Tests and examinations are a central feature of school systems in many countries. Do you think the educational benefits of testing outweigh any disadvantages?

Exams and standardized tests seem to be the most common practice to evaluate students worldwide.

Although

it allows schools to assess larger numbers of individuals, it cannot be regarded as positive straightforwardly, since not everyone can show the best of one's abilities under the pressure of being timed. In my opinion,

such

standard modality should not be the only used one, despite its convenience timewise and in numbers.

To begin

with, the multiple intelligences theory, which is the concept that knowledge acquisition occurs in several different ways and is directly associated with the individual's personality, suggests that using a common practice to measure scholars' progress leave aside an important quantity of skilled individuals whose learning processes happen in a unique way and unconsciously reject the idea of being tested. As a clear example, the Colombian literature Nobel award Gabriel Garcia Marquez was ironically famous in his high school for being the one with the lowest scores in his Spanish class. Exams and standardized tests were precisely designed to be able to assess large numbers of students and to do it in a timely manner, which is good in terms of practicality.

However

, and in spite of the benefits, the fact that many pupils do not feel comfortable feeling the pressure of having to sit for an exam cannot be overlooked and schools around the globe should include a greater variety of ways to assess their alumni progress. Some pioneers in a more inclusive way of assessment are the Waldorf schools where kids are evaluated according to their own particular method of learning and at their own pace. To conclude,

although

, exams and tests are useful quantitatively, do not seem to be as effective qualitatively and more evaluation methods should be implemented.