Examinee (Part VI)

It wasn't until 1996 that I faced my next round of examinations. These were held during humid nights in a campus surrounded by what was effectively swampland. If you didn't move enough, you'd be eaten by mosquitoes while writing your answers down.

I had six papers to sit for, and I took them over a period of about a year. Two of them were on quantitative and qualitative research methods; two were on science and language education; one was on human resource management and leadership; the last one was on current perspectives in educational research. I got into serious arguments with the lecturers in two of these, and eventually got Cs; I got A grades for the rest. Apart from my A in HRM during my university days, these were the first As I'd scored since 1985 in a major examination.

That was how bad a student I had been, I realised. But what had caused the turnaround? I think that it all boils down to this: at tertiary level, you express your ideas clearly in a complex field. If your answer is rational and the viewpoint you propound is reasonably sound based on the evidence you marshal, you will get an A. However, if you find that there is no evidence to work with, or if the perspective you are forced to swallow is too nebulous to defend or attack, your grade is at the mercy of the instructor.

All I can remember of the examinations themselves were that they involved 3-hour bouts of writing, some on an open-book basis, some not. You had to tear apart the case before you and answer it one way or the other or 'all ends up' at once. I remember staggering out into the damp night air, feeling absolutely exhausted. It was not a pleasant feeling.