disagree.
Theres much, much more to being competent at something than being assessed under exam conditions. Unless your chosen topic is "performing well under exam conditions".

Driving test being a perfect case in point. I am an excellent driver, have been told so by every driving instructor I've had, yet I have failed my test 3 times. All three instructors thought I was an absolute shoe-in, and yet I am still without a license, because I find it incredibly distracting having someone sat next to me with a clipboard assessing every single thing I do. I passed my practice test, as I wasn't under the pressure of test conditions. And, over three tests, I still haven't had enough minor faults - even cumulatively- to fail. Just three major faults.

Were I to pass my driving test there is literally no other time when this situation would arise, therefore it has absolutely no bearing on my competency as driver.

You should be required to put in a certain number of hours and be assessed over a much wider period of time. Much fairer, less stressful and would provide a much more accurate demonstration of your overall ability as a driver...
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 16 Nov 2010, 3:43, 2 replies)

:)

ok
( enoughblueskyforsailorstrousers, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 5:13, closed)

He's 'pro-testing' i.e. for testing but it also sounds like the word 'protesting'
which is the theme of this QOTW.
(Falstaff's Spiritual Successor, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 9:33, closed)

awwwwwww
would have been so much more fun to let this go on

clicky btw
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 16:17, closed)