The tyranny of examinations
Sandeep Pandey
Posted online: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 0000 hrs
There certainly are more non-intrusive ways of finding out how much a student knows
Recently IIT Kanpur (IIT-K) witnessed its second student suicide in the past six months. Shailesh Sharma could not face the ignominy of failing in two courses and hanged himself on May 4. Earlier, Swapnil Dharaskar ended his life on November 30. It is quite well-known that to get into the IITs and survive a degree course there involves an excruciating,
almost inhumane, process. These suicides, the outrage among students and the defence of the IIT examination system by the faculty prompt me to narrate my experience with experimenting with the IIT Kanpur examination
system as a faculty member in ’93. The only course that I independently taught at IIT during my three-semester stay there was Control Systems for the final year Mechanical Engineering students.
Being a Gandhian by orientation, I firmly believe that examinations should be abolished. As a member of the Central Advisory Board on Education of the present government I have also raised the question in Delhi about the link between education and examinations. Personally I
have never understood why — if the purpose of education is to acquire knowledge — it is necessary to pass or fail students by subjecting them to the examination process. I told my students that, as professor, my job would not be considered complete until I was able to make each of my
students understand the subject I was teaching.
Examinations were a bureaucratic procedure which should not have anything to do with a professor. If a student failed an examination, the failure must be considered that of the professor and not that of a student. Although the student needs to put in efforts, it is for the professor to ensure that he comprehends what is being taught. If a student is lagging behind, or not doing well in a particular subject, it is the responsibility of the professor to ensure that the student
catches up. Ideally, I would have liked to avoid examinations. But since I had to turn in a list of grades at the end of the semester, I came up with what I thought was the best possible compromise. I told my students that they would get unlimited chances to appear in an examination — which was not a written one — and the process will be complete only when
they felt that they had put in their best performance.
The idea was to make students learn the subject at their own pace. Since I wanted my students to learn the subject, I decided to spend about 15 minutes with each to make them feel comfortable. If I saw that they had not put in their best, I would advise them to take the examination again. Sometimes the request for a repeat examination would come from them. Initially, I was apprehensive about the process going on
indefinitely for some. But to my surprise no student took more than three chances. Four students came to me and told me that they were not interested in the subject. Since it was likely that they were interested in other subjects and wanted to spend more time on them, I decided to pass them with a ‘C’ grade. The rest got ‘A’s and ‘B’s.
Professor S.G. Dhande, the present director of IIT-K, and then head of Mechanical Engineering decided to discuss my experiment with the examination system at the weekly departmental meeting. There was a furore. Most faculty members were aghast that I could adopt such a “subjective” way of grading. I was asked how would I keep a proof of the
performance if any student decided to challenge the grade awarded. But I explained that nobody could have any complaints in my system, because they had already put in their best. There were only a handful of younger faculty members who supported me, quoting the tradition of academic autonomy at IIT-K. I was told by senior faculty members that I should not repeat my experiment and must conduct a written examination the next time. I was of course not happy with this and revolted by conducting the next examination as a written one, but allowing unlimited time and a five-minute consultation mid-way for those who got stuck somewhere. The students had no complaints. I think some enjoyed the process as well as subject and I was happy to have conducted a humane examination.
But I remain a strong advocate of delinking the learning process from examinations. There are more non-intrusive ways of finding out how much a student knows if the purpose of examinations is only to evaluate the student. And when it comes to applying for jobs, employers would in any case conduct their own tests. People have already started thinking about it. Some of the most progressive schools considered are those which de-emphasise competition and concentrate on the development of humane values. If we want our students to become more sensitive to themselves and fellow human beings we must have an education system that does not destroy their sense of self-worth.
____________________________________
The writer did his doctoral studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and is a Magsaysay awardee
Sandeep Pandey
Posted online: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 0000 hrs
There certainly are more non-intrusive ways of finding out how much a student knows
Recently IIT Kanpur (IIT-K) witnessed its second student suicide in the past six months. Shailesh Sharma could not face the ignominy of failing in two courses and hanged himself on May 4. Earlier, Swapnil Dharaskar ended his life on November 30. It is quite well-known that to get into the IITs and survive a degree course there involves an excruciating,
almost inhumane, process. These suicides, the outrage among students and the defence of the IIT examination system by the faculty prompt me to narrate my experience with experimenting with the IIT Kanpur examination
system as a faculty member in ’93. The only course that I independently taught at IIT during my three-semester stay there was Control Systems for the final year Mechanical Engineering students.
Being a Gandhian by orientation, I firmly believe that examinations should be abolished. As a member of the Central Advisory Board on Education of the present government I have also raised the question in Delhi about the link between education and examinations. Personally I
have never understood why — if the purpose of education is to acquire knowledge — it is necessary to pass or fail students by subjecting them to the examination process. I told my students that, as professor, my job would not be considered complete until I was able to make each of my
students understand the subject I was teaching.
Examinations were a bureaucratic procedure which should not have anything to do with a professor. If a student failed an examination, the failure must be considered that of the professor and not that of a student. Although the student needs to put in efforts, it is for the professor to ensure that he comprehends what is being taught. If a student is lagging behind, or not doing well in a particular subject, it is the responsibility of the professor to ensure that the student
catches up. Ideally, I would have liked to avoid examinations. But since I had to turn in a list of grades at the end of the semester, I came up with what I thought was the best possible compromise. I told my students that they would get unlimited chances to appear in an examination — which was not a written one — and the process will be complete only when
they felt that they had put in their best performance.
The idea was to make students learn the subject at their own pace. Since I wanted my students to learn the subject, I decided to spend about 15 minutes with each to make them feel comfortable. If I saw that they had not put in their best, I would advise them to take the examination again. Sometimes the request for a repeat examination would come from them. Initially, I was apprehensive about the process going on
indefinitely for some. But to my surprise no student took more than three chances. Four students came to me and told me that they were not interested in the subject. Since it was likely that they were interested in other subjects and wanted to spend more time on them, I decided to pass them with a ‘C’ grade. The rest got ‘A’s and ‘B’s.
Professor S.G. Dhande, the present director of IIT-K, and then head of Mechanical Engineering decided to discuss my experiment with the examination system at the weekly departmental meeting. There was a furore. Most faculty members were aghast that I could adopt such a “subjective” way of grading. I was asked how would I keep a proof of the
performance if any student decided to challenge the grade awarded. But I explained that nobody could have any complaints in my system, because they had already put in their best. There were only a handful of younger faculty members who supported me, quoting the tradition of academic autonomy at IIT-K. I was told by senior faculty members that I should not repeat my experiment and must conduct a written examination the next time. I was of course not happy with this and revolted by conducting the next examination as a written one, but allowing unlimited time and a five-minute consultation mid-way for those who got stuck somewhere. The students had no complaints. I think some enjoyed the process as well as subject and I was happy to have conducted a humane examination.
But I remain a strong advocate of delinking the learning process from examinations. There are more non-intrusive ways of finding out how much a student knows if the purpose of examinations is only to evaluate the student. And when it comes to applying for jobs, employers would in any case conduct their own tests. People have already started thinking about it. Some of the most progressive schools considered are those which de-emphasise competition and concentrate on the development of humane values. If we want our students to become more sensitive to themselves and fellow human beings we must have an education system that does not destroy their sense of self-worth.
____________________________________
The writer did his doctoral studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and is a Magsaysay awardee
