Equally, 'normal' exams don't allow you to test certain dimensions of skill - research, for instance. They also over-stress certain skills - handwriting speed and accuracy on the first draft, for example - which might be considered irrelevant to the material in question. Pretty much every promotion board in the Army requires a timed, written essay, but the directing staff rarely set anything in store by them. It's nice if an infantry sergeant can write a thousand words or so about international relations and grand strategy, but a lot of the essays will come back, frankly, rubbish. Does that matter? Not really. If the problem is that Cpl. Bloggs isn't very bright, we'll find that out in the planning exercises. If the problem is that he can't communicate, we'll find that out when he does briefings. If the problem is that he can't spell, who cares? That's a good example of an outdated assessment system (I'm fairly sure it dates to the time when they wanted to check that NCOs were actually literate) which would be counterproductive, if the people running it (who are a long way from the people designing it) didn't take steps against that.
