I am indeed a slow learner.

I learn a lot of things in hindsight.

For one, I learnt today the value of the written comment "see me" on my assignments.

That dreaded "see me" that means I must nervously seek my teacher to find out what's wrong with me (actually should be my understanding).

Today, I see that "see me" is a teacher's heart to want to explain in greater detail and also seek understanding in what I do not understand.

"See me" is a teacher's "curse", but a student's blessing. I say a curse because it's a sacrifice a teacher makes of his or her time to give it to a student, instead of ignoring a glaring or nagging doubt that a student does not know his or her work or has some big misconceptions.

I am currently doing some A Level Biology Questions which answers can be ripped off directly from Wikipedia. And I'm wondering, why do examiners even set such questions?

"...we've got to do a lot fewer things in school. The greatest enemy of understanding is coverage. As long as you are determined to cover everything, you actually ensure that most kids are not going to understand. You've got to take enough time to get kids deeply involved in something so they can think about it in lots of different ways and apply it - not just at school but at home and on the street and so on."

- Howard Gardner

The issue is in confusing test grades for success.

As a child, I did not have the capacity to tell the two apart and no one else told me. To me, and perhaps many others, test grades indicate success. The two are almost synonymous. If not, why do parents praise kids who top the class. Why is there streaming into EM1, 2 and 3 with indication that it's better to be in 1 than in 3?

Is it just in the grades?

It's just the tip of an iceberg.

An hidden assumption of using test grades as an indicator for success is that test grades show intellect, learning and effort. It shows us a student has been using his or her brain, becoming more intellectual and is hardworking or conscientious with work.

But, the relationship is not so direct.

For we found a way around the system. We showed that we can achieve the indicator of success without the underlying assumptions. We can get the good grades, and get all the goodies that come along with it (good school, good reputation, praises from parents and people), without becoming who the educational policymakers want us to be.

Many ways to do it. One way - study to the test.

So, is doing well in an exam, necessarily a success?

I don't think so at all.

What is a literature review?