![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
*collapses* Right. First exam done. Eight pages worth, for two questions, it should be fine. I forgot who Hecateaus of Miletus was, of course, and I've a feeling no exam for an archaeology module should devolve quite so fast into an argument on the legacy of colonialism, but. Done now.
It always surprises me how little passing an exam has to do with actual knowledge of the subject. Well, not little, but ... Passing an exam has to do with three things: depth of knowledge, quality of argument, and ability to convincingly suck up to the examiner. Which is depressing, because you'd think it should be mostly the former, but it isn't. I've passed exams with answers that were very light on actual facts, but were well argued and happened to pander to the biases obvious from the lectures (even if it's not the lecturer correcting, in a lot of cases either the lectures are borrowing off wider biases, or the people correcting are students of the lecturer to start with).
This ... both amuses me, and rather depresses me. Knowledge should be about knowledge, not about how best to use what knowledge you have to make the correct impression. But ... well, the main thing the past year has taught me is that, whatever your subject, whatever the knowledge it enshrines, nothing, nothing, is without use, or bias. And the college system, academia, is most certainly not free of agenda, or of using.
*blinks some* I haven't eaten. That was a very political exam. And I think I may be crashing slightly. Hence, vague depression. *ducks sheepishly* Oi. I'm gonna go eat and shut up for a while.
It always surprises me how little passing an exam has to do with actual knowledge of the subject. Well, not little, but ... Passing an exam has to do with three things: depth of knowledge, quality of argument, and ability to convincingly suck up to the examiner. Which is depressing, because you'd think it should be mostly the former, but it isn't. I've passed exams with answers that were very light on actual facts, but were well argued and happened to pander to the biases obvious from the lectures (even if it's not the lecturer correcting, in a lot of cases either the lectures are borrowing off wider biases, or the people correcting are students of the lecturer to start with).
This ... both amuses me, and rather depresses me. Knowledge should be about knowledge, not about how best to use what knowledge you have to make the correct impression. But ... well, the main thing the past year has taught me is that, whatever your subject, whatever the knowledge it enshrines, nothing, nothing, is without use, or bias. And the college system, academia, is most certainly not free of agenda, or of using.
*blinks some* I haven't eaten. That was a very political exam. And I think I may be crashing slightly. Hence, vague depression. *ducks sheepishly* Oi. I'm gonna go eat and shut up for a while.