Testing, Good or Bad?

After reading the arguments written by Paul Goodman, Howard Gardener, and Diane Ravitch it is obvious that they all have valid ideas and show that the system in place now is far from perfect. Paul Goodman believes testing should be abolished completely at the college level. I do believe this is a far cry from the testing policies in place currently, in fact, it is a step back. I personally despise taking tests as much as the next person, but if it weren't for tests, how would we evaluate the knowledge we have gained? Tests give students something to strive towards. If all classes were based on pass/fail we would be going through school working just hard enough to pass. Why try harder than the next person if it doesn't reflect in some way? As far as Howard Gardener is concerned, if I knew I had all the time in the world to finish my test I would second guess myself over and over again and it would more than likely hinder me rather than help me. In the last paragraph of Gardeners essay he argues that dictionaries and Internet should be available for testing just as they would be for individuals who are carrying out their work. I don't believe that when a doctor is in the midst of surgery he can run out and check the Internet or his medical dictionary if he encounters a problem! Any job I have ever worked at I have been tested on my skills. Teachers, Doctors, Nurses, and even Cosmetologists are tested regularly on their skills and knowledge as well as continually being taught new material. I strongly agree with many of the things that Ravitch says in her essay, especially when she states that, "Good testing should have a mix of essay, problem-solving, short-answer, and even some multiple-choice questions." Testing should be a way to assess a students knowledge and skill level, not a means to steer them away from learning what is important.