The Evil of Tests, Part 1

Naturally, the way to measure a person’s ability in a certain field is thought a test. In academia, these are pieces of paper with questions pertaining to the unit or collection of topics covered and expected to have been taught and learned. The number of right and wrong answers are used to determine how much the test-taker knows — how competent he is with the subject. In sporting and athletics, skill and competence are tested using other measures. No matter what discipline people are being evaluated in, there are always measures used to figure out how competent someone is — and how their ability compares with others’.

In theory, tests should work — that’s why they were made: to evaluate. Recently, however, more and more students have gotten the impression that in order to succeed, they need to not only pass, but ace their tests. This unusual motivation runs counter to the purpose of tests: tests are supposed to be used to determine how well an individual knows subject material, can think in a certain field, or any number of qualities about the individual… Of course, some people will naturally tend to try to learn the material better — out of interest, ideally.

However, not everyone “learns” out of interest. The issue of the legitimacy of standardized tests has become widespread, especially as America’s financial situation has blighted, average intelligence and ability have risen, and competitiveness has become ingrained in more cultures. When people have access to old tests, preparation material, and exactly the information they need to know to do well on exams, then how good a job do these sorts of evaluations actually do?

---