[aaplok]

Yes I think the issue is as much that open tasks make learning interesting and meaningful in a way that exams hardly can do.

This is the core of the issue really. If we are in the business of teaching, as in making people learn, exams are a pretty blunt and ineffective instrument. However since our business is also assessing, proctoring is the best if not only trustworthy approach and exams are cheap in time, effort and money to do that.

My take is that we should just (properly) assess students at the end of their degree. Spend time (say, a full day) with them but do it only once in the degree (at the end), so you can properly evaluate their skills. Make it hard so that the ones who graduate all deserve it.

Then the rest of their time at university should be about learning what they will need.

[const_cast]

Exams aren't for learning, they're for measuring. Projects and lecture are for learning.

The problem with this "end of university exam" structure is that you have the same problems as before but now that exam is weighted like 10,000% that of a normal exam.

[djoldman]

> If we are in the business of teaching, as in making people learn, exams are a pretty blunt and ineffective instrument.

I'm curious: what is fulfilling in your job as a math teacher? When students learn? When they're assigned grades that accurately reflect their performance? When they learn something with minimal as opposed to significant effort? Some combination?

I always thought teacher motivations were interesting. I'm sure there are fantastic professors who couldn't care less as to what grades they gave out at the end.

[aaplok]

> what is fulfilling in your job as a math teacher?

Many things. The most fulfilling for me is taking a student from hating maths to enjoying it. Or when they realise that in fact they're not bad at maths. Students changing their opinions about themselves or about maths is such a fulfilling experience that it's my main motivation.

Then working with students who likes and are good at maths and challenging them a bit to expand their horizon is a lot of fun.

> When students learn?

At a high level yes (that maths can be fun, enjoyable, doable). Them learning "stuff" not so much, it's part of the job.

> When they're assigned grades that accurately reflect their performance?

Yes but not through a system based on counting how many mistakes they make, like exams do. If I can design a task that enables a student to showcase competency accurately it's great. A task that enables the best ones to extend themselves (and achieve higher marks) is great.

> When they learn something with minimal as opposed to significant effort?

Not at all. If there is no effort I don't believe much learning is happening. I like to give an opportunity for all students to work hard and learn something in the process no matter where they start from.

I only care about the grade as feedback to students. It is a way for me to tell them how far they've come.

[Aeolun]

You can’t expect all students to learn without being forced to, no matter how much that’s literally the point of them being there.

They’re kids, and they should be treated as such, in both good and bad ways. You might want to make exceptions for the good ones, but absolutely not for the average or bad ones.

[zmgsabst]

How many people would work their current job if money wasn’t a thing?

People of all ages seek rewards — and assessments gate the payoffs. Like a boss fight in a video game gates the progress from your skill growth.