But in chemistry is there is too many questions for 1 hour. There were 2 questions I figured out just before the bell rang, but because I was sitting directly in view of the invigilator, I didn't get to scribble it down, unlike many dishonest students from ESF schools.
None of the three are as strange as IB questions though. In sats, I sort of worked around questions I had no idea about and deduced the answer. IN the IB, it is completely regurgitation and much less fun.
In the IB exams (short answer and multiple choice), it is far more of a direct issue once you know the "learning outcomes" and interpret in the lowliest manner what the question is about. IB exams are actually extremely gut level, being a "good student"(good at bs-ing) and knowing the facts.
In the SATs, I can get my way through the test even if I don't know half the curriculum they want me to know. Why?
The difference is probably partly due to experience, but that is not the most important. The most important issue is how the SAT people set their answers. To cut things short, the answers are truly multiple choice, with a broad range of answer choices. I can typically eliminate 2 to 3 incorrect answers after reading the question.
The IB multiple choices are nasty because all the choices are very similar unless you know a lot about the subject.
One can conclude that the SAT is good for pretending you know a lot by skill, but the IB is good for pretending you know a lot by getting students to remember everything.
Both systems are terrible in their own ways if you are actually trying to learn humanly, instead of cheating or becoming a robot*. I do not believe that to be a good scientist one must be able to regurgitate very quickly, because while the learning of science is such, innovating and discovering is so much more than more of the same.
*You could argue that in the future, robots will be just like humans. But that's for another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment