Exams and tests seem to be the logical continuation of knowledge. I learn something "official", therefore I must be tested on it otherwise there is no proof that I really "know" it. So goes the agreed-upon logic. There are however many reasons to disagree with this. A more spiritualist argument against exams would be that the process of learning is in itself a very spiritualistic process of personal growth, in which we feel connected and positive. "I have learned something" is one of the most beautiful experiences we can have. "Watch out because you will be tested in this" abruptly contradicts this.I personally believe that learning for the sake of knowledge can be placed in opposition to learning for a test. They are not the same act of learning, neither spiritually in the good they do us, nor in the approach. Discovering the works of the famous English poet Milton and being moved by the experience might lead to a very personal perception of the poetry. Studying Milton for a test will bring the experience down to a factual analysis of Milton. "Name 3 themes in this poem", might be the question. And if all the while, the students were only reading Milton within the context of an upcoming test we can easily see how the experience would be tainted and diminished from the start. If a parent teaches a child how to tie a series of interesting knots in the forest, it might awaken the excitement and magic of learning. If the parent added "listen carefully because I'm going to test you on this when we get home", the spiritual awakening might easily take a hit. We could reproduce this experience by as many things as there are to know and we would come to the same conclusion. Learning for a test and learning in a spiritual way are not the same activity. The quality of the result will not be the same either. True learning requires emotion and spiritual connection. Passing a test is void of these two states of mind.Taking the example of a driving test, there is another argument against testing. A novice driver might actually drive less well on the day of the test precisely because they are being judged. They are not simply driving they are driving for a test. It is not the same experience. Any seasoned driver who has been on the roads for decades could equally fail a test if they were made to pass one. And the holder of a new driving permit will still continue to improve their skill as a driver after the test which also shows that a test is not the highest level of knowledge. It is just a formality that is often detached from reality, but that we somehow try to include as a part of reality.In my own experience as a Master's degree holder in Linguistics and Literature, I can say that it is only after I started to think as a linguist in my job that I truly understood. Linguistics became a skill that made me a better language teacher instead of a collection of facts that I had to recite for an exam. In a similar way, it is only when I put the poems of William Blake to music that I truly understood his poetry. I reproduced the experience with French poets from the Middle-Ages because of the benefits of acquiring the knowledge for a practical purpose. No one tested me on this, but I have a damn good understanding of it none the less.All this being said, the reasons for testing and exams can easily be understood by all. It's all about proving to society that a person was the holder of a certain knowledge at one precise point in time. Society then performs a risky mental equation by assuming that if the student knew it on the day of the exam, we can reasonably conclude that the same level of knowledge will stay with them for years to come. But the fact is that a doctor who qualified yesterday is still not a doctor. They have only studied to be one.My own brother who is a PhD holder in the science of Agronomy regularly meets Professors who have authority to regulate over farming practices. Many of them never leave their campus office or ever interact with farmers. But they have the diploma that says they know about farming. As can be expected, many of their decisions do not work in the practical realities of farming.My wife who is an auditor only learned the job during her first 3 years practicing on real cases. Before that, she had only passed the tests to be an auditor. For each and every test we pass, we know that the test only proves our ability at this test. Not in what the test symbolizes. On this learning website, I did not include quizzes or tests for a very precise reason. I consider the act of learning French an experience in personal growth that is spiritual and should be fueled by an energy other than getting the answer right. You must develop positive feelings towards learning and only this will make you a good speaker of French. Naturally, I provide the answers to the exercises but the learner must find the energy to want to discover each new topic. The day you do know French, you will not need a test to prove this. You will know it because you will feel it. Just as driving a car, tying knots, being a good doctor. Learning and testing are two very separate activities which we force ourselves to believe are one. Our society needs contracts, titles and certificates to make things "real" but at the core of us, we all know it stands on very wobbly foundations. The number one at any sport is often the best among those who participated in the competition and who did well on a specific night. When an NBA basketball team beats another, it is often by a difference of a few baskets. Is the winning team really "better" than the other or did their shooters score more three pointers?A qualified plastic surgeon might be dreadful at their job and have many unsatisfied clients on their resume. A judge might be biased towards certain people and opinions. A teacher in a high school might be the furthest thing from a true teacher. A priest might be the most nonspiritual person we will meet. There are bad sound engineers, bad life coaches, bad gardeners and bad cops. They might have passed the exam but still failed to learn the subject of the exam. The trumpet player Miles Davis studied at the Institute of Musical Art. But this is not what made him becomes Miles Davis (or everyone who qualified at that same institute would be a "Miles Davis" in their own right.) It is the personal learning he did on his own and without tests that made him great. The true learning happened as a separate experience to the academic testing.Perhaps the next time we learn something big or small, we could do the exercise of asking ourselves which form this would take in a test. It is probable that our knowledge will look quite different under this new angle. How do we place learning to pull out weeds from the garden withing a test? Perhaps the exam question might look as follows: The problem with this test question leaps out at us straight away. Tests require to be factual, but a meaningful part of knowledge is not factual at all. If we attempt to bring down knowledge to the level of a test we very often diminish the quality of this knowledge by transforming it to fit this test. The test then takes on a life of its own which does not guarantee real knowledge. Between the person who has spent time immersing themselves in the works of art of the Italian Renaissance and the one who can point of the 5 defining features of the Renaissance for the test, there is a difference. One of the two has Knowledge, the other is a clever monkey,Guess who?