Contrary to what many believe, I do not think Regents' testing is an accurate way to determine whether or not a student has learned the skills needed in writing. There are many factors that may make this test very difficult. In my opinion, the pressure it puts on people makes it ineffective and unfair.
             The Regents', which began in 1972, is an acceptable method of testing. It is not favorable though. Lots of people have trouble gathering ideas and concentrating when they know they are being timed. "Writing essays, term papers, lab reports, etc. no matter the topic, is a process"(Landsberger). It is also very difficult writing about an unfamiliar topic. Many students just have bad test-taking skills. They may have made good grades in English, but did poorly on the Regents' exam. Another flaw may be the grading staff. Some of them may be biased. Members of the grading staff must realize that "even anonymous grading is not truly "objective""(Kerney, Sinor). This makes opinionated topics unfair when a student writes about something the grader disagrees with.
             When determining a student's composition skills, I believe that more than a single writing should be considered. So I think the Regents' test should modify its standards. Students have "one hour in which to write on one of four topics that are given"(Overview of the Regents' Writing...). This test should not be timed and there should be a broader range of topics instead of only four. I also think the students should be able to write essays on more topics than one. This would evaluate one's writing skills better. I do not think this would make the exam any easier. It would just give a larger basis of one's ability to be tested.
             There has to be a way to decree whether a student has met the minimum requirements. So I do not think the competency testing
             ...