Prompt: Formal examinations are the only effective way to assess a student's performance. Continual assessment such as course work and projects is not a satisfactory way to do this. Ċ To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Nowadays, educational institutions have their own approach to assess students' performances. Meanwhile, some people believe that a formal examination is the most effective way of knowledge evaluation, others argue that students should be assessed continuously. In this essay, I will discuss both sides of the argument and explain my support of the latter view. Ċ Convincing arguments can be made that continual evaluation has manifold benefits. Firstly, students can demonstrate their proficiency during the semester, rather than an hour-long formal test. More specifically, if undergraduates fail one project they still have a chance to improve the final results. Secondly, continuous evaluation helps to assess not only knowledge but also abilities and potentials. For instance, some students have huge potential to further improve. Ċ Alternatively, formal tests can be an easy way of knowledge estimation. Teachers will not have to spend time on project assessments during a semester. However, undergraduates feel very nervous before a formal test, because they might fail and neglected by others for their "intellectual abilities". Consequently, nerves can adversely affect their performance and additionally, cause various mental issues. For example, in South Korea, many high school graduates commit suicides after exams, which has already become a national issue. It can be seen that formal tests are quite limited. Ċ To sum up, I would concede that formal examinations help to assess undergraduates quickly and require less effort from teachers. Despite that, I believe that knowledge, potential and abilities are important in a wholesome assessment, therefore formal exams should be only one part of the assessment system.