Do You Believe Some People "Just Don't Test Well?"

[JumpyTheFrog]

I'm not asking about whether tests do a good job focusing on which areas to cover. I'm wondering whether neurotypical kids without severe anxiety issues ever regularly do poorly on tests when they actually know the material.

 

I tutored a girl in alegbra last year. Her guardians told me that she "didn't test well." I think the real problem is that they/she/the school seemed to think that her mostly understanding an example as a teacher did it was the same thing as having mastered the material. When I gave her problems to do, it was clear she didn't handle exponents properly or distribute correctly. In short, she got Cs because she made the same mistakes over and over and the teachers never noticed and said, "Hey, you need extra practice in these few things."

[Crimson Wife]

Some kids have issues with timed tests in math and do significantly better when they are allowed unlimited time (even if they actually finish before what would be the normal time allotment). Researchers have found that girls are more likely to fall into that category than boys. For example, see this story: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/competitive-timed-tests-might-be-contributing-to-the-gender-gap-in-math/274406/

[CrunchyGirl]

Does it occur? Yes. Is it As common as most people would like to believe? No.

[73349]

Yes, although in the two cases I'm thinking of, it's really the matter of time limits rather than tests specifically.

My DH can do brilliant things if he can decide how long to spend on them. (We were on our high school's math team together. I was great at the sixty-problems-in-sixty-minutes kind of competitions. He was the master of three-impossible-problems-before-lunch stuff. He's a software engineer now, while I quit math after Calc 2.)

The girl I used to tutor was a dramatically better writer with a whole afternoon rather than half an hour to respond to a prompt. After a lot of practice, her test-taking writing improved--she got a 4 on the AP English Language test--but the difference is remarkable when she has more time to edit herself.

[regentrude]

Yes.

Some students have test anxiety that prevents them from showing their subject mastery in a test situation. I teach at a college and encounter such students on a regular basis; their every day work and participation in discussions shows that they know the material, but they go completely blank on a test. There are various strategies one can employ to mitigate this, but yes, test anxiety can be debilitating.

Some students stress in a classroom test situation and do much better when the same test is administered to them in a private room. I was successful in helping an anxiety prone student last semester by seating her in the front row for testing so that she could tune out the other students- for her this worked like magic.

 

Also, students with various learning issues may have trouble with distractability or with timed tests. I have several students each semester who have a disability accommodation for distraction free testing and extra time.

 

Of course, there are also students who simply do not know the subject and who blame their underperformance on "not testing well" instead of not working hard enough.

[catz]

I think it absolutely can be true. I always pulled A's in school and did fine on regular school style tests. But my standardized test scores always were below what I should have expected given my levelling, grade point average, and place in my graduating class. I think I tend to overthink simple problems and/or zone out and struggle a little with the time management required to do well on standardized tests. Actually, when I was testing for grad school, I suddenly could do spectacular on them. I think that skill just trailed for me a bit. My kids are the same way. Maybe if we fought to get a label, we might be somewhere on the extremely mild ADD/ADHD spectrum?

 

We are required to test my kids annually with a standardized test and they regularly do very well on the first couple sections and then things might dwindle. Actually, last year my oldest did the EXPLORE and finally like 6 years into standardized testing did his scores almost reflect what I think he should get. He did not make huge academic leaps last year to account for that, but he did gain some focus and independence. I'm actually glad that my kids have to test annually, because for them, this is definitely a skill to practice.

 

But in the case of a kid who isn't fluent with classroom work and then not testing well? Well, ummm, no. That seems obvious. If she were rock solid on concepts (which would be reflected in homework,etc) and went into panic mode when the clock or something along those lines was one, yes.

[Hunter]

Some students just think differently than the test makers. When my son took practice tests, and asked me question by question to explain to him how a "normal" person would choose between the available answers, he had me in stitches.

 

I still remember the question about the color of polar bears. According to my son, polar bears are black skinned with clear fur that only looks white. He chose white, because he thought that is what typical adults would ask normal children, but told me that black was the right answer.

[Hunter]

Oh, and I wanted to say, my son scored higher on harder tests than easier ones. He had covered material years ahead of his age, and if he got even a few of those "hard" questions right, it gave him a higher score, than getting a bunch of age level questions correct.

[catz]

Some students just think differently than the test makers. When my son took practice tests, and asked me question by question to explain to him how a "normal" person would choose between the available answers, he had me in stitches.

 

I still remember the question about the color of polar bears. According to my son, polar bears are black skinned with clear fur that only looks white. He chose white, because he thought that is what typical adults would ask normal children, but told me that black was the right answer.

Oh,this is a great point and definitely an issue for out of the box kids, including mine.

[stripe]

Asking about the test takers' race/gender has been shown to decrease their performance. The thought is that it makes women and certain ethnic groups stressed.

 

[regentrude]

Asking about the test takers' race/gender has been shown to decrease their performance. The thought is that it makes women and certain ethnic groups stressed.

 

That's bizarre.

[stripe]

That's bizarre.

Here are some references:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html

http://steele.socialpsychology.org/  {if you go under Publications, there is a link to the PDF of "A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance."}

[KSinNS]

I always test very well, so I suspect it goes the other way too. I could always score far beyond what I actually knew, especially on standardized tests. The reason I was good at tests was actually the same reason I was good at figuring out software: I could guess the underlying "meaning" of the question, so I could usually guess what the examiner was thinking. A few good timing strategies and I was in like flynn. My sister, on the other hand (who to be fair had untreated ADD) was always a terrible test taker. I'd missed a bunch of classes once in university, so she taught me the chemistry course we were taking together. She got 75% and I got 95%. Boy was she mad! Just goes to show, tests are really not the be-all and end-all. 

[8filltheheart]

You mean like my dd that has to pull over to the side of the road and throw up on the way to major tests?   Yes, there are some people that don't handle testing pressure well.    Then there are people like my ds who is dyslexic and reads slowly and test scores simply don't reflect his real abilities b/c he just can't finish the test in X amt of time.

 

I have also run into instances where my oldest dd can't skim multiple choice tests and just pick the best option as the answer.   She will over think things and have this long debate with herself about how the different answers could be justified.     But, ask the same question as an essay question and she would ace the exam.

[ItoLina]

I think it also depends on the type of test. I have always done really well on multiple choice tests because I am good and eliminating the incorrect answers. On the other hand, I never once passes a high school geometry test where I had to do proofs and list all my steps correctly to get the problem right. I didn't study, so of course I couldn't do it, and there really is no amount of faking or process of elimination that could help there.

[wapiti]

Specifically with respect to the time issue, I often wonder why standardized tests, e.g. the SAT, are timed so tightly (IMO).  I recall having to race through reading comprehension sections in order to finish (I had a good score, but it could have been better with a little more time).  I'm so glad there wasn't a writing section (eta, essay) back then - how long is it - 25 min?  Crazy.

[KSinNS]

Specifically with respect to the time issue, I often wonder why standardized tests, e.g. the SAT, are timed so tightly (IMO).  I recall having to race through reading comprehension sections in order to finish (I had a good score, but it could have been better with a little more time).  I'm so glad there wasn't a writing section back then - how long is it - 25 min?  Crazy.

Couldn't agree more. I often thought in the standardized tests I wrote that time was the primary problem that the examiners wanted you to solve. So the tests were often discriminating not on knowledge or critical thinking or wisdom or anything useful like that, but on the ability to read, eliminate, guess fast and not think too hard or look back. Not sure those are the characteristics we should be testing for. 

[Haiku]

Yes. My dd only managed an 18 on the ACT on her third try, with testing accomodations and 6 hours to take the test. Before that she scored a 13 and a 14.

 

She's a freshman at a private liberal arts college, majors in biology, and made the dean's list her first semester. She was also put straight into 200-level chem classes based on her high school performance.

 

Tests don't reflect her abilities.

[Crimson Wife]

That's bizarre.

You want to hear something even more bizarre? Female students who are first asked to try on a bathing suit and then a little while later (after they've changed back into their regular clothes) take a math test do significantly worse than when they are asked to try on a sweater. And these were students at a really good college (IIRC it was Michigan, but I'm not 100% sure about that). I took a Social Psychology class from Prof. Claude Steele, whose area of interest at the time was the "stereotype threat", so he spent a good portion of the course on the topic. It was really interesting, but also depressing.

[Paige]

My DS is a poor standardized test taker. If I have him do the test orally, he scores much better. I watched him do a practice test once and he would verbally say the correct answer and then click on the wrong one. I have no idea why he does that, but he did it often enough that it couldn't have been an anomaly. When he was in school, he always did horribly on their placement tests scoring into reading levels well below his true abilities.

[regentrude]

You want to hear something even more bizarre? Female students who are first asked to try on a bathing suit and then a little while later (after they've changed back into their regular clothes) take a math test do significantly worse than when they are asked to try on a sweater.

 

Could you explain why exactly that was? Does it have something to do with negative body image? Or what exactly does the bathing suit mess up?

[OneStepAtATime]

Yes, as PPs have mentioned, I think some students do not do well in a standardized test environment, especially if they know there is a time limit.  Many worry more about the time than actually answering the questions.  They also feel more pressured, sometimes by quite a bit.  When my DD took her 1st standardized test in 1st grade, she scored the highest in the class.  Why?  Well, for one thing, I didn't talk about the test at all.  We didn't do anything to call attention to it because I knew she always got stressed on tests that had been emphasized as being important.  In 3rd grade, the teacher did nothing but talk about how critical it was they take the test seriously and how they better do well or they might not even make it to 4th grade, etc.  She froze and didn't even finish it.  

 

However, I also think you are correct that frequently teachers assume a child has mastered material when they have only learned how to regurgitate well enough to get good grades on in-class tests when actually they have not mastered the material at all.  If a standardized test words something somewhat differently or presents information using different wording than they are used to then the child may not know the material nearly well enough to recognize that the question is asking basically the same thing as what they have already learned how to do.

 

Edited to add that my DD is also dyslexic, and with the 1st grade test the questions were read orally, while by 3rd grade she had to read it herself, so that was definitely a factor, but she was so stressed before she even got to school that she threw up that morning and did not sleep at all the night before.  And when she got home she burst into tears and told me she was afraid she would never finish 3rd grade because she knew the test hadn't gone well and her teacher said she had better do well or she would be really unhappy with everyone since the test was easy.  This is an extreme case, but some kids, even with a little external pressure, do not do well on tests.

[Momling]

Sure - some people get really stressed out or don't know the little tricks to do well on multiple choice tests or don't bubble we'll or just don't care to try very hard. On the other hand, I've heard my students or their parents claim they didn't test well when I know perfectly well they just didn't know the material... It can be a powerful excuse for some.

[lewelma]

Some tests don't actually test true ability. My ds is too slow to do well on a timed maths test, but in an untimed test was able to make it into the NZ math Olympiad training camp. When in the real world do you actually do math under time pressure? The answer : not very often.

 

Ruth in NZ

[In The Great White North]

A test is a performance, just like speaking in public or an athletic competition.  Some people freeze; others thrive on it.  Sometimes they have to "be in the zone".   Obviously, not knowing the material will leave a kid "out of the zone".

 

Aside from all that, the way some multiple choice tests are written (choose the best answer), actually test the kid's test-taking skills more than the material being tested.  When the kid has to choose between four wrong answers, or three right answers, there will be kids who know the material and still fail the test.  Red Cross tests (First Aid CPR, Lifesaving) and the written driver's tests have been notorious for this for years now.  A properly written test, with only one correct answer, would eliminate most of these issues.

 

I notice I never hear about kids who "don't test well" when they are taking an essay test.

[IsabelC]

Absolutely. 

Learning and applying the subject matter is one skill. Taking tests is another skill. To do well you usually have to have both skills. 

(Moreover, I think that some kids of tests actually disadvantage the stronger students. I'm sure some people will be familiar with the scenario where you are taking a multichoice quiz and there is a question with two possibly correct answers. You are only allowed to select one. One answer is the obvious one, while the other is the more complicated but slightly more correct one. You sit there an agonize over which is the one "they want you to choose", while your less studious classmate happily chooses the obviously correct answer, oblivious to the other.)

[IsabelC]

Could you explain why exactly that was? Does it have something to do with negative body image? Or what exactly does the bathing suit mess up?

 

Trying on bathing suits (or lingerie or anything that reveals "body flaws") reduces women's and girls' confidence. Lower confidence pulls down results in any test, but especially in tests where females are traditionally outperformed by males. 

 

Psychological state has a significant effect on results, and you don't have to have a clinically significant level of anxiety to feel anxious in a test environment: most "normal" people experience some degree of anxiety, and will have coping strategies of varying effectiveness. 

[creekland]

I'm not asking about whether tests do a good job focusing on which areas to cover. I'm wondering whether neurotypical kids without severe anxiety issues ever regularly do poorly on tests when they actually know the material.

 

I tutored a girl in alegbra last year. Her guardians told me that she "didn't test well." I think the real problem is that they/she/the school seemed to think that her mostly understanding an example as a teacher did it was the same thing as having mastered the material. When I gave her problems to do, it was clear she didn't handle exponents properly or distribute correctly. In short, she got Cs because she made the same mistakes over and over and the teachers never noticed and said, "Hey, you need extra practice in these few things."

 

 

Does it occur? Yes. Is it As common as most people would like to believe? No.

 

:iagree:  It almost seems like "S/He doesn't test well is the go to answer for anything in today's age."  I'm most familiar with math/science tests and SAT/ACT.  I've worked at our high school for 14/15 years now.  In that time I've only seen a handful of truly "bad" testers and a couple of handfuls who let anxiety over standardized tests get to them - generally due to the timing rather than the content.

 

I've seen "oodles" - more than I can count - who have memorized the math and/or science they are doing and can do the current homework or test off memorization rather than knowledge.  Then, when these kids get into mixed tests (ACT, Final, Test/question when they weren't expecting it, etc) they do horribly as they don't know when to use what or haven't refreshed their memory.  To me, these aren't poor testers, they are poor learners (sometimes with excellent grades).

 

It's extremely rare when a score comes back that surprises me (high or low).

 

And remember, just because a student scores high on the SAT/ACT it doesn't mean they are going to be super successful in college or life.  Those tests don't test for work ethic - a much needed component in college or life.  Generally math scores (esp ACT) and doing well in math dependent majors (like Engineering) are more closely aligned - again - work ethic also comes into play.  I've also heard there's a big correlation between ACT scores and MCAT scores (most scoring within 2 points on the tests).  I'm not sure there's much correlation elsewhere.

[Butter]

My daughter doesn't test well.  She never has.  My mom apparently was the same way.  In fact, my mom chose not to go to college because the thought of having to take more tests was too much for her.

 

I'll give you an example.  In biology a few months ago, Ani went to extra tutoring during 5th period lunch with her teacher on a test day (and was one of only three kids who showed up for the tutoring session).  She *knew* the material.  Totally knew it.  Anything her teacher asked, she knew.  8th period she took the test... and got a 61.  Her teacher said the problem is she over-thinks the questions and second guesses herself constantly.  Ani says as soon as she sits down for a test everything just flies out of her head.  Her teacher, knowing she knew that material, let her come in and make test corrections and while district policy is you can only get a 70 at the highest if you do corrections, the bio teacher (who also has test anxiety so completely gets this problem), let her correct as high as she could get the grade.  (Basically let her re-do the answers she originally got wrong to try to make them right.)

 

So, yeah.  Not testing well is a definite thing.

[8filltheheart]

(Moreover, I think that some kids of tests actually disadvantage the stronger students. I'm sure some people will be familiar with the scenario where you are taking a multichoice quiz and there is a question with two possibly correct answers. You are only allowed to select one. One answer is the obvious one, while the other is the more complicated but slightly more correct one. You sit there an agonize over which is the one "they want you to choose", while your less studious classmate happily chooses the obviously correct answer, oblivious to the other.)

This is my dd to a T.

[Catherine]

I raised two excellent test takers, and one terrible test taker. Though in reality, the poor tester is only 12 and has had almost no experience taking tests. I can see the writing on the wall though. He would have so many problems-he's very slow, he makes SO many errors of the kind that have nothing to do with understanding: transposing digits, miscalculations of various kinds, misreading questions and answers, skipping questions, getting lost on the answer sheet. An evaluator recently asked me how long I had been having him drill math facts. Umm, seven years, so far. And he still can't calculate with perfect accuracy and certainly can't go fast. So there's more than an issue with his understanding of math facts. He is "dyslexic for math" in a way that isn't really fixable with practice.

 

Yet I know that his grasp of math concepts is very good. I've also observed that as he ages, he is doing better, I think because math is becoming more conceptual and less rote.

 

So I do think that compared to his grasp of the material, his performance on tests will always be weak.

[SarahW]

 He would have so many problems-he's very slow, he makes SO many errors of the kind that have nothing to do with understanding: transposing digits, miscalculations of various kinds, misreading questions and answers, skipping questions, getting lost on the answer sheet. An evaluator recently asked me how long I had been having him drill math facts. Umm, seven years, so far. And he still can't calculate with perfect accuracy and certainly can't go fast. So there's more than an issue with his understanding of math facts. He is "dyslexic for math" in a way that isn't really fixable with practice.

 

Yet I know that his grasp of math concepts is very good. I've also observed that as he ages, he is doing better, I think because math is becoming more conceptual and less rote.

 

So I do think that compared to his grasp of the material, his performance on tests will always be weak.

 

Off-topic - but have you investigated the possibility that he has dyscalculia?

 

My husband has that - he can discuss theoretical physics and calculus fine, but sit him down in front of a multi-digit subtraction problem and he'll weep. And a test with a separate bubble sheet would cause him enormous frustration.

 

 

"Labeling" can be a tough cookie, but with a label you can get accommodations on most standardized tests. For those students with real difficulties these accommodations are necessary to "equalize" the outcomes.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Now how does all this fit in with countries that rely on college entance exams, cumulative finals, and high school exit exams? I know things are high pressure in some Asian countries, but what about Europe? Laura has mentioned the various tests students take in the UK. It seems like if any state in the US set up similar requirements, parents and students might have a meltdown. What do British students do? Laura said everything is based on test scores, not grades in class.

I'm more concerned that we're raising a nation of good test takers.  That is, kids who know how to cram for an exam, get a bunch of information into their short-term memory the night before a test, have good test taking skills and strategies, do well on the test, and forget most of it the day after the test.

[8filltheheart]

Now how does all this fit in with countries that rely on college entance exams, cumulative finals, and high school exit exams? I know things are high pressure in some Asian countries, but what about Europe? Laura has mentioned the various tests students take in the UK. It seems like if any state in the US set up similar requirements, parents and students might have a meltdown. What do British students do? Laura said everything is based on test scores, not grades in class.

I do not believe the format is the same as the simple multiple choice exams here. I have no problem with tests that require deep critical thinking and understanding. What I object to are tests like KS in NS described (and I agree with this description.)

 

. I often thought in the standardized tests I wrote that time was the primary problem that the examiners wanted you to solve. So the tests were often discriminating not on knowledge or critical thinking or wisdom or anything useful like that, but on the ability to read, eliminate, guess fast and not think too hard or look back. Not sure those are the characteristics we should be testing for.

[Meriwether]

I am only familiar with a few countries' exit exams, but at least some of them are essay based or oral. Those allow you to show what you know more than multiple choice.

[Mrs Twain]

Students get better at standardized tests if they practice.  I am not saying that is the only factor, but it is one important factor.  Many students who "don't test well" may not have practiced the required test format.  One of the components I add to my curriculum is standardized test practice.

 

[creekland]

I'm more concerned that we're raising a nation of good test takers.  That is, kids who know how to cram for an exam, get a bunch of information into their short-term memory the night before a test, have good test taking skills and strategies, do well on the test, and forget most of it the day after the test.

 

:iagree:  I see this happening WAY too often - way, way too often.  It's definitely more common than poor test takers.

 

Students get better at standardized tests if they practice.  I am not saying that is the only factor, but it is one important factor.  Many students who "don't test well" may not have practiced the required test format.  One of the components I add to my curriculum is standardized test practice.

 

This is something important for many.  No matter how one feels about it, one is unlikely to change the system.  Practice can, indeed, help significantly for most students - the same as how one gets better on any job after they've been doing it for a while.  It's well worth it for many.  Now only if I had been able to convince my youngest of that pesky little detail... :glare:

[kiana]

There definitely are poor test-takers, but lack of knowledge should be ruled out first before declaring oneself 'just a bad test-taker'.

 

I routinely have students in math classes who declare that they are just bad test-takers. They are doing well on the homework because they do it with the book open to example problems, but cannot do well on tests without the book. This, in my mind, makes them bad studiers rather than bad test-takers.

 

But I have also (more rarely) seen students who in class were interested, engaged, answering the questions as soon as I asked them with correct answers, who received unbelievably low test scores. It does happen.

[bttrflyvld]

I do believe that some kids don't test well.  The pressure of being timed, like for a sat can add undue stress and won't truly show what a student knows. My husband for exapke is currently working on his masters degree, though he's older that our homeschool kids, doesn't test well.  He has a GPA of 3.85 and gets A's in his 6000 level classes, yet he struggled with the GRE.  If that test hadn't been timed, he would have nailed it.  How to take a test is almost a subject in itself.  There really is a learning curve to it.  I plan on testing my children, even though it's not neccesary for our state, but I think they do need to learn how to take tests so when they enter college that won't be an issue.

[Amy Jo]

Yes. Probably over-used, but I know people who just don't do well on tests, despite knowing the material.

[texasmama]

Grown-up anecdotal stories :) :

 

I have a professional license which requires an exam.  Through the years, I have supervised about 15 professionals who are working on this license.  Of those I have kept up with, I know that two of them were unable to pass the licensing exam.  These were very knowledgeable and adept practitioners, but they "did not test well".  For folks in this position, an alternate licensing method is available. 

 

One of my current supervisees who just completed her two years of supervised practice under me will be taking the licensing exam shortly.  I know that she failed the lower level licensing exam for our profession the first time she took it, and she passed it the second time.  This woman has a Ph.D and is quite capable and accomplished in many ways, yet I am a bit nervous about her ability to pass this licensing exam.  She does not "test well". 

[Crimson Wife]

Now how does all this fit in with countries that rely on college entance exams, cumulative finals, and high school exit exams? I know things are high pressure in some Asian countries, but what about Europe? Laura has mentioned the various tests students take in the UK. It seems like if any state in the US set up similar requirements, parents and students might have a meltdown. What do British students do? Laura said everything is based on test scores, not grades in class.

My parents are good friends with a lady who immigrated from Finland. She had bombed the high school entrance exam and got tracked into secretarial school. In her 20's, she decided that she wanted more out of life but she could not attend university in Finland because of the poor test score back when she was an adolescent. So she came to the U.S. and wound up becoming a pharmacist. For folks who aren't familiar with PharmD. programs, they are probably harder from an academic standpoint than med school because of all the biochem courses required. So clearly, my parents' friend is extremely bright and Finland totally blew it in not giving her a second chance.

[Farrar]

My parents are good friends with a lady who immigrated from Finland. She had bombed the high school entrance exam and got tracked into secretarial school. In her 20's, she decided that she wanted more out of life but she could not attend university in Finland because of the poor test score back when she was an adolescent. So she came to the U.S. and wound up becoming a pharmacist. For folks who aren't familiar with PharmD. programs, they are probably harder from an academic standpoint than med school because of all the biochem courses required. So clearly, my parents' friend is extremely bright and Finland totally blew it in not giving her a second chance.

 

I've seen other stories like this and I think it's really an interesting question for our educational system that isn't often addressed in the wider debate.  Many of the countries we would like to emulate in terms of their test scores and educational performance are countries like Finland that do have these make or break tests.  That's true of Asian and European nations.  But one of the things that makes our country strong is that there are second chances that lead to people who are great contributors like that.  How do we keep those second chances and yet place enough emphasis on high performance all the way through?  I'm not sure, but I know that I really like that the US has those opportunities for reinvention.

[Korrale]

I did well at taking tests. And when I was in school results often were what we expected. The students that knew the work, contributed in class discussion did well. The ones that didn't know the work, were inactive in class discussion did so so.

But the difference I think is when I went to school we had a lot of tests. From 3rd to 10th grade every single teacher I had started Maths lesson or class with a quiz.

In highschool I was doing weekly tests for my classes. Sometimes several tests a week due to the amount of classes I was doing We didn't do much for homework but we sure did tests. They weren't multiple choice tests. I have done very few of those in my life time and those were mostly online things for fun. We had mostly short answer tests.

[Livelovelearn]

Now how does all this fit in with countries that rely on college entance exams, cumulative finals, and high school exit exams? I know things are high pressure in some Asian countries, but what about Europe? Laura has mentioned the various tests students take in the UK. It seems like if any state in the US set up similar requirements, parents and students might have a meltdown. What do British students do? Laura said everything is based on test scores, not grades in class.

Firstly, many subjects have a 'coursework' component. Traditionally, this piece of work could be completed anywhere as long as it was handed in by the deadline. More recently, this has changed to a set number of hours within a supervised classroom. This is because there were concerns over cheating. The teacher marks these, and then has to send a random sample to a governing body who moderates his/her marking. For example, a piece of history coursework may be to write an essay answering the question "How successful was Roosevelt's New Deal?" The student would be required to answer using sources that they have found.

 

 

Secondly, some subjects have an oral component. I.e. English or foreign languages. This further allows students to present their true knowledge.

 

Additionally, exams are 'written answer' based as opposed to multiple choice. This means that students can receive marks for working out and there is more room for a student to explain their reasoning. It also means that a student is less able to guess an answer.

 

But yes, a major component of UK university entrance is exam based and a student that struggles with exams are at a disadvantage. However, this is only true of traditional exams. It is possible to earn UCAS points (the university entrance system is a point based) through a multitude of avenues. National Vocational Qualifications and National Diplomas are both largely coursework and work experience based. Many courses will also take into life experience.