4 ms·

A solution for both this, and the problems with exams in general, is oral exams. Student has to answer questions from the teacher, in real time, one-on-one. Tak

A solution for both this, and the problems with exams in general, is oral exams. Student has to answer questions from the teacher, in real time, one-on-one. Takes longer, but is much more authentic.

chrisseaton 6y ago
I think in the US some class sizes are in the hundreds, so this does not seem scalable for their case.
- space_fountain 6y ago
  Some but for my college at least very few. I think I took one class with more than 100 people in it
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- nkrisc 6y ago
  If they're having trouble proctoring their exams, perhaps they're admitting too many students.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I think proctoring in-person was fine. The issue is only because it's remote.
- asdff 6y ago
  In all my 300 student classes, we had recitation sections with maybe 20 students to a TA or teaching professor to go over the homework/take quizzes/serve as extended office hours beyond the time the professor and this TA already made available themselves every week. It wouldn't be much more work for the TA to give each student in their section a 1 on 1 hour meeting over the course of a week or two.
progman32 6y ago
This tosses in a whole other layer of stress and meta-game managing the relationship with the teacher. I do not do anywhere close to my best work with someone staring at my every move. For undergrad, I'm much more in favor of deliverable-based approaches. Term projects, problem sets, etc. I think it's cruel to boil such a high-stakes decision to a single-point-of-failure event like a big test. I've heard too many stories where someone had a bad event happen before a test, or just slept poorly, or made a trivial mistake, or got sick, only to be told "too bad". If cheating is a huge problem, locking down the final step isn't going to fix anything in the long run. It destroys all trust. We need to take a look at the motivations to cheat, even if these reasons are uncomfortable.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > I do not do anywhere close to my best work with someone staring at my every move. And some people thrive with others around. Eventually you'll find an excuse for why anything is unfair..."too much pressure!" "not enough time!" And we wonder why, by and large, college degrees become more worthless, and academic vigor sinks like a stone. Maybe we should just accept that college should be hard, that tests should be challenging, and instead, remove the extra requirement for college for most people. Because if we just make it a joke it's pointless anyway.
TrackerFF 6y ago
Tbh, I thought I'd like oral exams - but for whatever reason, I always bombed them. Even exams where I thought I did good, I'd completely bomb. Because oral exams are quite time limited, you really only have one shot at each sub-question. And how good you are, is 100% subjective to the people judging you - and since this is in person, lots of things can influence their judgement. Hell, they may even have some latent bias. And as others have mentioned, it brings a bunch of stress on the candidate. I guess it's a very personal preference. I always did better on home exams, the stress-level was pretty much non-existent, compared to the others.
MarkMc 6y ago
"Hey bro, I'll pay you $50 to let me listen while the teacher asks you questions"

A solution for both this, and the problems with exams in general, is oral exams. Student has to answer questions from the teacher, in real time, one-on-one. Takes longer, but is much more authentic.

chrisseaton 6y ago

I think in the US some class sizes are in the hundreds, so this does not seem scalable for their case.

space_fountain 6y ago
Some but for my college at least very few. I think I took one class with more than 100 people in it
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nkrisc 6y ago
If they're having trouble proctoring their exams, perhaps they're admitting too many students.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I think proctoring in-person was fine. The issue is only because it's remote.
asdff 6y ago
In all my 300 student classes, we had recitation sections with maybe 20 students to a TA or teaching professor to go over the homework/take quizzes/serve as extended office hours beyond the time the professor and this TA already made available themselves every week. It wouldn't be much more work for the TA to give each student in their section a 1 on 1 hour meeting over the course of a week or two.

progman32 6y ago

This tosses in a whole other layer of stress and meta-game managing the relationship with the teacher. I do not do anywhere close to my best work with someone staring at my every move. For undergrad, I'm much more in favor of deliverable-based approaches. Term projects, problem sets, etc. I think it's cruel to boil such a high-stakes decision to a single-point-of-failure event like a big test. I've heard too many stories where someone had a bad event happen before a test, or just slept poorly, or made a trivial mistake, or got sick, only to be told "too bad". If cheating is a huge problem, locking down the final step isn't going to fix anything in the long run. It destroys all trust. We need to take a look at the motivations to cheat, even if these reasons are uncomfortable.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> I do not do anywhere close to my best work with someone staring at my every move. And some people thrive with others around. Eventually you'll find an excuse for why anything is unfair..."too much pressure!" "not enough time!" And we wonder why, by and large, college degrees become more worthless, and academic vigor sinks like a stone. Maybe we should just accept that college should be hard, that tests should be challenging, and instead, remove the extra requirement for college for most people. Because if we just make it a joke it's pointless anyway.

TrackerFF 6y ago

Tbh, I thought I'd like oral exams - but for whatever reason, I always bombed them. Even exams where I thought I did good, I'd completely bomb. Because oral exams are quite time limited, you really only have one shot at each sub-question. And how good you are, is 100% subjective to the people judging you - and since this is in person, lots of things can influence their judgement. Hell, they may even have some latent bias. And as others have mentioned, it brings a bunch of stress on the candidate. I guess it's a very personal preference. I always did better on home exams, the stress-level was pretty much non-existent, compared to the others.

MarkMc 6y ago

"Hey bro, I'll pay you $50 to let me listen while the teacher asks you questions"