How students should be assessed has a significant influence on how they learn. Some argue that final examinations are the most reliable method, whereas others prefer coursework spread across the year. In my view, a combination of the two is fairest, although coursework deserves a larger share than it often receives.
Those who favour examinations emphasise their objectivity. Every candidate answers the same questions under the same conditions and within the same time limit, so results can be compared fairly across schools. Examinations also make it far harder to cheat, since students cannot receive help from parents, tutors or, increasingly, artificial intelligence tools. Furthermore, revising for a major test requires pupils to understand an entire course as a connected whole rather than as a series of isolated topics.
Supporters of coursework, by contrast, point out that a single examination measures performance on one particular day. A capable student who is unwell or extremely anxious may underperform, and the result can affect university admission. Coursework allows students to demonstrate skills that a timed paper cannot capture, such as conducting research, drafting and revising an argument, or managing a long project. A history student who writes an extended essay based on local archives, for example, develops abilities that are directly relevant to university and employment.
Having considered both positions, I believe that relying on either method alone is unwise. Examinations protect fairness and test broad knowledge, while coursework rewards sustained effort and practical skills. The risk of dishonesty in coursework can be reduced by requiring part of it to be completed under supervision and by asking students to discuss their work with a teacher.
In conclusion, although examinations offer consistency, assessment systems should give substantial weight to coursework so that students are judged on their abilities over time rather than on a single performance.