High school milestones- Midterm+Final exams vs. Quarterly Exhibition of work

[Machate-man]

Here's a question for you high-schoolers:

I've just passed my freshmen year without needing to do any Final exams.

The reason for this is because we did something called an exhibition, where we got the quarter's major work, turned it into a script, and presented it to the teachers, parents, and anyone else who wanted to see students work.

Those who had stage fright failed, quite miserably, in fact.

Those who had public speaking skills (Think show presenters) passed.

On that note, I feel that exhibitions are much better(easier in my opinion) than
Final EXAMS

where you endlessly study a book for answers to questions that you will (mostly) not use.
Then, you take a test for hours, only to realize that the passed and you didn't because they cheated and you, being 'honest F over dis-honest A' failed.

In conclusion, you will gain more skills and learn more in an exhibition
than an exam.

And BTW; to pass sophmore and to graduate(seniors), you need to do an individual benchmark portfolio, where you present saved work to a panal of teachers (for up to 30 min at a time) to determine if you pass or not. If they say you didn't pass, then you get held back.
Think about that the next time exams have you stressed and thrashed
My high school- http://es-cat.org/Index.html

 

[nick09]

I've gone though all of the required regents exams(I live in NY) and I've only had to study what religion I would have to use for the history final paper. Other than that it was easy to just walk into the classroom and answer the multiple choice questions. Though I've never taken any advanced exams since I did not need them. The Regents acted as a fifth quarter so that is 20% of your overall grade for one class(if a class has a regents then there is no final from a last day of class but a regents exam next week).

 

[Machate-man]

I've gone though all of the required regents exams(I live in NY) and I've only had to study what religion I would have to use for the history final paper. Other than that it was easy to just walk into the classroom and answer the multiple choice questions. Though I've never taken any advanced exams since I did not need them. The Regents acted as a fifth quarter so that is 20% of your overall grade for one class(if a class has a regents then there is no final from a last day of class but a regents exam next week).

Hmmm, Bravo! For being one of the many people who can pass exams legitemately:tup:

And given from your response, I assume you prefer exams.

 

[Dravonic]

Let's have a look at what you said right here:

Those who had stage fright failed, quite miserably, in fact.

Those who had public speaking skills (Think show presenters) passed.

Think about it for a while. Do you really think it's fair for some who knows the subject quite well to fail because they are bad public speakers? And is it fair for someone who barely knows it to pass because he fast talked his teachers?

Don't get me wrong, tests do have many problems of their own, but to substitute one flawed method of determining what a person knows over another even more flawed one is hardly a good idea.

 

[Machate-man]

Let's have a look at what you said right here:

{Quote Above}

Think about it for a while. Do you really think it's fair for some who knows the subject quite well to fail because they are bad public speakers? And is it fair for someone who barely knows it to pass because he fast talked his teachers?

Don't get me wrong, tests do have many problems of their own, but to substitute one flawed method of determining what a person knows over another even more flawed one is hardly a good idea.

Well, sadly that's just the truth with my school. We're different.

Quarterly exhibitions/Unit tests are worth 60%, Important assignments 30%, homework 10%

 

[David]

Let's have a look at what you said right here:



Think about it for a while. Do you really think it's fair for some who knows the subject quite well to fail because they are bad public speakers? And is it fair for someone who barely knows it to pass because he fast talked his teachers?

Don't get me wrong, tests do have many problems of their own, but to substitute one flawed method of determining what a person knows over another even more flawed one is hardly a good idea.

This. Either way some people aren't going to do well just because of the format, and either way some people will do well because they are good at beating the system.

I think the value most places see in a regular exam is that it is less subjective overall and you can be given a more consistent numerical score so that you can be compared to your peers. Whether you like it or not, thats what most colleges look at right now.

One of the biggest problems with tests today is that school systems in this country are going about everything the wrong way. Schools try to teach students how to test well (gotta get that federal funding) instead of focusing on the material. A well written test could be a perfectly good benchmark if teachers were approaching things correctly in the first place.

You also said that you think exhibitions are better and easier... I say that the "and easier" statement is part of the current problem. The attitude of most students seems to be "only do/learn what I need to pass." Regardless of which system of testing is in place, education is what you make it. You can learn as much as you want (on your own if need be) in a class with traditional exams, but most students choose not to.

None of this is meant to be a shot at you or your intelligence, but I'd be interested to see how well kids from your high school do in college.

 

[Machate-man]

You also said that you think exhibitions are better and easier... I say that the "and easier" statement is part of the current problem. The attitude of most students seems to be "only do/learn what I need to pass." Regardless of which system of testing is in place, education is what you make it. You can learn as much as you want (on your own if need be) in a class with traditional exams, but most students choose not to.

With an exhibition, you need to both know the subject and be able to communicate what the subject is to an audience(what it is, how you did it, why it's important).

I think it requires 'more' from a student, yet exams seem enough for the rest of america

None of this is meant to be a shot at you or your intelligence, but I'd be interested to see how well kids from your high school do in college.

First, I am welcome to such comments, as usually I have proof for my opinion. Second, My school has a 94% collage entrance rate:tup:
You do have a point about how they'll do, however...

 

[alexleighton]

Being able to communicate your knowledge effectively is an extremely important life skill, so I would say that expositions would be better than exams. All that an exam proves is that you've heard what the teacher said and can regurgitate it back to them, it really doesn't show that you've understood what you've heard.

If you want to go anywhere in life, there's going to be a time where you'll need to pass your knowledge on to someone else, and make them understand it. Humans are social creatures, and if you live your life with "stage fright", alot of doors are closed to you. But, if you simply are forced to speak in front of people, it gets easier over time, and you're better for it.