Is It Fair for Some Students to Get Extra Time on Exams?

[NeoDevin]

Perhaps the best solution would be for the teacher to make it explicit in advance: "Any student who continues writing after the end of the exam has been announced will receive <insert penalty here>." Announce it at the beginning, and have it written on the cover. As long as the penalty is made clear at the beginning, no student will have any cause to complain that it is unfair. Alternately, make it clear that the time limit is flexible, and that any students requiring a few more minutes will be allowed to continue.

 

[Sorry!]

I remember in high school even that you would fail a test if you continued to write. If you were lucky the teacher would deduct marks or come to see what answer your still writing and give you a 0 on that but in a university class the number of students is way to high for that.
The same thing happens in real life situations... If they are giving out free computers until 9 am and you arrive at 9:01 should you get a computer? ...no...
If you have a job interview at 10 and you arrive at 10:03 should you get an interview? ...no... At places I worked I've seen this happen too.

I remember going through high-school thinking wow these guys are hard-asses and they would tell us that they are preparing us for university just doing their job. Apparently they were just being hard-asses because university seems much more relaxed about rules regarding academics than my high school was.

...Imagine that the OP is competing for a second year spot and he gets up and hands his test in ON time everytime. Another student who always answers one extra question or fixes one extra mistake on their test AFTER the given test time receives better grades by .5% (and the extra answers/corrections always are right) the OP followed the rules and maintain ok grades but doesn't make the cut the other person just makes the cut above him.
Is that fair? Sure it could do him good to retake the course anyways since he wasn't doing 'excellent' but that's not the point.

 

[leroyjenkens]

No, it wasn't. My original point was:

Your original point that I responded to was you saying this:

No it isn't.

In response to this:

Taking extra time is tantamount to cheating

You're clearly saying it's not cheating.

I'm not advocating anything. What I'm saying, and what I said in my original post, is that this is how the real world works, and he'd be better served learning how to deal with it and work with it, than he is by complaining about it to his professor.

So the real world works by cheating and since you can't beat it, you should join it?
Hindsight's 20/20. If the professor cracked down after he said something, it would have been best to just complain to the professor.

What advice would you give the OP in dealing with this situation?

I don't know, but next time he tries to take extra time and no one else does, he may get caught and punished. You're not suggesting he gauges whether or not he listens to the teacher based on if a few other students don't, are you?

Absolutely nothing. There's no way a teacher is going to fail an entire class of students for taking too much time on their test. The punishment for the students will be relaxed to something minor, at a minimum, and may even be tossed out completely. The administration will take a serious look at that teacher's ability to control a classroom, though. When a teacher has their entire class rebel, it's usually not the only problem that teacher has had with their students.

Then you should change that from "absolutely nothing" to "maybe something."
If some students aren't listening, then there's still something wrong. It's not like every single student has to rebel before there's a problem.

 

[dotman]

You're clearly saying it's not cheating.

You should look up what the word tantamount means. That said, I have no further desire to debate semantics with you, especially since you have stated that you have no advice to offer, and instead are only arguing with the advice that other people are offering the OP.

 

[leroyjenkens]

You should look up what the word tantamount means.

It means equivalent to. What do I need to look up? You've been saying it's not cheating, and then when I catch you in a discrepancy, you want to play the semantics card.

and instead are only arguing with the advice that other people are offering the OP.

What's wrong with that? Please show me a link to where it says in writing that I'm not supposed to do that.

 

[dotman]

It means equivalent to. What do I need to look up? You've been saying it's not cheating, and then when I catch you in a discrepancy, you want to play the semantics card.

I'm not debating semantics with you. It adds nothing to the discussion.

What's wrong with that? Please show me a link to where it says in writing that I'm not supposed to do that.

What's wrong is you aren't helping the OP, which means you're only arguing for the sake of arguing.

So like I said, unless you have some advice for the OP, please stop derailing this thread. If you want to discuss the actual points made in this thread, please do so.

To be honest, I don't even know what you're trying to say at this point.

 

[leroyjenkens]

What's wrong is you aren't helping the OP, which means you're only arguing for the sake of arguing.

How is it not helping him to critique what other people say? That's a very unscientific way of thinking.
Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean you can't know what the answer isn't.
For example, if someone posts a forum topic asking what kind of fats are healthy to eat and someone responds with "trans fat", is it not helping the OP for me to disagree with that person, even if I don't know what kind of fats are healthy to eat? I may not know what's healthy, but I know what isn't.
So your conclusion doesn't follow the premise. I'm arguing for the sake of arguing because I disagree with someone?

So like I said, unless you have some advice for the OP, please stop derailing this thread. If you want to discuss the actual points made in this thread, please do so.

Wow, that's what I was doing. I was discussing a point made in this thread. I guess what you mean to say is discuss OTHER people's points, since your points are the gospel truth and not up for debate.

To be honest, I don't even know what you're trying to say at this point.

Of course you do, since you just responded to what I said.
What that is is just a last little jab at me as if I'm some nutcase rambling on. You defeat the purpose of that comment by answering the very question you claim to not understand.

 

[ideasrule]

More succinctly, asking what would happen if everyone kept working is invalid, because everyone did not keep working. But clearly the OP could have, with no ill consequences.

...and not everybody is going to keep on working because many of the people would be done and would have checked it over 3 times, while many others have checked it over over 1 times but feel very confident

 

[ideasrule]

...Imagine that the OP is competing for a second year spot and he gets up and hands his test in ON time everytime. Another student who always answers one extra question or fixes one extra mistake on their test AFTER the given test time receives better grades by .5% (and the extra answers/corrections always are right) the OP followed the rules and maintain ok grades but doesn't make the cut the other person just makes the cut above him.
Is that fair?

If the OP is planning to go into anything remotely science-related, observing one's environment and drawing reasonable conclusions is crucial. Being able to look around, look at the teacher, and gauge whether he can continue writing isn't rocket science; the average person should be able to do this basic observation and deduction. Anybody who can't is definitely not well-suited for scientific research.

 

[Sorry!]

If the OP is planning to go into anything remotely science-related, observing one's environment and drawing reasonable conclusions is crucial. Being able to look around, look at the teacher, and gauge whether he can continue writing isn't rocket science; the average person should be able to do this basic observation and deduction. Anybody who can't is definitely not well-suited for scientific research.

Science means act immorally?

It would make sense if these people didn't KNOW it wasn't ok to continue writing for those extra minutes because then it would just be amoral.

What your suggesting though is that the OP blatantly disregards the instructions he's given because he's observed other people have done so without consequence?

If I were to observe people stealing candy from a store and not have any consequence laid against them would it be scientific to conclude that I too should steal the candy?

No- my ethics would lead me to exactly what the OP has done and gone to speak about it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't understand why this is so complicated.

Where I was an undergraduate, the tradition was that at 11:00 AM (or whenever), the professor picked up the pile of tests on the desk and walked out the door. If your test was still on your desk or in your hand, well, that's your problem now, isn't it?

 

[redargon]

50 minute exam for 20% of your year mark, haha. If you're good enough at your subject, you shouldn't have to worry about competing with the people that take an extra 5 minutes to finish, you should be worried about the guys that handed in their test 5 minutes early with a big smile on their face. The fact is, at uni or school, you should compete against yourself and not others. Who cares if some guy got more time to write a test, boo hoo, it won't change your own mark and it might give them, what, like 1-2% more in a test that counts for 20% of the course (so actually about 0.2-0.4% in terms of the course).

 

[Pattonias]

I don't understand why this is so complicated.

Where I was an undergraduate, the tradition was that at 11:00 AM (or whenever), the professor picked up the pile of tests on the desk and walked out the door. If your test was still on your desk or in your hand, well, that's your problem now, isn't it?

I like that. "Welcome to the real world!"

I always liked the teachers who didn't argue, they established the rule and there was no discussion.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Science means act immorally?

It would make sense if these people didn't KNOW it wasn't ok to continue writing for those extra minutes because then it would just be amoral.

What your suggesting though is that the OP blatantly disregards the instructions he's given because he's observed other people have done so without consequence?

If I were to observe people stealing candy from a store and not have any consequence laid against them would it be scientific to conclude that I too should steal the candy?

No- my ethics would lead me to exactly what the OP has done and gone to speak about it.

Well said.
This stuff about learning when you can and can't break the rules and learning the maximum you can push the limits without having any consequences is just crazy talk. I can't believe what I'm hearing.

 

[Sorry!]

So if the OP talks to the prof. or TAs about this and they tell him they don't mind the students writing for a few extra moments to finish up then by all means use up that extra time if you need it (as I previously pointed out in one of my first few posts though you probably don't need these extra minutes in the same way the other people do if you feel comfortable enough to submit your exam without frantically rushing answers towards the end). If the prof. says they will look into it or something along the lines of students are not permitted to continue to write then they should just continue submitting test within the allotted time.

Imagine that the OP decides one time to take 5 extra minutes to finish a couple questions he skipped earlier and the prof. suddenly decides to react. Bam he deducts the OPs exam by 5% per minute or something to that effect.
The OP can argue all he wants that he was just doing what a couple few other students were doing but I don't think this will excuse his actions at all and he'll have to live as the 'set example'.

 

[ideasrule]

Science means act immorally?

It means using observation and reason to make rational deductions about one's environment. If a teacher decides to allow extra time, that should be obvious. There shouldn't be any quibbling about "cheating" or "breaking the rules", because the teacher's implied rules weren't broken. I've had plenty of teachers who allow a lot of extra time, plenty who allow only a minute, and plenty who are very strict about the time limit. I can't believe that any reasonably intelligent person would have trouble distinguishing between the three types of teachers.

 

[dotman]

This stuff about learning when you can and can't break the rules and learning the maximum you can push the limits without having any consequences is just crazy talk.

Why is it crazy? People do this literally every day in nearly every aspect of their life. I could give a number of examples, but probably the best one is just about any sporting event-- I'll pick a professional basketball game. The players are constantly bumping, pushing, shoving, elbowing, and generally 'playing physically'. Strictly speaking, a team commits multiple penalties on nearly every play. But they're not called. The players develop an intuitive sense for how far they can push these rules, and base their decisions to bend or break them based on how badly they need to score, get the ball back, whatever. If they're ahead, they play it safe, and don't risk it.

 

[Moonbear]

Well said.
This stuff about learning when you can and can't break the rules and learning the maximum you can push the limits without having any consequences is just crazy talk. I can't believe what I'm hearing.

Why? That's how the world works. One needs to learn when a rule is hard and fast and when it is more of a guideline than a rule. If someone is always overly rigid about the rules, always stays safely inside the box, and never tests the limits, they will not get very far in life. It's the people who test the boundaries and break through them who make progress happen. And, if nobody is strictly enforcing a rule, it's usually because nobody thinks it's all that important of a rule.

Yes, there is always a risk of consequences when one breaks a rule. One needs to decide for themselves if they feel the risk is justified for the potential gain they could make. Where would society be today if Rosa Parks always followed the rules and never chose to break one she felt was unjust?

 

[General_Sax]

I think I'm just stressed about not getting into a program I want. Some of these kids are just ridiculously smart; doubling class averages and such.

She should write: "You have approximately 50 minutes to write this exam", on her exams.

 

[Sorry!]

Why? That's how the world works. One needs to learn when a rule is hard and fast and when it is more of a guideline than a rule. If someone is always overly rigid about the rules, always stays safely inside the box, and never tests the limits, they will not get very far in life. It's the people who test the boundaries and break through them who make progress happen. And, if nobody is strictly enforcing a rule, it's usually because nobody thinks it's all that important of a rule.

Yes, there is always a risk of consequences when one breaks a rule. One needs to decide for themselves if they feel the risk is justified for the potential gain they could make. Where would society be today if Rosa Parks always followed the rules and never chose to break one she felt was unjust?

This rule ISN'T unjust that's the difference. We won't have a student uprising against time based testings will we?

 

[rootX]

Well said.
This stuff about learning when you can and can't break the rules and learning the maximum you can push the limits without having any consequences is just crazy talk. I can't believe what I'm hearing.

I get very annoyed by people who tend to follow every single rule. It's just very hard to work with them.

 

[ideasrule]

This rule ISN'T unjust that's the difference. We won't have a student uprising against time based testings will we?

Actually, it isn't even the rule. The teacher decides the rules and in the OP's case, he/she decided to give everybody a few extra minutes.

 

[General_Sax]

If it wasn't a rule, she wouldn't have specified the time limit on the cover sheet of her exam.

 

[Sorry!]

Actually, it isn't even the rule. The teacher decides the rules and in the OP's case, he/she decided to give everybody a few extra minutes.

I was talking about the suggestion that other people have been giving that the OP should just disregard the rules that are stated before the test begins.

As well I'm sure you have to listen to your TA/prof when they direct you so that is a rule.

 

[Moonbear]

If it wasn't a rule, she wouldn't have specified the time limit on the cover sheet of her exam.

Consider it tolerance limits, sort of like setting the speed limit below what is a safe speed to drive on a road, or maximum recommended operating settings on a machine below what the machine can handle, knowing people will exceed any posted limit by some small percentage.

Besides, the person who makes the rules is allowed to change or waive the rules. If I tell my class they have an hour to take the exam, and at the end of the hour period, most of them are still working, I could yell at them to put their pencils down and anyone still writing will get a zero, or I could tell them they can have 5 extra minutes. It's at the discretion of the person giving the exam. I always have my exam rooms reserved for an extra 20 min longer than I tell the students they have for the exam. That mostly is just so I know I have extra time for giving instructions or clearing out of the room if there is a problem with the exam (including that we sometimes have a fire drill during an exam). But, it also means that if I entirely miscalculated the difficulty of my exam, I have some leeway to give the class extra time at the end.

 

[NeoDevin]

Consider it tolerance limits, sort of like setting the speed limit below what is a safe speed to drive on a road, or maximum recommended operating settings on a machine below what the machine can handle, knowing people will exceed any posted limit by some small percentage.

Besides, the person who makes the rules is allowed to change or waive the rules. If I tell my class they have an hour to take the exam, and at the end of the hour period, most of them are still working, I could yell at them to put their pencils down and anyone still writing will get a zero, or I could tell them they can have 5 extra minutes. It's at the discretion of the person giving the exam. I always have my exam rooms reserved for an extra 20 min longer than I tell the students they have for the exam. That mostly is just so I know I have extra time for giving instructions or clearing out of the room if there is a problem with the exam (including that we sometimes have a fire drill during an exam). But, it also means that if I entirely miscalculated the difficulty of my exam, I have some leeway to give the class extra time at the end.

Given that some students may have other exams/classes/commitments after the scheduled time, it is unfair to give unannounced extra time, after the time has been set. If you have made an exam too difficult for the time allotted, the only fair way to fix it is by curving the results (either of the exam or of the course).

At my university, it is against the code of conduct for a professor to alter the timing of a final exam in any way after it is set in the syllabus without written agreement of all students registered in a course. This includes granting extra time at the end of an exam (though I doubt it would ever come to anything for a couple of people who continue writing for a minute or two).

I did have one prof who awarded a mark of 0 to four students in my class who didn't stop writing after he called time. He made it clear before hand what the consequences would be; and despite their protests and complaints to the department, the mark of 0 stuck.

 

[Moonbear]

Given that some students may have other exams/classes/commitments after the scheduled time, it is unfair to give unannounced extra time, after the time has been set. If you have made an exam too difficult for the time allotted, the only fair way to fix it is by curving the results (either of the exam or of the course).

Curving is never a fair way to fix a difficult exam. I know for a fact that my students do not have other commitments after my exam, because even the extra time falls within their regularly scheduled lecture time (we have an hour and 20 min for lecture, and I only give them an hour long exam). I agree that if the exam were to run over into another lecture period, that could be a problem...though in my case it is not, because the only class it would run into is the lab portion of the course they have with me).

But, indeed, if students had to leave after the regularly scheduled time was over, that would be the end of the exam. The most fair thing is to just give them the bad grades they earned in such a situation.

We have university required final exam periods too, and any changes need to be approved in advance. But, even for that, I have a one hour exam, and they have a 2 hour period scheduled by the university for my exam.

As I said, there is a lot of discretion by the faculty and from university to university. There is no official advice we could give here that would apply in every case, which is why one must make the decisions for themselves about whether the rules are very strictly enforced or have some wiggle room for their particular class.

 

[NeoDevin]

I know for a fact that my students do not have other commitments after my exam, because even the extra time falls within their regularly scheduled lecture time (we have an hour and 20 min for lecture, and I only give them an hour long exam).

In that situation, I would agree that it is not unfair.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Why? That's how the world works. One needs to learn when a rule is hard and fast and when it is more of a guideline than a rule.

Well if it's a guideline, it's a guideline. If it's a rule, it's a rule. If you find out that it's a guideline instead of a rule, then you're not breaking the rule when you defy it.

And, if nobody is strictly enforcing a rule, it's usually because nobody thinks it's all that important of a rule.

Doesn't seem like they strictly enforce driving a few MPH over the speed limit, but then you'll find out one day that they do and regret it. I have two friends who found that out. One got pulled over once for going 5 MPH over and once for going 6 MPH over, the other got pulled over for going 7 MPH over.

You may think you can bend a rule, but then you'll regret it when you get caught.

If someone is always overly rigid about the rules, always stays safely inside the box, and never tests the limits, they will not get very far in life.

Honestly, not to sound rude, but that statement is really cliche. I've heard it before. I don't get it. What rules do you have to break to get far in life? Where are these rules that are restricting people from getting far in life? I never hear of someone working hard all their life, but not reaping the benefits because they're unwilling to bend and break a few rules to really take the bull by the horns and get to the next level.

Yes, there is always a risk of consequences when one breaks a rule. One needs to decide for themselves if they feel the risk is justified for the potential gain they could make. Where would society be today if Rosa Parks always followed the rules and never chose to break one she felt was unjust?

Well, that's different. Breaking a rule you feel is unjust is different than breaking a rule simply because you're sure you can get away with it.

 

[BobG]

If someone is always overly rigid about the rules, always stays safely inside the box, and never tests the limits, they will not get very far in life.

Honestly, not to sound rude, but that statement is really cliche. I've heard it before. I don't get it. What rules do you have to break to get far in life? Where are these rules that are restricting people from getting far in life? I never hear of someone working hard all their life, but not reaping the benefits because they're unwilling to bend and break a few rules to really take the bull by the horns and get to the next level.

I think that's a fair criticism.

There is a correlation between a person's willingness to take risks (including breaking a few trivial rules that a person knows will result in little to no punishments) and a person's likelihood of accomplishing something original.

It's obviously not the rule breaking that takes a person far in life.

It's that the people that are most likely to accomplish something no one else has thought of are people that don't take it for granted that a rule must always be correct and must always be adhered to.

The only problem with the cliche in this case is that turning a test paper in late usually isn't any more original than religiously following the posted time limit. It's a misapplied cliche in this case. (Successfully ironing your shirt while wearing it would be a proper application of the cliche - with "successfully" being the key word.)