It's just dawned on me exactly what it is about the time-limit on exams that I dislike so much.
I was told, in primary/infancy school, when trying out our class' little science experiments that, to make something a fair test, you should change only one thing, one variable.
For instance, if measuring the speed a toy car 'rides' down a twenty-centimetre high ramp, you would try out car A on the twenty-centimetre high ramp, then car B, and so on. You wouldn't also change the height of the ramp each time, since the results would be different for each car and each ramp. You wouldn't be able to discover the results [in this case, the speed a toy car 'rides' down a twenty-centimetre high ramp] accurately if you don't know why the test resulted in the way it did, and there'd be no way to judge how/why the results were as they were, since multiple 'variables' were, well, varied.
In our exams - for SATs, or GCSEs, or A-levels, or whatever else - no matter the subject (few exceptions, of course), here in the UK, we're usually given a small booklet full of questions that we have to answer. Some will require one-word answers, some require half a page, and some multiple pages. Some only have one answer, some answers are an open interpretation, unique to everyone who takes the test... And that's great. Everyone has their strong and weak points, but the variety of questions means that, so long as you've studies the course and are now/then well-prepared, chances are you'll do rather well.
Or so you should. However, exams are not fair. There are two variables in these exams. Yes, the questions themselves are the first 'variable', and rightly so - if everyone knew the questions beforehand, there'd be no testing involved, as everyone could just revise the questions beforehand, or, even better, ask successful students from the previous year what they wrote down for the answers.
But that's wrong, there's no point to the tests then - you need varying questions to be able to accurately test each student's knowledge. No qualms there.
However, when you introduce the timed element to an exam, in addition to the varied questions, what are you truly testing? With multiple variables, the examiners won't be able to tell which variable - the question or the time - resulted in the incorrect or lack of answers. How could they? There are two variables!
Don't get me wrong, it hasn't took me all these years to finally realise that I don't like my exams being timed, I've just never been able to put my finger on exactly what it was about the timed element that I couldn't stand.
It occurred to me today... I'm a bit slow.
... And that was meant purely as a joke, but, as you might guess, it also is actually true in the literal sense, so, upon realising this, I thought I'd expand a little bit more.
I'm a terribly slow writer, and reader, now that I (might as well) mention it, and so have never been a fan of having my memory (the varying questions) and my speed (at writing) tested at the same time. I honestly can't handle it. Every time, at least one of the two fail me - my speed, first, usually. If you were to ask the same exam question in a classroom, I'd likely be able to give you a full, correct, answer, perhaps with the odd bit of help/reminder/correction from another student or the teacher, and I'd probably be one of the first to put my arm up to answer, too.
Even when I am wrong, I like learning, and although I admit I'd rather not have them, if the choice was mine, I don't really mind being tested, either. I just want to know exactly what it is I'm being tested on, so I can show the examiners that skill, regardless of other 'disabilities' that might hold me back during our current examinations.
Put me in a small room - heck, a white-collar office cubicle? - no internet or books or other 'help' (that's an issue for another blog entry), and keep me in there until I'm satisfied that I've written all that I can remember on whatever I'm being examined on, regardless of how long it takes me. If hunger/thirst becomes a problem, they could easily be brought in, and if the toilet is needed, surely you could be escorted to a toilet cubicle, if you can't be trusted to go the complete journey alone, that is? Everyone gets as long as they desire, with just one variable being tested, and everyone's happier?