Multiple-choice exams are bad for students
A sense of poignancy caught me while reading about Philip Yeung's concern that the standards of English in Hong Kong would not improve until our exam system is reformed ('The monster devouring our English capability', January 22).
I periodically teach financial market laws. My students tell me their exams faithfully reflect the prevailing exam ethos. They ask multiple-choice questions and seem designed to eliminate independent, critical thinking.
It is without pride that I start each new class reminding students that to pass the exam they must put aside all thought of true understanding, of real-world prioritising or applicability and simply give the examiners what they want - a speedy and precise regurgitation of facts without regard to relative practical importance.
I leaven this dry diet with real-world stories of how the law is applied, as in reality the subject is important.
The combination of these two approaches results in a 95 per cent pass rate. But my advice remains: 'Check your brain at the door; if you wish to pass, regurgitate.' My students are highly motivated professionals, who must pass the exam as a job qualification. It is nonetheless debilitating for teacher and pupils to work in such a system, though the course is but four weeks. To endure a similar system in an ordinary school for years seems likely to breed indifference and functional incompetence in too many school leavers. I count myself very lucky my school years were not like that.
It is easy to criticise, but I would suggest a lesser focus on 'efficient examination' of measurable detail and a greater effort to cultivate an understanding of general principles might educate better. If that means less highly-specified syllabuses and paying examiners more to read essays rather than sticking sheets of paper into computer-read scoring systems, it is a price worth paying.