Do exams measure anything worth measuring? A view from the bac philo
Exam season is coming round again in Dakar. In June my students sit four hours to write a dissertation on a subject of the kind "Is it reasonable to fear death?", "Can one be free without laws?", and so on. The exam is one of the rites of passage of the French-speaking world.
I have marked hundreds of these scripts. The marking scheme rewards a recognisable form: an introduction that "problematises", a plan in two or three parts, a conclusion that answers. Students who master the form score well. Some of them can do the form without having thought anything. Some of my most thoughtful students fail to fit their thinking into it.
So I find myself asking the question in the title, which is really a question about purpose. If education is transmission, an exam tests whether the transmission arrived. If it is formation of a free mind, I am not sure what an exam could test. Socrates never examined anyone in this sense, unless you count the examination that got him killed. Al-Ghazali warned against seeking knowledge for status and disputation. And the Chinese imperial system examined people for centuries.
Is there an argument that a good examination measures something genuinely worth having, beyond the ability to pass it? Or is assessment always a compromise with institutions? I would love answers from other teachers and other traditions.