark of competence in something relevant to a work-like environment?

partyatmygaff

secretambition wrote: »

Exams aren't a measure of how "deserving" you are in a moral sense because you did lots of hard work. They are a measure of your competence at sitting the relevant exam. They are a statement to any employer or custmoer/patient/client who relies on your skill that you are competent.

Exams aren't really ideal for measuring competency to be honest. In the "real world", tasks/problems analogous to continuous assessment is what you're likely to get. Three hour long "brain emptying sessions" don't match many real-world situations i've ever seen.