Formal examinations are the only effective way to assess a student's performance. Continual assessment such as course work and projects is not a satisfactory way to do this. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Nowadays, educational institutions have their own approach to assess

students

' performances. Meanwhile, some people believe that a formal examination is the most effective way of

knowledge

evaluation, others argue that

students

should be assessed continuously. In

this

essay, I will discuss both sides of the argument and explain my support of the latter view. Convincing arguments can be made that continual evaluation has manifold benefits.

Firstly

,

students

can demonstrate their proficiency during the semester, rather than an hour-long formal test. More specifically, if undergraduates fail one project they still have a chance to improve the final results.

Secondly

, continuous evaluation helps to assess not only

knowledge

but

also

abilities and potentials.

For instance

, some

students

have huge potential to

further

improve. Alternatively, formal tests can be an easy way of

knowledge

estimation. Teachers will not have to spend time on project assessments during a semester.

However

, undergraduates feel very nervous before a formal test, because they might fail and neglected by others for their "intellectual abilities".

Consequently

, nerves can adversely affect their performance and

additionally

, cause various mental issues.

For example

, in South Korea, many high school graduates commit suicides after exams, which has already become a national issue. It can be seen that formal tests are quite limited. To sum up, I would concede that formal examinations help to assess undergraduates quickly and require less effort from teachers. Despite that, I believe that

knowledge

, potential and abilities are important in a wholesome assessment,

therefore

formal exams should be only one part of the assessment system.