7 ms·

Folks are doing take-home exam wrong. Caltech had tremendous success with a culture of honesty and take-home exams.

eben-ezer 6y ago
I'm currently taking online classes at a program which has had entirely online offerings for over a decade. Out of the 10+ classes I've taken so far, I'm currently enrolled in the only one that has required a lockdown browser (I haven't taken any tests yet, so I'm not sure what that will be like). Up until now, all the classes just had me sign something saying I didn't cheat. Also, usually the test was designed in such a way as to make it more difficult to cheat. About half of the classes, the tests are open-note. They combat the effectiveness of cheating by making the time of the test short enough to where if you don't know the information, you won't b able to look up more than 25% of the questions before time runs out. I can see how that wouldn't work for all classes, and admittedly I haven't taken any Math or Science courses so it may be different in that arena, but it seems like they have decided to take a different route than the schools mentioned in the article, and presumably haven't had any issues.
- 5mk 6y ago
  I'm an undergrad studying biochem, and my professors have also made their exams open-notes but timed. There are more short free-response questions than previous years. Also, the questions are focused on synthesizing the material rather than recalling minutiae. I think it's a good compromise, especially since you can't rely on Ctrl+F when you have to reason beyond the material in your own words.
_8091149529 6y ago
I spent a few years at Caltech in an academic role (not as a student). I never understood the rationale behind the unsupervised take-home exams. Could you elaborate what is it that makes it a 'success', in your opinion? The shortcomings that seem obvious to me are: - Penalizes honesty - Implied notion that Caltech students are "honourable" and honest. How is this achieved in practice?
- beisner 6y ago
  The idea is that you create questions that are ungoogleable. Most of my upper-level CS courses had take-homes that were open-book, open-internet, and the professor basically said “good luck finding the answer to this problem online; you will not”. This is harder for professors to do, and maybe fails in intro courses, but generally is quite effective.
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    This. Else you might as well call the degree "rote" because that's what you measure. > maybe fails in intro courses If someone cheats their way through intro courses they are up for a bad surprise since the upper level courses assumes a mastery of the intro classes!
    - _8091149529 6y ago
      Interesting, thanks for the replies. I'd still point out that the system is not robust against: - Working in groups. (Bad if tests are supposed to assess individual performance.) - Asking outsiders for help. Also, your downplaying of "rote" learning feels misguided, no matter how advanced/abstract/high-level the domain in question is. Cue the Bruce Lee quote about 10,000 kicks..
      - turbinerneiter 6y ago
        Just imagine a world were solving problems in groups and asking for outside help is bad. We are so used to exams being about doing stuff that literally nobody in real life would ever even consider.
        _8091149529 6y ago
        I was aware of the implications, hence the disclaimer "(Bad if ...)" However, I'd assume that doing either during a test would be against the honor code.
      - 6y ago
CamperBob2 6y ago
Caltech had tremendous success with a culture of honesty and take-home exams. "Can I use Feynman?"

I'm currently taking online classes at a program which has had entirely online offerings for over a decade. Out of the 10+ classes I've taken so far, I'm currently enrolled in the only one that has required a lockdown browser (I haven't taken any tests yet, so I'm not sure what that will be like). Up until now, all the classes just had me sign something saying I didn't cheat. Also, usually the test was designed in such a way as to make it more difficult to cheat. About half of the classes, the tests are open-note. They combat the effectiveness of cheating by making the time of the test short enough to where if you don't know the information, you won't b able to look up more than 25% of the questions before time runs out. I can see how that wouldn't work for all classes, and admittedly I haven't taken any Math or Science courses so it may be different in that arena, but it seems like they have decided to take a different route than the schools mentioned in the article, and presumably haven't had any issues.

5mk 6y ago
I'm an undergrad studying biochem, and my professors have also made their exams open-notes but timed. There are more short free-response questions than previous years. Also, the questions are focused on synthesizing the material rather than recalling minutiae. I think it's a good compromise, especially since you can't rely on Ctrl+F when you have to reason beyond the material in your own words.

_8091149529 6y ago

I spent a few years at Caltech in an academic role (not as a student). I never understood the rationale behind the unsupervised take-home exams. Could you elaborate what is it that makes it a 'success', in your opinion? The shortcomings that seem obvious to me are: - Penalizes honesty - Implied notion that Caltech students are "honourable" and honest. How is this achieved in practice?

beisner 6y ago
The idea is that you create questions that are ungoogleable. Most of my upper-level CS courses had take-homes that were open-book, open-internet, and the professor basically said “good luck finding the answer to this problem online; you will not”. This is harder for professors to do, and maybe fails in intro courses, but generally is quite effective.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  This. Else you might as well call the degree "rote" because that's what you measure. > maybe fails in intro courses If someone cheats their way through intro courses they are up for a bad surprise since the upper level courses assumes a mastery of the intro classes!
  - _8091149529 6y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the replies. I'd still point out that the system is not robust against: - Working in groups. (Bad if tests are supposed to assess individual performance.) - Asking outsiders for help. Also, your downplaying of "rote" learning feels misguided, no matter how advanced/abstract/high-level the domain in question is. Cue the Bruce Lee quote about 10,000 kicks..
    - turbinerneiter 6y ago
      Just imagine a world were solving problems in groups and asking for outside help is bad. We are so used to exams being about doing stuff that literally nobody in real life would ever even consider.
      - _8091149529 6y ago
        I was aware of the implications, hence the disclaimer "(Bad if ...)" However, I'd assume that doing either during a test would be against the honor code.
    - 6y ago

CamperBob2 6y ago

Caltech had tremendous success with a culture of honesty and take-home exams. "Can I use Feynman?"