It's somewhat amusing to see someone write a lengthy rant against testing because memorizing information is archaic, when the ability to write, at least at the start, is learned this way.
The most obvious example why you're wrong is learning a second language. Even learning a language outside of a classroom generally requires memorization of fundamental vocabulary (and sometimes a writing system); it therefore makes sense that a class teaching a second language would test students on this memorization.
Now, other fields might not be so obvious, but they require many things to be quickly accessible, much in the same way that one might need quick access to a word or a character with a second language. A biologist needs to know and understand the central dogma, an engineer needs to understand mechanical stress, and a chemist needs to be able to read a structural formula; they need to be able to do these things essentially instantly (and understand them intuitively) to be able to even discuss more complex topics, because complex information builds on simple information. Hence it makes sense to make sure those pieces of information are understood and readily available before sending a student off to a more advanced topic.
> t's somewhat amusing to see someone write a lengthy rant against testing because memorizing information is archaic, when the ability to write, at least at the start, is learned this way.
Writing is a skill. It is NOT memorization. It is not taught or learned that way, even at the beginning, unless you are talking about handwriting.
No one says, "Memorize this phrase, and now write it out again."
I mean you are just wrong. You memorize what sound (well sounds) the letter "a" makes, which is of course fundamental to being able to write because English uses an alphabet. You might argue that reading isn't writing, but the two are interdependent (or at least writing generally dependent on reading).
Not to mention memorizing how to physically write (i.e. what you're talking about with handwriting)...
I assume you think I mean composition or something, which is of course extremely obviously not what I meant... But to develop that skill of "writing" that you're talking about requires memorization of the fundamentals... Which applies quite broadly to other disciplines...
It's not memorization, it's pattern recognition that really counts. What sound "a" mkes is irrelevnt if you're recognizing the relevnt pttern. So it's you who's in the wrong.
You cannot reasonably intuit the sounds that letters make, or the meaning of combinations of letters without some underlying phonetic information. Your ability to recognize those patterns is built upon learning the meaning of words and letters as I described (not to mention whether what you're doing is pattern recognition or pattern memorization).
there is qualitative difference between simple memorization and generalized pattern recognition. You fail to distinguish the two very distinct things, one of which admittedly is the base of the other, but the other one is very much required for higher cognitive function.
Memorization can be done on a cellular level, generalized pattern recognition - not so much.
Lol. Ignoring the general absurdity here, none of this has to do with the basis of reading/writing, which in English is a set of phonetic letters. I've described why these must be memorized.
Not everything IS memorization, but lots of things HAVE memorization. You don't write by regurgitating exact phrases, but your ability to write will be significantly impeded if you need to constantly look up word definitions, spellings, word order, syntax rules, and orthographies. There are certain fundamentals that need to be automatic, and it's fair to require internalization as part of acquiring mastery.
The most obvious example why you're wrong is learning a second language. Even learning a language outside of a classroom generally requires memorization of fundamental vocabulary (and sometimes a writing system); it therefore makes sense that a class teaching a second language would test students on this memorization.
Now, other fields might not be so obvious, but they require many things to be quickly accessible, much in the same way that one might need quick access to a word or a character with a second language. A biologist needs to know and understand the central dogma, an engineer needs to understand mechanical stress, and a chemist needs to be able to read a structural formula; they need to be able to do these things essentially instantly (and understand them intuitively) to be able to even discuss more complex topics, because complex information builds on simple information. Hence it makes sense to make sure those pieces of information are understood and readily available before sending a student off to a more advanced topic.