A level examinations are necessary

This is going to be interesting... The issue with the grade system is the over-emphasis on it. 85 marks for a B, 86 marks for an A (hypothetically). Does this sound like a fair system if that could be the difference between getting into university or not? For me, the standardised nature of the system is the issue. It trains for hoop-jumping and actually causes some students to have disadvantages. Most exams are catered to explanatory skill in writing, although some of the more able students may have issues with their explanatory skills in that area and prefer to explain orally, of which if they were examined, may be exceptional. This system can only be a level playing field if you assume all students to be the same in their preferred method. The thing is, we aren't robots my friend. Different people have different skillsets, and a standardised system may lose valuable people to the trap of lower grades. Generally people with a natural talent in a subject learn and perform in a unique way, and are unlikely to perform well in exams, while people who are great at exams are less likely to be able to use their knowledge on the subject in practise. A single exam is also an issue, especially with a time stamp. Limited time can cause people to rush their exams, and skim read questions, especially if they know they aren't a fast writer. This can cause the issue of candidates who are generally superior perform worse because of the fact that they can't transfer mental information onto paper as fast, while retaining more than their fellow students. As much as this time stamp is a mock of real life in the workplace, this is not a good argument, as in the workplace, one is able to use resources and therefore doesn't need to retain information. Also, other situations in the workplace like teamwork would be applicable under that argument too. Although learning to perform well in a high-stress environment is a worthy skill, and on a deadline, it is still absurd to ask someone to give scientific explanations in a limited time, which is why Bill O'Reilly only gives small windows for his 'guests' (when scientists come on the show) to explain reasonably complex things that he disagrees with, and so it is always ineffective. Also take into account these are the same people who sat exams like this in the past, and so they have jumped through the hoops and still can't explain in a high-stress situation. Although that kind of example is an extreme, it does highlight that adequate time should be allowed, as even the best need time to explain adequately. Another issue of overstandardisation is the "one explanation fits all" mark scheme. When one is to move into a field of study, and were to educate others, the delivery is different to different audiences. For example, a layman audience is going to be filled more with analogies and basics, while an expert audience is looking for detailed and specific information, generally with a large amount of technical language and most likely are less bothered with charisma. This issue is what plagues the exam system, how much explanation does it want? Over explain, and waste time (another blow to time limits) and the other risks inadequate explanation. This is a part of exam technique, which can be an issue for many people who are less adept at suiting it to an ambiguous audience. You can't really ask the examiner, "how far do you want me to go with this?" Although not every exam question is plagued with this issue, and you can rightly point to questions that don't, but it doesn't mean none of them are. I think that a more individual approach to student evaluation is definitely superior, as it means less mistakes for slower, but otherwise educated students, and allows the student to find their best method of delivery. Back to you my good friend...