Evaluation

Universities and schools are increasingly becoming manufacturers of degrees and diplomas—this is widely acknowledged. Rather than focusing on teaching true concepts and their applications, schools sometimes employ teachers who lack specialization in the subjects they are assigned to teach. Critical subjects such as philosophy, economics, psychology, and law, in their truest sense, along with cultural studies, are often missing from the curriculum. Moreover, many universities focus more on producing graduates who conform to rigid structures rather than nurturing independent thinkers.

True teaching, in my view, should spark curiosity within students, providing the initial push for them to pursue what excites them. It’s about introducing them to a small aspect of a subject and allowing them to discover their own paths. But that introduction—and the methodology used—are crucial. Persian poetry and literature are rich with examples of the student-teacher bond, a sacred transfer of knowledge that is not limited to technical expertise but encompasses the inheritance of humanity itself.

Such an approach reflects a holistic view of education, emphasizing knowledge, wisdom, and values. This tradition is largely missing today, as the system often strips away the human connection, causing a critical link in the chain of learning to be lost. The current system of standardized testing, devoid of such human connection, measures knowledge in isolation rather than as part of a more profound, life-enriching process.

The evaluation system is filled with shortcomings—from the overworked teacher attempting to grade fairly, to the inherent biases in question selection, time constraints, and observational biases. Cheating is also a significant issue, as technology now enables students to easily bypass these assessments using software solutions.

Research supports these observations. The Harvard Graduate School of Education, for instance, has shown that high-stakes exams increase stress levels, particularly among students from low-income backgrounds, negatively impacting both their performance and engagement with school. Similarly, studies from the Journal of Educational Research reveal that such exams often fail to capture true understanding, instead encouraging superficial memorization.

Additionally, findings from Edutopia highlight how time spent preparing for and taking tests detracts from opportunities for meaningful skill development and active learning. The National Education Association has shown that test-focused systems disproportionately affect minority students, amplifying socioeconomic disparities rather than bridging them. These exams often act as proxies for social and economic status, perpetuating inequalities rather than addressing them.

The Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley has documented the University of California's decision to eliminate SAT/ACT requirements due to evidence showing these tests favor students from higher-income families with access to extensive test preparation. Such a move marks a shift toward a more equitable admissions process that prioritizes consistent high school performance over standardized scores.

The Harvard Political Review notes that pressure to improve test scores often results in a narrowed curriculum, focusing primarily on test content rather than critical thinking and problem-solving. Research from Rethinking Schools further supports this, showing that crucial skills not measured by standardized tests are increasingly excluded from classrooms, leading to a decline in the overall quality of education.

FairTest analysis has found that states implementing multiple high-stakes exit exams often see lower graduation rates and reduced SAT scores, indicating that an overemphasis on these exams may undermine student success.

Countries like Finland, Singapore, Canada, and Norway are moving away from traditional exams. Finland, for example, adopts a student-centred approach that eliminates most standardized tests, emphasizing personalized learning and teacher autonomy, resulting in high student engagement and performance. Singapore’s “Teach Less, Learn More” initiative reduces stress by focusing on quality learning experiences, while Canada emphasizes teacher quality and inclusivity. Norway’s approach includes experiential learning, which minimizes stress and fosters lifelong learning.

Traditional exams are not the only—or even the best—method to assess student success. PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) evaluates 15-year-olds globally based on their ability to apply knowledge in real-world contexts, not merely their capacity for memorization. Leading countries like Finland, Singapore, and Canada consistently perform well, highlighting the effectiveness of their holistic, student-centred approaches.

Ultimately, we need to rethink our evaluation systems. Evaluation should not only determine if students have truly learned the material and are prepared for the next step but should also reflect how well the teacher and the educational system are functioning. Poor performance or failure in evaluations might indicate that the methodology used was ineffective, pointing to a shared responsibility rather than placing the burden solely on students. Evaluations should also assess whether students are ready for the workforce and the practical application of their skills, not just further academic progression.

What are your thoughts on reforming traditional exams?

References:

1. Geiser, S. (2017). The growing correlation between race and SAT scores: New findings from California. Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley.

2. Harvard Graduate School of Education. (n.d.). Research on standardized testing and its impact on low-income students.

3. Madaus, G. F. (1991). The effects of important tests on students: Implications for a national examination system. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 309–315.

4. Monty Neill. (2017). The dangerous consequences of high-stakes standardized testing. Rethinking Schools, 31(1).

5. National Education Association. (2017). The impact of high-stakes testing on minority students. NEA Research Department.

6. OECD. (2018). PISA 2018 results: What students know and can do. Paris: OECD Publishing.

7. Wexler, E. (2014). The politics of standardized testing. Harvard Political Review.

8. Barseghian, T. (2014). The problem with standardized tests. Edutopia.

9. FairTest. (2019). The case against high-stakes testing. National Center for Fair & Open Testing.