A world where “test scores” are seen as a measure of a person's intellect, and one paper on one day determines how well or badly a person does in a course, to me, seems outright ridiculous. How are we meant to build curiosity and intellect if we test an individual on someone else's viewpoints or knowledge? Yes, knowledge is great, but I strongly feel that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge without forcing a person to kill themselves over learning facts.

Coming from a system of strictly standardized academic testing to my first semester of college, where all my classes were based on papers and readings, I really started to question the meaning of each author's work. My papers gave me an opportunity to explore, question, refute claims made in the text and back up my arguments with my own examples, and, if I may say, grow intellectually. I learned to enjoy academia, think critically, and felt driven to delve deeper into concepts I enjoyed.

As Einstein once said, “Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think,” and that is what, for me, papers do. One does not struggle to memorize facts while producing a sophisticated paper. Paper writing is more about creating a thesis, collecting the appropriate facts and figures, outlining the way one thinks, and then arguing, with all factual backing, to support one's stance.

My first set of midterm exams have made me question the validity of written exams. There are so many factors that influence one's performance on a particular day—alertness, emotional and mental state, personal events, and unexpected factors. If an individual is caught off guard on any one of these factors, their performance is impacted severely. Thus, the question is, is it fair that one day should impact the ultimate grade of an individual? No matter how small the weight given to the particular test, I'm not sure it is far.

Good things take time, and a paper, to me, is an accurate representation of the dedication, effort, and time commitment given to arguing for or against a particular stance. One can write a paper in a matter of a few hours, or spend a few weeks refining it. I like to think of a paper as a good piece of ham (you may find it ridiculous, but so be it.) A good piece of ham takes, on average, 8 to 12 months of curing, drying, and regularly attending to. The master charcutier looks out for minute details like color, consistency, hand-feel, temperature, and air contact. Similarly, in this case, the student is meant to give a paper a little bit of time every day, and note the progress, grammar, punctuation, and other details, however small they may be. A paper has a heart and soul of its own; it is the author's feelings, time, and effort that goes into a great paper.

An exam on the other hand is driven by a short time span, little ability to correct one's mistakes, and immense pressure on an unnecessary deadline. It has no heart or soul of its own. Its simply a replication of someone else's work and maybe allows for a little bit of creativity. For another cliche food analogy, an exam is like making a pre-frozen pizza. Every student is given the same base ingredient, the same oven, and the same time, the only difference is how the student produces it and serves it up.

In the modern world, and in search for standardization, I feel we have lost out on individuality and uniqueness. I think true academia and success in education should be based on writing papers rather than taking standardized tests. Opinions may differ, but this is simply my view.