[MiracleUser]

I think you are conflating the use-cases of an exam with how you are tested in reality.

imo an exam is much more akin to meeting preparation than the meeting itself. I completely agree that you should know what you are talking about in a meeting, but the reason you know what you are talking about is because you spent time beforehand working out the specifics for the expected problems. Everyone knows meetings require preparation time to make sure the things being talked about are verified and accurate.

I actually wouldnt really want to talk to someone who's going to try to do everything off the top of their head unless I'm convinced they're a genius. If something wasnt already prepared, you dont half ass it in the meeting. it becomes an action item to be taken care of after the meeting. It's a waste of everyone's time to have anyone working out a problem live.

[_ZeD_]

>>> imo an exam is much more akin to meeting preparation than the meeting itself.

umm, this is new... why don't you think the exam is "the meeting itself"?

[klodolph]

The exam has no intrinsic value. It’s just there as part of the learning process. Most classes you can see a division between people who see grades as an objective (will this be on the test?) and people who see grades as a metric for another objective.

If you see grades as an objective, then the exam is something to study for. If you see grades as a metric, then the exam is there to measure progress and guide your study.

[MiracleUser]

You do not know in advance what problems you need to solve on the test. You know the topics, sure, but you show up to the exam to perform work.

In a well designed meeting with a client, you show up to present work already done - or discuss what work needs to be done. Internal meetings might be more ad-hoc and you can get brownie points for working off the top of your head but its not necessary