Sorry for the long post, but this is one of my pet peeves: I am a still recovering test addict.

Let me make my argument more clear: You (and the article) seem to believe that it's an either/or situation with the 1-2 large tests and having a lot of small tests (e.g. every week). I don't think this is the case. In fact, the constant testing arises as a byproduct of the large, life determining tests. I didn't make this very clear perhaps.

Coming back to my example: The private school entrance exams (taken at 11) were few and concentrated in a couple of weeks. Yet, since everybody practically started preparing for those exams from the start of primary school (at 7), you had to, too. Understanding wasn't important, creativity wasn't important, it all boiled down to how good a test taker you are. Ditto, for the university entrance exams. The only difference is that by then the test culture was very well ingrained. So, to reiterate, my point was that critical testing periods lead to constant testing.

My second point was that this is bad. This is debatable and, of course, I don't have scientific data to back me up, only anecdotal data gained from observing first my classmates and now my colleagues from different countries (esp. China) who were raised in a similar test-based culture.

I think judging students predominantly by tests (which is what constant testing is about, i.e. the "Google Analytics" approach) are bad for a couple of reasons:

(i) Some people just don't perform well under stress. This is something I've seen some people have a very hard time learning, even after years of test taking.

(ii) It creates a culture where you are reduced to a performance number. We (in Turkey) learned this when we were very young, you are what you do on the test, and don't get me wrong, I thought this was the best way (since I was good). In my undergrad, professors use to hang exam scores on their office doors and we made fun of people with low scores. We didn't find this appalling, we were the best of the best (50 out of a million) and anyone who cannot do good deserved the ridicule. All we thought were the scores, not what we wanted to do in life, if we had an entrepreneurial streak, etc. Just how well did you do in the last test. We were raised like prize race horses, who had to run the fastest.

(iii) So, my final point. Actually, until the end of my PhD in the US the state I was in didn't bother me, after all being an alpha test taker had served me well. I crushed my American classmates in exams, did well, etc. Only after I started my career that I sensed something was wrong. First, years of testing had trained me on a stimulus-response basis: I learned that if I studied well, I would do well on the exam (most of the time). I found that success in real life wasn't as simple, there are office politics, stupid managers, back stabbing galore. The fact that I couldn't do best when I worked the most frustrated me greatly. But what was worse is that many problems I encountered did not fit into simple question/answer approach I knew how to tackle so well after decades of training. I found that complex tradeoffs between many factors was in fact the essence of engineering. I can say that years of test taking didn't really prepare me for my job.

After I wizened to this fact I looked around and saw similar patterns in my foreign colleagues, except most were nor retrospective enough to see what they lacked. I've been trying to correct for my decades of miseducation ever since.

P.S. As for the "uncivil" comment, I think asserting that a commentor "clearly did not read the article" is uncivil, if not on Reddit on HN.