While taking a much-needed study break from my own final exams this past semester, I came across an article in the Yale Daily News, “The Case for Final Exams.” In it, Pradz Sapre argued that humanities courses should incorporate final exams into their curricula as they increase students’ long-term retention of material.
It is a “travesty,” he argued, to come out of a semester-long course on Leibniz only to forget his Principle of Sufficient Reason, or to emerge from a course on Shakespeare unable to recognize a quote from King Lear.
Yet it is a phenomenon that virtually all students are guilty of at some point in our college careers. When a course has wrapped up, we click off our tabs, close our computers and leave behind four months of learning without much hesitation at all.
Sapre is right to suggest that increased testing could help improve short-term retention as studies indicate testing is generally an effective learning tool. That being said, his argument sidesteps a broader question: why does the type of retention he describes actually matter?
Sure, it would make for interesting conversation if more students could recite the Charge of the Light Brigade or effectively outline the impact of the Goths on the fall of Rome. If a student is unable to do so, however, I would hesitate to call it a “travesty.” It merely indicates that that student does not have a passion for the given material.
What a student remembers, then, matters because it shows what they care about.
Final exams are not determinative of whether a student cares for the material, and as such, implementing final exams in all humanities classes may not be worthwhile.
Adept students are able to “game the system” in such a way that they can pass a class without putting in their full time or attention. To a student uninterested in course content, a final exam is yet another opportunity to game the system. Cramming, for instance, is an effective way to get a good grade in the short term and retain little-to-no course material long-term.
In other words: while exams can encourage short-term retention, they cannot make a student passionate about the material in such a way that they will remember it long-term.
Compare this to research papers, where students are able to delve deeper into the aspects of a course that interest them. Papers may not encourage content retention in the same way that exams do, but papers offer different advantages as they allow students to independently navigate their interests and determine for themselves what content they care about.
Becoming exposed to the disciplines we are passionate about seems like a more important educational aim than “remembering for remembering’s sake.”
In this way, then, true retention might depend more on what a student does outside the classroom. When I retain course content, it is because the material inspired me in such a way that I chose to continue exploring after the semester ended — whether it was a class on international relations that inspired a summer reading list or a class on philosophy that inspired my next opinion article.
Implementing final exams might improve what some students remember in the short-term. The larger goal, however, is to inspire students in such a way that they are independently motivated to retain course content. Ultimately, there is no one curriculum or method of teaching that will encourage every student to care. That part is up to the students.
Lauren Stoneman is a junior studying History, Philosophy, and Political Science. Do you agree having interest in a subject helps you remember it long-term? Send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
