Mass education lacks the freedom to evaluate a student, rather than whatever the student writes on a test, mostly because of the teacher to student ratio. While reviewing some of the testing styles in Madrid in the 18th Century Enlightenment, I came upon an unusual concept. Rather than handing a test over to examinees, they were allowed to retreat to a room, and were accompanied by a scribe. There, they spent several days dictating their answer to the examination. Rather than scribbling madly, these people were allowed the time to pace around the room, to think, to sleep, to eat, and to re-write whatever they wanted. And of course, as there were no computers back at the time, a scribe was necessary to reduce the menial labor of transcribing one’s ideas. That way, the examinee’s mind could remain clearer of minor disturbances, and could otherwise focus on its responses.

And this, to me, seemed like a perfect kind of examination. During my university years, I have frequently felt the frustration at the simplified nature of exams, that rarely allowed a deep and througough evaluation of my knowledge. Deep thinking requires time, for it cannot always be achieved immediately. An exam that lasts for a few hours is rarely enough to enter a deep enough level of thought. Thought requires reflection. It requires contemplation and quietness. This cannot be achieved in a rushed two-hour test that allows for little more than a superficial overview of any given subject. To differentiate between a good student and a brilliant student, a teacher must allow them the time to reach the deepest levels of their knowledge. Then, and only then, can the exceptional student truly shine.

And that is the true purpose of education. It should not limit the development of the mind, but to instead nurture it. Each student should be allowed to reach their maximum intellectual potential with ease, rather than being coaxed into little parcels of knowledge that rarely satisfy anyone but the tamest and dullest of minds. And instead, we prefer to focus on simplicity of teaching, of evaluating. An exam of this kind would be impossible with many students, or would it? With the advent of technologies, it would not be impossible to create remote means of supervision through webcams. Would it be unwise, then, to allow for minds to settle during a long-lasting exam, in order to give them the chance to showcase their learning in its purest form?

Seemingly not. We prefer our traditions, our silly evaluations that derive from a massified system where both teachers and students became too lazy. Let us ask short questions, rather than requiring longer-form responses. And why not focus on multiple-choice examinations, so that academic minds do not even need to learn to express themselves? The current state of education will never cease to amaze me. And yet nobody else seems to analyze it.

And so we are faced with the byproducts of fast food style teaching. We get none of the benefits of discerning between effort and half-baked effort. We get none of the joys of identifying and thus nurturing those who have the potential and the willingness to shine. We get none of the benefits of such early identification either, for those minds will stagnate and wither in an environment that is insufficiently stimulating. Instead of well-instructed gifted students, we get generation upon generation of wasted talent and wasted potential.

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate some of the seemingly core approaches to education. Perhaps exams that last for multiple days are not the answer. But certainly, and considering the lacking depth of thought that educational systems are encouraging, now may be the time to reshape some of the paths that our educational systems follow.

Or perhaps not, and it is safer and more pleasant for everyone to act as though we are giving profoundly gifted children everything they require to achieve their optimal potential. We dislike acknowledging our own faults, do we not? Those gifted children’s lives may be fruitless in the long run, and perhaps that does not matter compared to the benefits of compensating illiteracy among the masses. However, society loses greatly with each exceptional mind that is wasted, and we are doing nothing to prevent such losses.