Written exams have developed into one of the most common forms of assessment all the way from second-level to third-level and beyond, but while they have benefits, they also have downsides. Many argue that they’re good regarding ‘veracity’ (we are reasonably sure that what is assessed is the work of the candidate), they are relatively economical to conduct and manage, and they are fair since each candidate has the same opportunities. It’s also true that many employers regard exam results as easy to use when selecting candidates for interview. Traditionalists argue that performing under the time constrained pressure of exams provides a good indicator of vital strengths of candidates. However, they remain a snapshot of what a andidate can do at a set time, over a limited defined timescale, at a particular place, and attempting specific defined questions and factors such as legibility and speed of handwriting are known to influence marks.