To what extent is damage caused by teaching our kids to pass exams rather than learn the subject?
Posted by minddoor@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 130 comments
I saw a geography field trip at a British beach and the teacher was urging the students to measure the tidal range, but to make sure to use an inferior procedure, so that when they get the exam question asking how would they have performed the task differently, they have a ready answer. This struck me as being an unfortunate way of going about doing things, since it risks creating a habit among students to avoid doing things right the first time.
NGeoTeacher@reddit
Teacher here (specifically a geography one).
The teacher you cited is an idiot and, I'm not sure what exam board they're using, but if I saw such a question appear in any paper I'd immediately be petitioning to switch exam boards. Evaluation is an important part of any investigation. You don't teach students to use the wrong/inferior procedure, but you do need to make them aware of limitations. No investigation is perfect, particularly when using equipment the average school has - there are always things that could be improved. E.g., rather than using analogue equipment, we could get a more accurate result using digital recording devices.
The issue is, we're judged on our results. Students need good results to get them into their choice of uni/FE. I personally view education as being so much more than exam results, but ultimately it's quite hard to quantify things like 'self-confidence' and 'kindness' while exams provide a hard and fast, yet flawed, measure of success.
We're also under massive time and resource pressure that teaching to the test is kinda the only approach we can take. Schools (especially multi-academy trusts) are increasingly adopting the factory farming approach to teaching. Effective? Undoubtedly. Quality education? Debatable.
My least favourite question is, 'Do I need to know this?'. It's almost a philosophical question, but an irritating one. What do you mean by need? Is it in the exam specification? If so, yes, you need to know it. If not, then no, maybe you don't need to know it, but wouldn't it be nice to know it anyway? Go beyond the exam because you're an intelligent kid who's capable of it, and it'll make you a more interesting person capable of engaging in a greater breadth of conversations.
But again, I'm not judged on this, and nor are my students. Get the 9-7 grades and my bosses are happy.
I could talk about this for hours.
InternationalTop7648@reddit
Learning to pass the test, rather than actually learning the subject, was a problem when I was in school 15+ years ago. Like, I remember learning objectively incorrect science in physics class, and when the teacher was challenged on it, their response was basically "Yes... but this is what you need to know for the test."
With how school seems to have become hyper focused on just getting a passing grade in recent years, I can only imagine that's gotten so much worse.
AF_II@reddit
To a considerable extent? I teach at uni level and while students have always asked "will this be on the exam/in the assessment/help me pass", over the last 20 years the % willing to do extra/supplemental/'irrelevant' work has gone from the majority to a small minority. They want the grade, they're scared of doing anything else in case it hurts the grade. It makes them a lot less intellectually curious and it makes it harder for them to learn new things or find solutions to problems or connect topics together or think laterally about anything.
Of course, it's also because we - adults - relentlessly tell them that the only point of uni is to get a higher paying job, and they're just kids, so they believe us.
tomgrouch@reddit
I worked as an outdoor activity instructor and would regularly throw in mini biology lessons while taking the kids from one activity to another, like how trees make oxygen or how certain plants reproduce. Just like 3 minute tidbits that are kind of interesting with jokes scattered in
So many kids would ask "why do we need to know that?"
They struggled with the concept of learning just for the sake of learning. To them, you learn to pass an exam or because you have to. There's no curiosity in most of them. They don't want to find things out for themselves, they want to be told what to learn to pass the next test
I'm only 30, but I remember being so much more curious as a kid, always asking questions about how the world worked
fabulousteaparty@reddit
I'm a Brownie leader and the amount of girls that "hate school" is crazy - only one of them is very vocal about loving learning & school, and she is by far one of the kindest and most imagiantive (there are others too, but they'll say things like "I hate school but I really like history and art and reading", so really they just don't find science and maths interesting in school).
I love when they ask questions and I get to say "why do you think that?" - usually they're right, or nearly there, they just lack confidence a lot of the time!
The older girls though (especially Guides in secondary school) are absolutely like "why do I need to do/know that" my answer is always because it's fun and interesting!!
Familiar-Repeat-1565@reddit
Also I honestly believe some subjects are taught in boring or in ways you cannot talk around the subject like in my opinion it's hard to make entry level science boring if you bring in as many real life and practical examples as possible.
fabulousteaparty@reddit
I think the education system in this country needs an overhaul. There should be much more "play" based learning in earlier years and lots of encouragement of free thinking - the countries that do this (mainly the nordics) have some of the smartest kids in the world.
CongealedBeanKingdom@reddit
Sure Google tells them everything, why would they actually need to exercise their brains by thinking?
Brainrot.
rabbithole-xyz@reddit
I'm in my 60s and I'm thrilled every time I learn something new. For instance, I never knew peacocks could fly until I saw a group sitting in a tree.
Flibertygibbert@reddit
Their wings make a creaking noise when they take off and they really have to flap hard đ
andrewh2000@reddit
They really look like they shouldn't be able to don't they?
rabbithole-xyz@reddit
They absolutely do. At first, I had a few seconds of imagining a peacock climbing a tree, but......
AF_II@reddit
Honestly, it makes me feel like such an old fogey saying stuff like this, but it's true! And then you meet their parents who 100% toe the line that degree = job, end of.
moongazingclaire@reddit
This is it! I remember reading on a thread about a guy who'd worked 20+ years at a factory making glassware/bottles and when asked what the products were used for hadn't a clue. Imagine not even being a little bit curious about your everyday job.
FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit
If I was paying as much for the course as current university students are, I would be careful to focus only on the examined content - and with the time I would have to spend on my job outside university to pay for food and accommodation, I wouldn't have much time to do anything else.
30-something years ago I had a fairly carefree time at university, learning things that interested me (which led to a successful and well-paid career). Students today don't get to do that.
treesofthemind@reddit
What is your career?
Scasne@reddit
I've actually made comments about the idea that people are going for degrees to get into industries that "are up and coming and pay well" rather than going into something they enjoy, are therefore likely to keep up to date, interview well because they are enthusiastic and can get a well paying job even in a poor paying industry rather than end up being paid poorly in an industry that "pays well".
Bizarrely even though I'm coming up 40, still got an almost childlike glee for learning and after having spent 20 years in 1 industry (yeah I went apprenticeship route rather than uni) bored enough to look at quitting and going into another, mind you one phrase from my gran still runs through my mind "once you stop learning you may aswell be dead"
CongealedBeanKingdom@reddit
I went into a low paid job where I get to use my degree/skills/knowledge everyday. I knew I'd never make much money, but my mental health isn't completely fucked and I still love what I do, even after 20 years.
Scasne@reddit
An informed choice is always that, rational and reasoned, I left working for a national developer because of the stress (was getting stress excema/blisters).
CodeToManagement@reddit
The idea of going into something you enjoy is great till it doesnât pay the bills. My wife is an Architect, she makes about 40k. She could not afford to buy the house we live in and would struggle without my salary. Certainly no nice holidays or new car or anything like that.
Iâm in management in tech. I left my IC role and while I donât love it I do love the money and security it brings.
We tell kids to do what they love but donât actually ask them what lifestyle they want outside of work. I always think you should think on that lifestyle then pick a job.
Scasne@reddit
I currently work in an architects office and the bizarreness of the length of degree and what you earn Vs a techie is bizarre.
My point isn't to ignore the money it's the idea that if you can be enthusiastic about the profession you can reach higher up or find niches that pay well even in poor paying industries
If I was just after money I would have stayed working for a national developer rather than returning to private practice.
FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit
I picked a line of study that would lead to long term successful areas of business (maths-related work, computing, engineering) and which suited my aptitudes - and I did that quite deliberately. But I didn't stick rigidly to the course material and learned a number of other, very useful, things in my other time. In fact much of my career since was built on the ancillary courses not the core degree work, and on a general ability to analyse and learn.
"Do what you like" must be tempered by what someone likes may be something no-one will ever pay for. As I advise any teenager I talk to: pick something you like that also has a good job future ahead - there must be something you like doing that has future prospects of employment and earnings.
Bannef@reddit
But itâs hard to predict the future, and skills are useful in unexpected ways. I was very good at analyzing literature, finding themes, etc. and I enjoyed it. Iâm lucky no one told me âyouâll never find a job doing thatâ because it turns out analyzing themes is also relevant to being a therapist, which is now my job.
I think the most important thing for a kid is to find something they love and are motivated to do. And do it. Even if you never use that skill in the professional world, it teaches your brain how to find intrinsic motivation. Doing things you love has a way of leading to other things you love.
Now, if youâve got a teen saying Iâm going to be a YouTuber, a professional athlete, a world famous rock star, etc. itâs totally appropriate to also discuss with them what percentage of people in that field make it, what disadvantages the field will entail, etc. But that doesnât mean youâre telling them to stop playing sports or stop playing music.
I found the Self-Driven Child really illuminating on this. A lot of the anxiety our kids has seems related to them having minimal autonomy. Leaving them free to do what they love, even when itâs not profitable, makes for healthier kids.
Scasne@reddit
Oh definitely although it sounds like you knew yourself quite well to make that decision and am unsure how many do, which then raises the question of why don't they, is their environment too sterile to allow them to learn that?
Familiar-Repeat-1565@reddit
One thing that is kinda ignored with uni and a level is on some courses to even get the highest grades you have to bring in information from outside sources, there was one exam I completely blanked in and ended up getting one of the highest marks because I answered it in an extremely roundabout way it ended up being like 70% extended knowledge.
AF_II@reddit
And these are all the fallacies that make it worse in one post!
Current students are paying real-terms far less than students 10 years ago (because fees haven't tracked inflation - not even close).
...Which is the point. The vast majority of graduates do not get a job related to the subject they studied. A student with a 2:i and a rounded set of interests and good interview skills who is able to talk about enrichment activities and spent a bit of time working in an internship or related job is vastly more likely to get a job than a nerd who got a 1st and did nothing else.
If we're telling them the only thing that matters is passing we're selling them down the river.
Canipaywithclaps@reddit
They are actually likely paying far more then 10 years ago, as student loan repayment has extended from 30 to 40 years. Meaning they are paying an extra 9% over the threshold in their likely most high earning 10 years.
David_is_dead91@reddit
The threshold has also dropped to the lowest it has ever been - 9% of everything above ÂŁ25,000 per annum. So theyâre paying a greater percentage of their salary for a decade longer. And the interest rates are ridiculous - my loan only ever goes up by a few grand a year, and Iâm lucky enough to be on Plan 2 and earning substantially over the national median wage. It is designed to be impossible for the majority of people to repay these loans.
Combined with general suppression of new grads salaries itâs actually pretty outrageous and I really feel for new grads today.
AstroBlush8715@reddit
Ok so the fees have stayed constant for the last few years and have not been tracked by inflation, but they are vastly vastly higher than they were 20 years ago.
And it's everything else that is increased in price which is the issue. Not just about paying the uni fees it's the accommodation the cost of living etc. it's far more economically damaging to the individual to caught university now than it used to be.
geejaytee@reddit
Prior to tuition fees, universities got a block grant for teaching that the Govt recouped through graduates paying more tax. Students also got a maintenance grant (paid by the LEA), and could take out a student loan to help with the cost of living.
When the tuition fees were introduced (1998) it was as a top-up to the block grant that the government paid. That top-up increased over time, until one particular stripe of government decided to stop the block grant and pass all the cost to students. The hope was that universities would compete and set differential amounts, so you could choose between the University of X for ÂŁ4000/year, or you could go to the high-reputation Y University for ÂŁ9000/year for the same subject. But most (if not all) universities went straight for the ÂŁ9000/year fees, because of the cut in the block grant (to maintain their income), so it didn't work. Periodically, there's a review that happens that asks why fees are the maximum practically everywhere and whether there could be a mandatory cut, but they haven't really gone very far.
Of course, not all students can pay the ÂŁ9000 per year, so they take out loans, where the terms change (and the write-off period changes), but they essentially pay extra tax for the 30-40 years of the term. This, of course, favours those who can pay the whole cost upfront as they don't have this drag on their earnings post-graduation.
(And obviously, because student loans are government-backed money, the government is still paying upfront for many university places, but it doesn't count as front-line spending)
BillyBlaze314@reddit
I know some degrees are more theoretical, but I didn't realise some were completely imaginary.
FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit
I understand that the difference between "10" and "30" can be difficult to understand for some people, so I'll explain in more detail:
30 years ago students didn't pay anything for their tuition and lower-income students (such as me) received mainenance grants to help with the cost of living. That cost of living was also far lower (particularly cost of housing) relative to income than today.
Lorezia@reddit
During the first year of my biochemistry degree, one of the professors wanted to set up what I suppose could be called a 'book group' for the undergrads, where we could read and discuss interesting scientific studies.
Apparently I was the only person who emailed to show my interest, and in my year alone there were 300 people in our School of Biological Sciences đ
SarkastiCat@reddit
Current student.
The main issue is that min-maxing has been made extremely attractive due to recent issues and messing up to learn has been discouraged as requirements have been going up. GCSE students are already having a small panic over their grades and how they will impact oxbridge instead of thinking what they exactly want to do.Â
And personally I get the pressure as I the fear of messing up is strong.Â
One of my assigments required from us to discuss any three diagnostic techniques for specific case study and analyse them. I ended up discussing one technique which hasnât been picked by all students that I talked with and I was stressed that I messed up.
Still got 76, but heck I was stressed for doing something different.
phoenixflare599@reddit
Sometimes I think burnout too. Going all the way up to uni, I'd still often do other bits. But I'd probably do it separately to my coursework because I'd be scared of ruining the coursework doing something unasked for (programming degree. Risk of failure because I a feature was done wrong etc)
But with all the work I'd have from each subject. Sometimes it was nice to hit 75-80% (have a leeway for the first) and stop so I could just.... Stop working
decidedlyindecisive@reddit
Any time uni courses are brought up that don't directly relate to a field of high paying work, you get dozens of Reddit comments about how useless the degree is. Going to uni to learn doesn't seem like something anyone sees value in.
AF_II@reddit
yep, and it's self-fulfilling too - underfund it, things get narrower, narrower perspectives = less fulfilling, less likely to actually help you get a job, so people say it's "useless", it's easy to justify continuing to underfund it. Repeat until we're back to the elite 10% going to uni and everyone else thinking it's not for the likes of them.
decidedlyindecisive@reddit
Totally. I've already been downvoted. People really hate the idea of going to university because it's good to learn generally.
SoftwareWorth5636@reddit
Upvoted by me!
decidedlyindecisive@reddit
Yes, absolutely. My parents convinced me that since I only wanted to study "soft" degrees, it would be better to miss tertiary education altogether. I regret that choice as I am middle aged but have never written a proper essay and it shows, compared to my peers.
I genuinely believe university is about so much more than getting a job.
SoftwareWorth5636@reddit
I think the country would be in a much better place if more of your peers had the same view as you. Itâs hard to question the dominant narrative when youâre so young, and thatâs why I think that children are being pushed down certain pathways too early. The fact is that no one knows what they like, what theyâre good at, unless theyâre lucky enough to have some exposure to it. And modern schools donât seem to foster that âlove of learningâ that drives you to seek things out for yourself.
decidedlyindecisive@reddit
I think university should be open to everyone, for free (paid for by tax obviously). But I do think it should be an unusual choice for a young person. I think it would be best if we normalised starting uni in your mid twenties instead of finishing it at that point. That way you've had a chance to experience working life, you might have more ideas about what would truly benefit you.
The people I know who have gone back as mature students have all done exceptionally well and say it improved their lives.
sjintje@reddit
This isn't true, the comments are usually in favour of intellectually rigorous subjects (which are famously often nor very high paying careers) and against academically weak subjects, which is actually in line with the spirit of this post.
vixvonvagrant@reddit
Jumping on as a former lecturer at a uni, it also makes them less likely to take chances that will lead to them learning ie answering questions in class.
Left_Web_4558@reddit
It's not just not being intellectually curious.
I remember in A level biology we had to learn a definition of species. You had to write that definition in the exam to get marks.
But there wasn't actually a definition of species everyone agreed on. The definition we had to write in exams was wrong, and there were several known exceptions to it. But you had to recite it as fact or you'd lose marks.
AF_II@reddit
yep, and part of that is caused by our refusal to fund educators properly; marking stuff when you've got to consider different definitions and original thought is hard and slow. Marking when it's a tick box yes/no right/wrong answer is easy and fast. You get what you pay for.
trippykitsy@reddit
Universities teach you to parrot old people rather than come up with your own theories
Jin-shei@reddit
I teach postgrad and we get more curiosity there, where all of them are already established but we still get assessment questions in every lecture. Some I can really get -prescribing exam is 80% pass mark -but others..Â
I very much resent the students having to pay and also the funding for the uni being so close to the bone. The combination does not help proper delivery of educationÂ
TehDragonGuy@reddit
For a lot of people, that is the only point of uni. Over half of school leavers now go to uni, and that wasn't the case 20 years ago. A lot of those people wouldn't be there without more modern pressures to go down that route for a better career.
AF_II@reddit
Because we've told them so, because we tell them to keep their ambitions small.
And it's not half. That was peak year c.2017-18 - it's been falling, and the rate for immediate school leavers (18 year olds) has only increased from c25% to about 30% over the last 20 years. If half of all the 18 year olds actually went to uni the system would immediately collapse, we don't have the capacity after a generation of systematic underfunding.
Equivalent_Rub8139@reddit
I used to be a science teacher and I am genuinely convinced the only actually useful exams are either full essays or multiple choice.
Unfortunately we will never get fully multiple choice exams because loads of people will seethe that itâs dumbing down the curriculum despite the fact you can have quite hard exams that are multiple choice.
xcxmon@reddit
I think itâs symptomatic of (and also enables) the broader sentiment of anti-intellectualism which is so prevalent in this country.
As you say, school and higher education is no longer about learning. Itâs about passing exams and above all else, getting a job. So often you see people sneering at those who want to go to university because theyâre studying any subject other than one that leads directly and clearly into a particular career. âWhatâs the point of that?â âMickey Mouse degreeâ âWaste of timeâ
Academia has now lost all value, not helped by the complete lack of government funding. Academic institutes now have to âproveâ their worth and thatâs done with league tables and âcareer prospectsâ.
Now we have huge amounts of people with no critical-thinking skills, no ability to learn and digest information, no ability to form their own evidence-based opinions, and a total disregard for intelligence, academia, and expertise.
Novel_Passenger7013@reddit
Its not just schools. The obsession with certifications over ability in the workplace is, I believe, a huge factor in the lack of productivity in this country. Employers are not hiring the best, they are hiring whoever can pass exams.
My husband recently completed a PM qualification and 80% of the course was focused on passing the exam, not learning the material. The focus was on getting the wording just right, rather than understanding why the answer was what it was.
Independent-Try4352@reddit
I think it's school dependent. I left full time education at 16 in 1982. Due to high unemployment the focus was very much on passing exams to get a job.
With respect to University, probably 15% of my cohort went to university (with a Grant, not a loan!). The rest of us were seen as destined for unskilled or semi-skilled roles.
I count myself fortunate. I just needed 5 'O' Levels to get into an entry grade position that allowed me to do ONC/HNC on day release. Today you'd need a degree and possibly MSC to get that entry grade position.
'Love of learning' was being systematically destroyed at least 45 years ago, not much has changed now. I loved learning and all things 'science' when I was a small child. I absolutely hated the machine that was secondary education and couldn't wait to escape.
Railuki@reddit
Very.
I was so so good at school because I was taught which key points to bring up on questions asks. It did require some understanding for subjects like biology, but for things like French? No real understanding required.
Memorise by rote just before a test, you can forget after. Oral exams? You just need to pick out a couple of key words to know what youâre being asked because you know the questions and prepare your answers ahead of time, then you can just recite what you prepared with your teacher and then forget about it.
I got to uni and I didnât really understand how to ask questions of the topic to gain a deeper understanding because to me learning was just memorising what was in front of you until the end of the year, less focus on actually understanding or being curious about a topic. I never had to try before and suddenly I was out of my depth. It affected my mental health (which to be fair has been iffy since I was 8).
Polz34@reddit
I've never been a fan of examinations, how you can expect people to cram 12 years of study into a 2 hour exam just doesn't seem like to the right way to confirm how much someone knows. What if you get a headache? Or feel sick?
Continuous checking of understanding through course work, practical work or reviews seems a much more sensible way to check if the student has understood what they are supposed to.
Fattydog@reddit
Unfortunately when they did this, some parents used to do all their childrenâs coursework for them, or pay others to do it.
Also, if coursework is part of your final âexamâ mark then the exam basically lasts 2/3 years, which is deeply stressful.
Lorezia@reddit
It's worse now, with AI available
Ciaobellabee@reddit
Iâm terrible at exams and great at coursework so obviously I would prefer the constant review method, but the best exam I did was one at uni where we were allowed to bring an A4 sheet of notes in.
I was no longer penalised for forgetting someoneâs name due to nerves or the name of a process because now I had it all in my notes. I always understood the processes themselves or the various arguments on efficacy, etc but I would score terribly on exams because the buzzwords fell out of my head when in an exam hall.
I think that exam was one of my best scores of my whole uni career. And, I may be bias due to that fact, but I really think thatâs how your big, final exams should be. Ask more in depth questions but let people bring a page or two of notes in to help them with things like names or key research.
Kim_catiko@reddit
Also, I did History, so yes, remembering dates is quite important. However, when you are covering a time period that covers more than a hundred years it does get difficult to remember every date. This is what would fuck me up in my exams. I used to end up saying circa 1850 or in the early Regency period lol.
Familiar-Repeat-1565@reddit
For my history a level the teachers stressed more if you've got the right order of events/got the story right the exact dates of stuff is only necessary if it was incredibly important to the question or if you wanted higher marks.
For example for the history of surgery you didn't need to know the exact year certain blood stopping techniques were invented as it could be debatable with non EU-US doctors coming up with it earlier than the textbooks say but you have to remember 1901 Landsteiner discovered the ABO blood typing system.
fabulousteaparty@reddit
For GCSE history we had a "coursework" essay that was basically an open-book essay written over 4 hours (2 2-hour lessons). I got 49/50 - the top mark in the year (by 1 point), and it was the shortest essay (5 sides of a4). I had done extra research on the topic (watching a bbc documentary) and wrote and re-wrote/refined 3 times in that period. Some of the other students just wrote everything down, going over 13/14 double sided pages!
mibbling@reddit
This is also a far far more useful preparation for âreal worldâ thinking (ugh, school and education is also real) than having to memorise everything. Because now we have the internet with a) endless facts in our pocket at our disposal but also b) endless absolute nonsense, new generations donât necessarily need to memorise facts in the same way as fifty years ago, but do need to display their ability for critical thinking, their skill in interpreting facts, their knowledge of how to apply information to put together a narrative and explanation, etc.
Polz34@reddit
I guess it depends on what you find stressful, I hated exams and was always better at coursework. My BTEC was 100% coursework based (with some practical assessments) and I got much better grades overall.
I just think exams are some prehistoric way of putting unnecessary stress on kids
Independent-Try4352@reddit
I'm the other way. Exams were a couple of months stress to endure and then done. Constant evaluation over 2 years would have destroyed me with the constant pressure.
Kim_catiko@reddit
I was also way better at coursework than exams. Except in Maths, for some reason, that was the exception to the rule for me. But my coursework marks were waaaaayyyy better than my exams. I find it difficult to think on the spot and like to have time to mull over my answers.
I was getting A's in my History coursework, but then when I got my final mark for GCSE, I got a C overall. My exam must have been utter shite to drag it down to a C. Still pissed about that.
Polz34@reddit
Totally agree, I remember my music GCSE was 30% practical, 30% composition and 40% listening exam. By complete accident I saw the results from my practical and composition (I used to have extra singing lessons in the room they happened to put the results) so I knew I'd gotten an A, yet my end results were a B+ so guess I got a B or B- in the exam!
orange_fudge@reddit
Well either that or your teacherâs grades for your coursework were revised down.
Kim_catiko@reddit
Well that's just rude of them, lol.
Wd91@reddit
I really don't think there's that much risk of this anymore. Even as a primary school teacher much of the stuff i taught was beyond the knowledge of many parents.
Which raises a point about what the value of what we taught was in adult life anyway. We'd spend hours trying to teach kids good handwriting skills. Then you go to the doctors, meet someone getting paid triple my wages and their handwriting is fucking awful. And when was the last time anyone did long division? I suspect for most it was school.
Gazcobain@reddit
I used to think that as well, then COVID totally changed my mind.
Exams are the least unfair way of measuring a pupil's knowledge and understanding.
phoenixflare599@reddit
I think tests overall can be a good measure, but exams , the setting and the limited papers aren't a good measure
Especially when it's an exam season. You get so fried as a student studying for all exams for something that might be on a paper, or might not. It's not great
For example, in AS maths I struggled with integrals or something. I just couldn't think that way to then do more operations on top to get the final answer
My non calc exam ended up using maybe not integrals but that sort of workflow consistently after page 2. I failed the exam.
Had I been able to use real world scenarios of double checking how they work or not being sat in an empty room, brain fried from exam season. I might have been able to cope better too
Naedangerledz@reddit
This is a natural part of using grades in exams as a success metric. People will naturally try to find the most expedient way to get the result they want. Now that we have AI, a significant percentage of students will game everything using it, making coursework-based assessment somewhat useless. Ultimately, exams and grades are a means to an end at school to get into the field you actually want.
Jaffiusjaffa@reddit
Im actually going to go against the grain here and say it probably makes very little difference.
Im basing this on never having had a use for 99.9% of anything i was taught in 17 years of education anyway. Having a better understanding of subjects that I was never interested in anyway seems rather pointless and if it was something i was interested in idve made the effort to understand it anyway, for myself rather than for the exam.
Carrente@reddit
Whether or not you have a wider point this specific example doesn't seem remotely bad and in fact "try this method in order to understand why it doesn't work" seems like it's teaching the subject. If exams are asking students to evaluate their processes and understand why some things work and others don't that's a good skill, surely?
Or can teachers just not win nowadays.
zq6@reddit
Yeah this post is quite teacher bashing...
If OP has a better way of assessing thousands of students fairly across the whole country, the DfE would love to hear from them...
SoftwareWorth5636@reddit
How is it teacher bashing when you admit it all stems from the DfE? Itâs clearly a systemic issue
zq6@reddit
The original post criticised the teacher and didn't mention the dfe at all
sivvus@reddit
Exactly my thoughts - if they know it's an inferior method, then they also understand WHY, and therefore will be able to justify the strengths of the correct method when asked.
IamTory@reddit
I was also thinking that maybe the inferior technique is all they have the resources or skills for at GCSE, but it's good to be aware of what they do to be more accurate at more advanced levels.
I don't disagree with OPs broader point about teaching to the test, mind. Just saying this instance might not be quite as absurd as it appears.
TwinionBIB@reddit
This is the reason I didn't go to Uni. I love learning. I love being able to find out new information. I want to know the why and the how. Instead I ended with not being allowed to find out those answers because only the what mattered. It drained my love of learning and I knew it wouldn't get any better if I went to Uni. The subjects I loved and adored were slowly becoming chores because I had no freedom on what I learned as I only needed to know how to pass the exams.
D1789@reddit
Itâs not ideal. Itâs not too âdamagingâ as such, but it does restrict genuine progression.
Remember: Donât blame the teachers for this. They get pressure from heads, who get ultimately pressure from government.
Itâs government policy thatâs the problem - being too results driven - and theyâre only doing this so they can pick out the relevant statistics that let them say âwe are better than the other party on educationâ.
Plus_Pangolin_8924@reddit
Your last paragraph is the real issue. I basically was passed over for any kind of teacher help to applying to college when I was in 6th year ie my final year. They had sessions after sessions for those doing UCAS etc but for me nothing. Just passed the web address to the collage. Basically I was going to be a negative stat for them. It all about how many people gets As and how many got to uni.
faa19@reddit
Me too. I even got told I was "wasting my talents" in sixth form by not applying for uni and they did very little to support me because of that. I didn't want to go to uni, and I luckily picked a career path with training on the job and has other entry routes then just uni.
Familiar-Repeat-1565@reddit
Yeah I'm basically back in college now as an adult as I grew up in the system where trade school wasn't an option for an A grade student. I ended up burning out because I wasn't doing something I could see myself doing as job, but at the same time a degree isn't that useless as I understand the theory side better than my lecturers.
Pins89@reddit
Considerably so.
Iâve just qualified as a midwife- there were several students on my course who were fantastic in practice, knew everything they needed to know and handled the job beautifully, but theyâve had to resit due to academic work. Bear in mind, our academic work is rarely of great use to what we do in practice.
Then there are other students who are objectively terrible in practice, consistently negative feedback from all supervisors, admit they donât understand basic parameters etc who have passed and secured jobs because they managed to cram enough into their brains for assessments.
No_Ferret_5450@reddit
This is a skill thatâs needed in the modern workforce so best to teach kids They are leaning, they are also learning to play the gameÂ
fabulousteaparty@reddit
I remember having to literally learn essays for A-level psychology, I barely remember any of the content because we were given booklets of essays that we had to 'learn' for all the possible questions.
Surely an exam is meant to be about how well an individual has understood a topic and how they can apply that information rather than wrote learning?
user2021883@reddit
I (37M) found my school reports the other day. They tell the tale of a boy who loved science and engineering, but found the curriculum so boring and test-focused he completely lost interest.
Pre internet, school was the only way to learn about sciences where I lived. Who knows what I could have achieved had I actually been encouraged to explore the topics that interested me, rather than passing tests
vaskopopa@reddit
Itâs absolutely a dismal way to teach. My older two kids went through the US system and the youngest is now doing A levels here. I am also considering to become a teacher myself and have observed several lessons in schools here.
Every instruction is all about what can come up on the exam, what the examiners look for, and how to answer it in that way. Sometimes those answers are wrong or right in a different context (physics) but the kids must conform in order to get the grades. There is no attempt to make sure they actually understand the topic.
In USA, since there arenât standardized exams, each teacher grades the work. I had the impression that at least my kids were taught beyond the exams.
todamneedy@reddit
i can't get into this fully because i could talk for HOURS but i think the scope of what's being taught is also a huge issue. learning sign language would be a lot more beneficial than learning how to say "i live in a terraced house" in german. learning where countries are on the map would be a lot more beneficial than learning the names of the different types of clouds. i spent hours upon hours memorising quotes from books that i forgot immediately after the exam. i'd argue 99% of people leave school with little to no real life skills
irishesteban@reddit
Look at the state of the UK. You think if people were actually educated over the last 30 years it'd be in the mess it's in today?
Ok-Flamingo2801@reddit
Things in school, especially for younger kids, are simplified, sometimes to the point of inaccuracy. Kids just don't always have the level of understanding to be taught the full picture. Unfortunately that leads to adults who present incorrect information as 'something so simple even kids understand it' and to the classes only truely being useful for teaching to the exams, because if the kids want to study it at a higher level, they have to ignore a lot of what they were taught.
Due-Fail-6806@reddit
I dislike the driving test thing whereby students take 10-20 hours quickly, take test, pass ⌠but canât actually drive well.
HelloThisIsFlo@reddit
There's a reason why in machine learning and AI, we try really hard to prevent "overfitting". Overfitting being essentially the model remembering the training data, instead of building an understanding. We try to avoid this because a model that just remembers what it saw, but can't do anything with new data ... is pretty much useless.
Same with humans. Learning is about building an understanding. Simply remembering without understanding defeats the whole purpose.
That being said, the example you shared in your post is not necessarily something I'd consider as "remembering the questions". It actually encourages thinking about a problem in different ways. Now, the fact that the teacher framed this as "that way you have the answer for the test" is unfortunate. But the approach of experimenting with different methods, even inferior ones, builds mental flexibility and isn't bad at all.
Nothere481@reddit
I always thought I was smart because I did great in school/uni. Only when I started working I realised actually I was just great at rote learning since thatâs most of what was needed in school.
I feel like I had to figure out how to actually learn once I started my grad job which wasnât ideal
Popular-Mark-2451@reddit
A society of adults who are entirely confident in their entirely wrong opinions.
randomusername8472@reddit
IMO subjects like History, Geography, etc. aren't about directly teaching useful skills. Those kids aren't going to take their valuable tidal range measuring skills into the work force - if they enter that industry they'll learn what to do.
School is (should be) ultimately about problem solving. Understanding language, thinking about what the different causes and effects might be, or were, or have been. Building a model of the world in your head. Applying numbers, remembering facts.
Maths and language are how we engage with the world and people. But not everyone can handle 'maths' and 'english' as a subject. It's too abstract.
"When am I ever gonna use this sir!?"
But often, those kids that hate the abstact subjects love the applied ones.
Geography isn't to teach kids how to measure tidal ranges, it's to give them something interesting to read and some interesting problems to solve or think about how they were solved, and something 'useful' to measure.
DameKumquat@reddit
A lot of home educated kids do 5 or 6 GCSEs to prove they can pass exams, but beyond that, work on their own interests. I think there's a lot to be said for that approach, especially as GCSEs get more and more rigid with what words get the tickbox ticked, while other phrasing or deeper understanding doesn't.
Eton and other public schools used to not bother entering kids for exams in subjects they wanted to do for A-level, and start the A-level syllabus in the middle of y11, to keep them interested. If universities hadn't wanted at least 5 O-level/GCSE passes, they wouldn't have bothered with those exams at all.
ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit
I once read (in the TES!) that there was no test that teachers wonât find a way to teach to
SuboptimalOutcome@reddit
It goes all the way through every industry. You get what you measure, and the unspoken corollary, corners will get cut on everything that isn't explicitly measured.
Workers/bosses/teachers game the system. If you're contracts aren't air tight, suppliers will screw you on everything that isn't reflected in SLAs.
zq6@reddit
No shit... their job is to teach kids according to the metric given. It sounds like you're criticising them for doing exactly that.
Exams aren't a great way to test, but what's your solution?
ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit
No, Iâm quoting an insight from the TES
And of course itâs the sourcing that made it stick in my mind
SarkyMs@reddit
There isn't a single metric that people won't warp their behaviour towards you. Give hospitals a waiting list time. It won't help improve services. It'll just mean they'll find a workaround for having you on the waiting list. They'll have a waiting list for the waiting list.
carl84@reddit
What were the options again?
ARobertNotABob@reddit
Look at careers. "Everyone" is using standard STAR answers, have cribbed the role, and are imposters.
Dromeo@reddit
Personally I found getting the trick of keeping the perspective and needs of the 'reader' in mind when doing work -- in this case, the exam board or the marking criteria -- to be really handy later in life when it comes to actually fulfilling requirements for a job. Especially in programming, where you can waste a lot of time doing the wrong thing if you're not careful.Â
It certainly bent my brain a bit trying to get the hang of it at school!
inspectorgadget9999@reddit
It prepares them for the real world: hear me out.
I was on an all-hands-call and the head of the help desk was proudly showing charts of how his team are improving first call close rates.
Not 6 hours earlier, a ticket was sent to me as the SME. The ticket had very little information but was linked to another ticket. I opened the previous ticket and it said 'I need to pass this ticket over to the SME, I'll close this ticket and create you a new one and send it over'.
Gaming metrics is part of work life now, along with office small talk and brown nosing.
KindlyFirefighter616@reddit
No, thatâs great. You need to know the positives and negatives of different approaches.
Pedantichrist@reddit
The aim until postgraduate degrees is predominantly to learn how to learn, not to learn a topic specifically.
Learning different methods is a great way to develop critical training, and also understanding what the process is for, rather than just how to do it.
another_awkward_brit@reddit
I'm a driving examiner.
Every day I encounter customers who have this issue; they can't correct issues when reversing because they're only taught how to do a reverse maneuver a specific way, they can't cope with new junctions when they accidentally go off route because their instructor 'route bashes', and they have serious mirror observations faults because they're taught to look AT the mirrors to pass rather than IN them.
Think-Committee-4394@reddit
OP i would say
Study for a specific test is focused & limited value
Study of the wider subject brings depth & differing opinions, which encourages thinking
The area we fail in childrenâs education is in failing to teach critical thinking, writer A says this, writer B says that, but why? What is the motivation? Is there an underlying social belief? Does that alter the writing from fact to opinion?
Is there a third option the course fails to cover?
Why does society hold this to be true?
The deeper you think, the further you see!
himit@reddit
I think schools are teaching kids quite well. The example you gave is quite a good one - here, try this so you can experience and understand why it's a bad idea ("so you'll know it for the test" is really just the teaching version of "...or you'll get sick and die", which every parent with a child allergic to coats has said at least once).
I used to live in East Asia - that's where they really teach to the test, and tests are 99% multiple choice. There will be an essay question - the teacher writes an essay and has the class memorise it. The reason all those South Korean kids commit suicide is because, frankly, understanding isn't needed - you can be dumb as a brick, but if you put in the hours upon hours needed for rote memorisation, you'll get great marks. So kids who need extra help put in so many hours they barely sleep, and still struggle, and it spirals...
Anyway, as a result, kids hate all things learning-related. Adults don't like picking up new skills because there is one (1) way to learn - cracking open a textbook and sitting at your desk for hours. I've taken Taiwanese and Japanese kids to museums and they're interested in what's on disply, but they won't really engage with it.
But British kids? Drag even the worst-performing kid to a museum and they'll say "Hey, we learnt this in school! They said we used to...with this!" about at least a few of the things. We have a strain of anti-intellectualism, but that's more cultural, and primary schools aren't beating natural curiosity and innate learning out of the kids.
I will also say, the way we teach is kinder to kids who are neurodivergent - and I say this as someone who, as an adult, was diagnosed with the most severe case of adhd her psych had ever seen. We don't sit kids in rows and talk at them while they take notes. The teacher opens the lesson by explaining a concept, then discusses the next bit with the class, then doles out work and lets the students take a crack at figuring out the next bit, then talks a bit more about what they've done, then discusses with the class, and repeat... it's very interactive compared to many systems. It can be a bit messy and less hierachical, but it helps to keep kids engaged and thinking about the topic being taught. I've done a year of high school in Japan and university in Taiwan and frankly, if I'd grown up in that system I'd be one of the dumbest kids - instead of one of the students with top marks.
Private schools are a bit more high pressure, but overall I think our state schools are doing a great job with actually educating our kids - and they work hard to improve every day, too.
MrPogoUK@reddit
It seems more limiting than damaging on the whole; I remember at school occasionally getting âwhilst technically correct this is not the answer on the syllabus, so would score zero in your exams because itâs not what the person marking is looking forâ written on stuff where Iâd applied knowledge outside what weâd learnt in the classroom.
MrPogoUK@reddit
I also remember a French girl whoâd moved here doing terribly in French for the same reason:
When the teacher says (obviously I this would be in French) âGood morning Celine, how are you?â they want the âIâm very well, thank you madam. And how are you?â from the syllabus, not the âYeah, fine thanks. Yourself?â that come naturally to a French teenager!
MrPogoUK@reddit
I also remember a French girl whoâd moved here doing terribly in French for the same reason:
When the teacher says (obviously I this would be in French) âGood morning Celine, how are you?â they want the âIâm very well, thank you madam. And how are you?â from the syllabus, but âYeah, fine thanks. Yourself?â that come naturally to a French teenager!
UmaUmaNeigh@reddit
Can't speak for geography, but the science curriculum hasn't been updated since at least 2015, maybe earlier. When I was teaching in 2020-23 we were still teaching that a drawback of solar panels is that they're expensive, when actually they're now one of the cheapest sources of electricity available. With a high level class you can say, "Well this is outdated, but this is what you should say in the exam," but you don't want to risk confusing lower level classes.
They are currently investigating the entire curriculum though. An overhaul is incoming but it'll probably be a few years yet.
Chlorophilia@reddit
As someone who teaches undergrads at Oxford, there is a lot that I could say on this. But, in short, (1) yes it is undoubtedly causing damage but (2) blaming schools or even the government is probably missing the point, because it's symptomatic of the very difficult economy young people are finding themselves in.Â
WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit
One thing Iâd say about teaching to pass exams, it can be useful or detrimental depending on how itâs done. Teaching them how to understand questions and see what the question is looking for is a good skill. Whereas teaching them that this type of question always has this exact answer and you will always be asked two of these three. Thatâs stopping them learning how to deal with situations and just giving the âcheat sheetâ approach to life. To do the first one you need to know the subject. To do the second one you just learn answers to specific questions.
Any-Web-3347@reddit
Exams are such a stupid inaccurate test of effort and ability. Hard work, knowledge, intelligence can all count for nothing if you get exam nerves, get hay fever, catch a bug etc etc etc. People who did well under the exam system are keen to defend them as âproving you can work well under pressureâ. Actually itâs testing a niche kind of pressure , which isnât going to be reflected in the workplace. I think the only defence of them is that they are marked in an unbiased way. Schools have always taught children to pass exams, and they have to even more so nowadays when any kind of âfailureâ is widely publicised.
Roadiee985@reddit
Opposite here, coursework was the biggest headache. Give the correct answers, but it doesn't look colourful or pretty. A for attainment, D for effort :- You can do better here's a C/B.
Tracks with a scientific, technical mindset and I thrive in pressured dynamic environments, probably ADHD or acoustic.
Lammtarra95@reddit
It's not just teachers chasing league tables. It's also the kids chasing grades. A lot of schoolchildren (and university students) are not interested if "it's not on the test".
AstroBlush8715@reddit
Always going to be a problem. But the teacher is judged by how students perform on exams, as are students! So it's always going to happen.
At least if nothing else they'll remember that that's a shit way of doing things so they'll know which method is better.
But then there's a lack of application of knowledge, etc.
The main issues I'm seeing are maths and English. Maths they are unable to transfer skills into other subjects and English is just universally bad; they can't read or infer meaning from texts.
The whole curriculum needs a big shake-up.
DoItForTheTea@reddit
because the numbers are all upper management/council/whoever cares about, so we aim to perform to their metrics.
oliverprose@reddit
Goodhart's Law (and predecesors) still holding true
DoItForTheTea@reddit
100%
RainbowPenguin1000@reddit
Teaching them to pass the exams is the best of the two options really.
On the one hand it would be great if they were genuinely taught a subject and not just how to pass exams but realistically the teachers probably donât have time for this with the number of lessons they have.
So the alternative is just to teach them how to pass the exams which will help them get better jobs in the future and potentially a better life than if they just know a subject well.
So for that particular child and their future, the best option is being chosen.
Ambitious_Zombie667@reddit
I think it puts people off learning for fun.Â
Learning just becomes more like remembering a lot of stuff in a set pattern like a memory test rather than ever discovering something or understanding it.Â
I mean it's tough, you want to make sure kids leave school with a certain level of knowledge but there's no easy way to do that without tests, but too much pressure goes on tests.Â
Tests sort of just become a measure of progress for the school and the establishment rather than the kids themselves.
Additional-Nobody352@reddit
Exam grades influence so much sadly.
AutoModerator@reddit
Please help keep AskUK welcoming!
When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.