Read on Twitter
why do we assume exams (of any sort) need to be combative to some degree? why can't the tone of assessment be, "we're so excited for you to show us all you've learned, and to help you figure out where you can improve?"
if grad programs ostensibly commit to the success of every grad student they admit, then why do exams need to feel like students are running a gauntlet while evaluators look for reasons to fail them?
the failures of some do not make the success of others more meaningful. evaluations should be assumed to be a moment of celebration. i'm not saying that everyone should pass exams on the first go, but we can reframe our expectations of the process and reactions to diff. outcomes
just one more note: people might not like the word "violence," but there needs to be a way to describe the ways in which the current combative climate of exams takes a physical toll on certain bodies, often those from minority backgrounds.
exam trauma is infinitely worse when you've been told that your entire worth in the field hinges on proving philological mastery. language exams become watershed moments in which maybe we can finally prove that we belong. the pressure is overwhelming and deeply inhumane.
i can't say how much philology is required for certain subfields. but in conjunction with the emphasis that the field still places on philological mastery regardless of research interests or background, the current climate around language exams must change.
