Testing Should I feel bad I didn't do well on an exam like this?

[Maths Absorber]

Yeah, I guess. Let's end it.

 

[Intrastellar]

The Spanish-French analogy is a bit misleading. It's more like a Spanish class starts, and then excited by Spanish language, one dwells deep into their history and their culture, the origin of some of the words with pleasing sounds from Latin(if that's the language Spanish is derived from. I don't know much about this.) and their original meanings, studies a bit about its grammatical structures but doesn't do well on the test because he didn't build his vocabulary enough. (Even though he will have a deeper understanding of the language both because it is motivated from interest and not gain, and because there's a deeper base of knowledge, and speak it better in the long run.)

This person will not be able to appreciate the next course in Spanish literature because he did not build his vocabulary enough. Had he learned his vocabulary well, he would have been able to read about the Spanish history through its own historians, and he would have been able to go to Spain to experience the culture directly through its people, both of which are much more fulfilling than doing them your way.

If you are planning to continue doing maths for a career, then most likely you have yet to discover the ideas or topics that are the most interesting to you. The last thing you want happening is that you stumble upon the most amazing thing, but fail to recognise that it is, due to your weak foundation.

 

[Maths Absorber]

Intrastellar, you have me beat on grounds by which I expanded the analogy. But, picking up words in vocabulary is much easier done and rather a trivial task when you have a lot of interest and are personally driven. Now, when that person moves on to studying Spanish literature on his own, he will automatically, spend a lot of time building his vocabulary which he couldn't do due to time constraints. If I was someone looking to hire some who knew Spanish, I'd rather hire someone who is internally motivated and fired up to learn the language and someone who did independent work as his interest lead him to explore other territories of his subject rather than someone who took the class merely because it was required for some other class or to meet some requisites or something, even though the latter may have scored more. I say this because the former person will genuinely continue learning and get better on the job. Let me explain in another way.

I'd rather go to a psychologist who had an inextinguishable curiosity about the cogs of the human mind, the mystery behind why people do what they do. Who observed people and took notes, who attended class with curiosity, who looked up psychologists in her spare time, explored one research paper (not required for her class) and then another which drew her down a rabbit hole and before long the entire day goes by where she was absorbed in interesting research, and she neglected to do her homework. Someone who visited her professor's room and asked her opinion about a research paper she liked, presented her own alternate interpretation of some of the data collected, opined that maybe if the experiment would be tweaked in this fashion the data would show another result and indulging her passion for the various flavours of human behaviour. Ask the professor about her favourite book and spoke about some of hers' and showed an interest in the professor's research.
As opposed to someone who made clear plans and goals for every day. Covered the required material at a good pace, but no more. Took diligent notes and made flashcards. Practised the old question papers and prepped herself well. Worked hard every day. Visited the professor and asked her how to best prepare for the exam, present the answers and which questions are most important and which material would be best suited to ace the exam. Someone who probably opted for psychology because she felt it was an easy major and would give her good career choices and a good lifestyle.

Both are hard working, but I prefer the former a great deal although I feel the system would not. All the exams would tell was who prepared better for the exams. But, it is not synonymous with who is more knowledgeable about psychology, who is driven more, read more and is more passionate about the subject (and therefore likely to retain and even build upon the knowledge for longer). If the former ever comes across a piece of knowledge in her own explorations later (some time after the final exam), she is more likely to remember it for longer and apply it better because she found it of her own interest whereas the latter is likely to forget a greater deal because it served the purpose it was meant to (exams). So, after graduating, the former will have a greater body of knowledge outside what is necessary for the daily operations of work and research because she is driven by interest and continues learning. That has been my whole point regarding the flaws of the system. The system would give no indication of this.

Regarding your point about my attaining an interest in a topic but not having a foundation in it. I don't think I would have interest in a topic with zero foundation unless I had at least some understanding of the foundation, otherwise I wouldn't understand it. Unless I saw a cool application of it. But, if I have a weak foundation and then feel like a topic is my calling, I shall go back and strengthen those once dry foundation with renewed rigour ! I shall have motivation and interest for studying it, which is why I didn't do it well the first time. Also, finding a topic you are interested in and then gaining the fundamentals is a more natural way of learning. Group theory and Galois theory wasn't developed on its own dryly. It was built as an apparatus for solving century old problems such as the duplication of the cube, trisection of the angle and the solution of the quintic. It was in an effort to solve these problems that the group was given the definition it was with its properties. It wasn't like someone arbitrarily granted a group those properties and then slowly built up to discover it could be used to prove these century old problems.

And Win, I don't know what you mean by a wrong mindset more than just a judgement extension of a culture that hates pride. I did work hard and I did know more than some people in a certain topic. I never said I know more than everyone on every topic. Surely, you don't believe everyone has exactly the same amount of knowledge in every single topic. If there is inequality of knowledge on topics, then by definition some people must know more and some less. It just so happens that these topics I knew more and there are other topics I know much less or nearly nothing, like electronic circuits and multivibrators. Is it because I said it in first person that it is politically incorrect and a wrong mindset ? Then, take aside my personal experience and consider the exact same situation about my classmate in Electronic Circuits. All the 'I' pronouns become 'he' so it's not really his mindset. The whole experience can't be dismissed as someone complaining because it's not him but someone else, who has no stake in his situation. The whole argument about the inherent design flaws of exams can't conveniently be dismissed as excuses because he's not saying it. All of that just diverts from the real issue here. I think I made a mistake in naming the thread. I should have called it "Are exams a deeply flawed benchmark ?" Instead of the more personal title which I gave it. That would probably have invited different kind of responses. I agree in there being a failure of planning, though.

Overall, I've noticed a very aggressive championing of learning for the attaining of grades, for the fulfilling of requirements, for the pragmatic purpose of opening doors in the future, over learning for the sheer joy and love of learning. The current system views exploring seductive domains of knowledge independently, as an unnecessary, even hindering impulse rather than a necessary, delicious ingredient of academic life. A difference of personal ideals and values will not let me agree with that. Maybe someday, a voice, more eloquent than my own will add further points to my cause.

 

[micromass]

I'd rather go to a psychologist who had an inextinguishable curiosity about the cogs of the human mind, the mystery behind why people do what they do. Who observed people and took notes, who attended class with curiosity, who looked up psychologists in her spare time, explored one research paper (not required for her class) and then another which drew her down a rabbit hole and before long the entire day goes by where she was absorbed in interesting research, and she neglected to do her homework. Someone who visited her professor's room and asked her opinion about a research paper she liked, presented her own alternate interpretation of some of the data collected, opined that maybe if the experiment would be tweaked in this fashion the data would show another result and indulging her passion for the various flavours of human behaviour. Ask the professor about her favourite book and spoke about some of hers' and showed an interest in the professor's research.
As opposed to someone who made clear plans and goals for every day. Covered the required material at a good pace, but no more. Took diligent notes and made flashcards. Practised the old question papers and prepped herself well. Worked hard every day. Visited the professor and asked her how to best prepare for the exam, present the answers and which questions are most important and which material would be best suited to ace the exam. Someone who probably opted for psychology because she felt it was an easy major and would give her good career choices and a good lifestyle.

Honestly? I would prefer the second person. Why? The second psychologist has a broad knowledge of everything, and so can recognize a ton of mental illnesses, and can help me. The former might have a broad and extensive knowledge of a small thing like depression, but knows nothing about anxiety disorders. Well, if I happened to suffer from anxiety, I would not be helped with the first psychologist.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'd rather go to a psychologist who had an inextinguishable curiosity about the cogs of the human mind, the mystery behind why people do what they do. Who observed people and took notes, who attended class with curiosity, who looked up psychologists in her spare time, explored one research paper (not required for her class) and then another which drew her down a rabbit hole and before long the entire day goes by where she was absorbed in interesting research, and she neglected to do her homework. Someone who visited her professor's room and asked her opinion about a research paper she liked, presented her own alternate interpretation of some of the data collected, opined that maybe if the experiment would be tweaked in this fashion the data would show another result and indulging her passion for the various flavours of human behaviour. Ask the professor about her favourite book and spoke about some of hers' and showed an interest in the professor's research.

You are forgetting that THAT psychologist must already have a degree to practice, and have been certified to be competent. In other words, someone or some institution has evaluated the competency of that person to be a psychologist!

The issue here has NEVER been about learning MORE. You keep harping back to learning all these stuff. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU NOT TO DO THAT!

The issue here is the soundness of the FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE that has been deemed to be so necessary, that it is taught in a class with a strict syllabus!

We teach people stuff in science/math class NOT because we want them to mimic and repeat things, but so that they know when something NEW happens! This is what is involved in undergraduate curriculum. It appears that you are very unfamiliar with what happens in graduate programs, as if the same type of education occurs there! This is absolutely incorrect!

These exams are supposed to check if you have sufficient knowledge of what has been deemed to be important. If you suck at those, then the exams will reflect that. That's it!

I also put it to you that as someone who is still going through the process, you really do not have a clear understanding on the importance of these things, when compared to someone who has gone through the entire process and can see what happened AFTER school. All you have is some idealized scenario and a romanticized version of what it means to be in such-and-such a field.

So who do you think you have been talking to on here and what makes you think you know more than those who have had more years working in some of these areas?

I think I'm done with this, because I see this as a total waste of time. You've already made up your mind, and are using this as simply a means not to have a "discussion", but rather to simply spew out an opinion, which, in MY opinion, is based on ignorance and lack of enough information. As I've said, go on and do whatever it is you're doing. I'm done.

Zz.

 

[Mark44]

I agree with you that the standardised tests does mean something. But, the spirit of my argument in this thread has been to question whether it should, given its very obvious limitations I explained in its scope and with the anecdote.

Yes, they should mean something, at least until someone comes up with a better yardstick to evaluate a student's mastery of the material.

Well, life is short and everybody's personal temperament is different. After I reach home through all the traffic, I'm generally exhausted and fall asleep by 8 or 9. And I have to wake up at 4 the next day. I spent a lot of time and energy every day to study till fatigue generally overtook me. What do you know about my life, or what I do, or really anything to come on here and call me lazy ? So, with the very little amount of time and energy, that I had to study, I chose to spend it on studying what I like.

A sure recipe for failure or at best, a mediocre grade.

Sure, in hindsight, you could say I should have spent it on coursework. But, the irony was that if I was, then it would soon lose my interest and I wouldn't be able to spend as much time as I was in the first place.

Yes, you should have spent more time on the coursework, and less time on just those things that interest you the most. Once you have studied the topics that are listed in the syllabus, or are reasonably sure that you'll be tested on, only then can you spend extra time looking into topics that you find more enjoyable. If you prioritize things in the opposite order, you'll find that your grades suffer (which seems to be the motivation for starting this thread).

That's my personal temperament. I learn better when I am interested in the subject rather than interested in what I can do with the knowledge of a subject (Like clear a standardised test that 'gatekeeps' something.) . The latter has not been a good motivator for me.

For example, consider the Pigeonhole Principle. I spent a lot of time and energy studying the Pigeonhole principle and did many problems on it with rather advanced difficulty. But, in the final exam, only an elementary 3 mark question was asked. It didn't test any of the knowledge I had acquired and since many would score those three marks it would be easy to conclude that everyone is equally competent with the Pigeonhole Principle, which it isn't.

Did you have any reason to believe that the test would cover only the Pigeonhole Principle? If not, becoming the class expert on this principle was a foolish choice.

The Spanish-French analogy is a bit misleading. It's more like a Spanish class starts, and then excited by Spanish language, one dwells deep into their history and their culture, the origin of some of the words with pleasing sounds from Latin(if that's the language Spanish is derived from. I don't know much about this.) and their original meanings, studies a bit about its grammatical structures but doesn't do well on the test because he didn't build his vocabulary enough. (Even though he will have a deeper understanding of the language both because it is motivated from interest and not gain, and because there's a deeper base of knowledge, and speak it better in the long run.)

I disagree. You will not have a deeper understanding of Spanish if you haven't spent time learning the vocabulary, verb conjugation, verb tenses, et cetera. You are deluding yourself if you think that knowing that a few words are derived from Latin and a few are derived from Arabic or the history of Spain will allow you to speak the language better "in the long run."

In any case, the analogy given earlier was that a student was taking Spanish, but decided on his own that he wanted to study French. The question was, should the student be given a good grade for the Spanish class?

I never did any of this to 'rally against the system' and to prove a point. I spent time studying what I liked because I liked it. For the love of learning. Simple. It's only at the end of this semester I realized that my studying for pleasure has been punished by the system.

A better way to think of this is to recognize that your weren't rewarded for choosing to study what you fancied instead of what was expected of you in the course.

Learning has been reduced to a business-like job that needs to be done with required specifications much like an industrial product. If the specifications are met, the reward is glorious marks ! If they aren't, then the marks aren't given.

Welcome to the real world...

My whole point here is that that is all marks do. They aren't a true gauge of competence or knowledge. Merely the preparation for them. Marks end up rewarding the outlook of learning in order to fulfil certain requirements over the outlook of learning for pleasure and going happily where the love of learning leads naturally. I'm not sure that should be the case.

Everyone who has responded in this thread has said that, if you ignore the published requirements for the class (as described in the syllabus), but choose instead to do what pleases you instead, you shouldn't expect anything more than a middling grade.

Because when you learn because you want to and not because you have to you learn more and remember it longer, and that would make for better research or job performance. You're more likely to remember, retain and use it later in life. But, if everyone studies only what they have to, and postpones what they like to a later time that never arrives, they aren't likely to remember it for long because there isn't any emotional connection to the knowledge other than exam stress notwithstanding exam success.

Exams are a good way of gauging if someone can get the job done if they know what is expected of them. But, I don't think it is a good way of gauging the knowledge of understanding of the domain it tests because someone who knows a lot about the domain may not have succeeded due to other factors like poor planning, foresight and prioritising.

At no point in time, did I consciously decide not to study some of the content of the course. Whenever, I have to decide what to study, I generally choose to go for what I like. I never made a conscious long term choice to not study some topics. It's a choice that end up being made by time's strict hand. And, yes, I guess I struggle with long term thinking and planning and prioritising. So, generally I chose to spend time in the present studying what I wanted and postponed studying for the exam later, which somehow never happened. Rather than do it the other way around. But, it's something I'll try to change this semester.

It annoys you that I choose to study what I like in the order of my interest, curiosity and passion in the true spirit of learning, rather than follow an outline prescribed by someone else to be rewarded with marks like a rabbit chasing a carrot on a stick ?

It doesn't annoy us (if I can speak for the others here) -- what is annoying is that you have described your situation where you're receiving a low grade in the class, and refuse to accept the consequences of your choices. We don't care that you choose to study X when your course is about Y. What's bothersome is your whining about how unfair the system is, how unfair exams are, etc. etc.

Frankly, I'm someone on the Internet you've never even met. I don't understand why anything I do with my life should annoy you, or why you're getting personal here.

 

[Mark44]

In answer to the question in your thread title: Should I feel bad I didn't do well on an exam like this?
Yes
Since the question has been asked and answered, I'm closing this thread.