More tests, not less

| Forum Editor

The New York Times ran an article a few weeks ago about the ways that different students learn. A study done by researchers at Purdue University determined that the best way to learn is not reading, or re-reading, or creating concept maps. No, the best way to retain material both better and longer is to take a test.

What I am about the suggest might come as a combination of both betrayal and sadism. Our teachers should test us more; in fact, they should test us as many times as they can.

The scientific basis in the article is there. When people are tested they retain the information for longer and they learn it better. If this isn’t the most important goal of college, I really don’t know why I am here. How many of us have taken a class and, once we come back from break, promptly forget all of the information that we have learned, forcing the teachers in the next class to review a swath of material that by all rights, you should already know?

Additionally, most classes at Wash. U. have a few tests and a final, which is nothing short of sadism. We all know that stress and mental anguish occur most during midterms and finals week, and this need not be so. These tests cause so much harm because they are worth so much. When an assessment can account for 30 percent of an entire grade, of course you are going to freak out.

People bomb tests for a variety of reasons, even if they work as hard as possible. They could have been sick all week; they could have studied the material the teacher didn’t include; they could have gotten temporary amnesia. The point is, if I really screw up on a midterm, I can say goodbye to whatever grade I had hoped to get in the class.

This is completely unnecessary. If we were tested, say, five or six times, that amount of stress would be greatly reduced. If a test counts for 10 percent of your grade, instead of 30 percent, and you bomb it, you can still keep that 4.0 GPA required for keeping your parents from calling you a failure. And if the professors are really set on watching us all suffer, they could still have the finals count for a relatively large chunk.

This change would obviously require a pretty big shift, most importantly for the professors. For them, it is terribly difficult to grade and it takes an incredibly long time. Even with scantron multiple-choice, an essay section requires many man-hours of grading.

To this problem, I say they could hire more TA’s. They are the ones who normally grade the tests to begin with, so it’s not that different, and I think there would be more than enough students willing to earn a little extra money (If you can’t find enough students, pay more…sort of a “if you build it, they will come” thing.)

Another potential piece of roughness is whether we can handle all the tests. The important thing to remember is that each of them will be smaller, more manageable and will require less studying.

Most students don’t realize that they are already doing this as a study method. It is precisely the reason teachers make old exams available, and we do practice problems to help us learn. We are testing ourselves, because we know that it helps us retain the material better.

Professors should change the system around, or we could at least test it out. I think that everyone at this school (professors, TAs and students) could handle the extra work involved with having more tests.

I am tired of all the fear that goes into my midterms and wish I could have the leeway that a few more tests would give me. So, to the professors reading this, when you make your next syllabus, you should try out a new system. I say it is time for more tests, not less.

Sign up for the email edition

Stay up to date with everything happening at Washington University and beyond.

Subscribe