>2) The realization that "getting everything right" is not really how any part of the real world works.
If I'm out to be a doctor or an astronaut or an engineer, I'm likely going to question my ability to accomplish these if I'm made to feel that I've missed a bunch of knowledge on the tests. Those, and many others, are careers that ought to get everything right because of the consequences (they don't, of course, but why is college teaching this lesson?). Perhaps it's an American thing, but the fear of failure made me double check and re-study things for the better. I might've been more lazy if I had grown up with the rationale that "oh well, you can't get everything right", but perhaps there's more culture that plays into that.
When I get 90% or above on a test, I like the validation that I'm successfully learning near to the pace and complexity challenges set out by the instructor. I really don't like the idea of someone aiming to keep those results lower for exclusivity or other reasons.
I'd also be curious where the increased challenge comes from.
- Are the questions longer and require more steps?
- Do they require a leap in logic to 'discover' something while you're contemplating the question?
I think in any line of work if you go around thinking that you know everything about a subject because you got 100% in some academic test then you would be an accident waiting to happen.
Having an understanding that you don't know everything is a pretty important thing to learn.
> If I'm out to be a doctor or an astronaut or an engineer, I'm likely going to question my ability to accomplish these if I'm made to feel that I've missed a bunch of knowledge on the tests.
And that's the best thing you can do, and learn to do!
> Those, and many others, are careers that ought to get everything right because of the consequences
You don't get everything right by believing that you "ought to" and rigging the game so that it looks like you do. You get everything right by always assuming the worst, double-checking everything and analyzing mistakes with the goal of making them impossible in the future, rather than finding someone to blame.
> (they don't, of course, but why is college teaching this lesson?)
For me at least it was more a time constraint than anything (well, you had to really know the material - there would be areas I knew I didn't know well enough going into the exam). I think the difficulty is set such that only the very best would ever run out of things to do in the exam, most people finish having solved the questions that they were best suited to properly, and not really attempted some of them.
If I'm out to be a doctor or an astronaut or an engineer, I'm likely going to question my ability to accomplish these if I'm made to feel that I've missed a bunch of knowledge on the tests. Those, and many others, are careers that ought to get everything right because of the consequences (they don't, of course, but why is college teaching this lesson?). Perhaps it's an American thing, but the fear of failure made me double check and re-study things for the better. I might've been more lazy if I had grown up with the rationale that "oh well, you can't get everything right", but perhaps there's more culture that plays into that.
When I get 90% or above on a test, I like the validation that I'm successfully learning near to the pace and complexity challenges set out by the instructor. I really don't like the idea of someone aiming to keep those results lower for exclusivity or other reasons.
I'd also be curious where the increased challenge comes from.
- Are the questions longer and require more steps?
- Do they require a leap in logic to 'discover' something while you're contemplating the question?
- Is it a huge amount of recollection?
- Any combination of the above?