Unfair Education System: Exam Results Don't Reflect Efforts

[Cyrus]

I know you won't know everything in a job, but to have a sound knowledge going into it will give you a much better standing at keeping the job than someone who can just about remember the examples on the exam papers they learnt. Yes, the OP did fail in the sense all his work led to a poorer result.

Why do you assume the guy who looked at last years exam didn't have sound knowledge? I see you making up a lot as you type here Jared...

 

[JaredJames]

Why do you assume the guy who looked at last years exam didn't have sound knowledge? I see you making up a lot as you type here Jared...

Well I've looked through my comments and none of them specifically refer to the person he is talking about. My first post talked about a person puting in more effort should have a better understanding than those who simply learn to pass exams and from there my arguments follow that path. Me, explaining why learning to pass an exam isn't always a good thing and how you're unlikely to keep a job without a sound knowledge of the subject matter.
Not sure what I'm making up here, perhaps you could point it out?
I suppose you could say:
"see whos laughing when they can't hold a job because they don't have a clue what they're supposed to be doing! "
that is an asumption they don't have a sound knowledge, but then again it refers to my previous statement regarding "those who simply learned to pass". I wasn't digging at any specific person when I replied in any post, but just people who learn only what they need to pass exams.

Yes, for all I know this guy he speaks about could be amazing and have a good sound knowledge of the subject matter. But I felt the post was more about him being annoyed with people who do nothing but look over last years papers and coming up trumps, when he does a lot of work and doesn't do as well. So focused on that aspect.

 

[Moonbear]

That's some fantastic advice for students .

Anyway, this probably depends where in the world you are. Whilst in your university it may be true that grades mean "nothing", this is certainly not true for the majority of the universities in the world. For example, where I'm from, your grad school application will not even be looked at if you have "only average grades."

In fact (and I know I'm going to get a lot of harsh words for this), I think this lack of (exam) studying may be endemic to the US. From what I can gather, a grade for a certain course in the US is made up of several papers, midterm tests, quizzes on top of the final exam. Whereas, here in the UK (at least in the universities I'm familiar with) grades for courses are predominantly given for a final exam only. The pure fact that exams are worth nearly 100% of your degree means that you really need to learn how to study, and will not get away with cramming for a few small tests throughout the year.

From what I can tell (and I do know some Americans!) US students are a lot less able to study fully for an exam in the weeks upto it, and rely on a day or so's studying. Obviously, if you have a entire semester's (and sometimes year's) work to study, it will not suffice to cram a day or so before the exam. This, I guess, explains the comments like that of Topher.

Regardless, given the OP's username, I'm going to guess s/he isn't from the US.

Uh oh! Now it's going to be your turn to be accused of stereotyping typical US students.

I'll offer my 2 cents on the study skills and course grading structure when I return from the meeting I need to head to now. I certainly have an opinion on it, and I think it agrees somewhat with your outside view of grading practices in the US.

 

[Cyrus]

My first post talked about a person puting in more effort should have a better understanding than those who simply learn to pass exams and from there my arguments follow that path.

No one is talking about people that study to just pass the exams. I'm not.

Me, explaining why learning to pass an exam isn't always a good thing and how you're unlikely to keep a job without a sound knowledge of the subject matter.

Do you actually have a job doing engineering to justify this statement? For that matter, do you think an Exam is a be all end-all marker of knowing a subject?

Not sure what I'm making up here, perhaps you could point it out?
I suppose you could say:
"see whos laughing when they can't hold a job because they don't have a clue what they're supposed to be doing! "
that is an asumption they don't have a sound knowledge, but then again it refers to my previous statement regarding "those who simply learned to pass". I wasn't digging at any specific person when I replied in any post, but just people who learn only what they need to pass exams.

Again, what does 'sound knowledge mean' ... and why do you think passing an exam means you have 'sound knowledge' (whatever that means).

Yes, for all I know this guy he speaks about could be amazing and have a good sound knowledge of the subject matter. But I felt the post was more about him being annoyed with people who do nothing but look over last years papers and coming up trumps, when he does a lot of work and doesn't do as well. So focused on that aspect.

<shrug> So what? If he was given old exams and didn't utilize them he has (a) lousy study habits and (b) will make a poor engineer in the real world.

I will give you a real world example: Right now, I'm doing simulation work. I'm not wasting my time trying to learn every last detail on how to get this simulation working. I call up manufacturers and get information that I need from them. I call up people left and right to get the information that I need. So I don't waste my time trying to find it to get the job done. The same way he (and you) should not waste your time reading 200 pages of a book for an exam before the test.

Time is money. No one wants to hire you because you have 'sound knowledge' aka, you will sit there reading all 200 pages of the book when you can simply read half a page and extract what is vitally important to the task at hand.

The last class I took my professor gave out past exams himself. You'd be an idiot not to study them.

 

[JaredJames]

A sound knowledge - a strong knowledge. I DO NOT think just passing an exam means you have a strong knowledge of a subject. I think a person who takes the time to learn the work properly will be more likely to have a better idea of the subject work.
I hate exams, I don't think they accurately demonstrate a persons ability well at all.
The OP specifically complains about people who only cram at the last minute, enough information to get them through the exam.

Your real life situation is slightly different to cramming for an exam. In your situation, yes getting straight to the point and not wasting time is key. However, that is no way to revise. Are you saying you agree people should simply learn what is required to pass the exams and not do any additional work outside that required to pass? To me, if you do not do the extra work the uni assigns you, you miss out on a part of your education and are wasting your time being there.

"No one wants to hire you because you have 'sound knowledge' " - why am I doing a degree if companies don't want me to have a strong knowledge of the subject matter? What you have just said there is that a company doesn't want a person who knows the subject extremely well.

I always study the past exam papers, the OP has a problem with people who simply study the past exam papers only. And in his particular case, the questions were repeated.

I'll put your last response down to me using the word sound which is a more british phrase so I shouldn't have expected anyone to understand it outside of the uk. I do apologise, it's just I'm used to using it so it's quite natural to me.

 

[coverme]

Dear AshNZ , I advice that talking the problem here would make many of support,many to disagree and liitle neutral
Debate goes on
You believe yourself what really happened to you and what you need to do

 

[Cyrus]

I think a person who takes the time to learn the work properly will be more likely to have a better idea of the subject work.

Again, what does this 'take the time to learn the work properly' mean?

I hate exams, I don't think they accurately demonstrate a persons ability well at all.

I don't agree with that. To a good extent they do, but I'm simply saying that they are not a be-all end-all.

The OP specifically complains about people who only cram at the last minute, enough information to get them through the exam.

No, the OP said:

As a result of this, the guys who ONLY went through last 1-2 exam papers the night before did a better job than I did.

Meanwhile, it was the OP himself who was doing the cramming.

Your real life situation is slightly different to cramming for an exam. In your situation, yes getting straight to the point and not wasting time is key. However, that is no way to revise. Are you saying you agree people should simply learn what is required to pass the exams and not do any additional work outside that required to pass? To me, if you do not do the extra work the uni assigns you, you miss out on a part of your education and are wasting your time being there.

When did I say that? (Please don't argue things I'm not saying) I don't understand what you mean by 'no way to revise'.

"No one wants to hire you because you have 'sound knowledge' " - why am I doing a degree if companies don't want me to have a strong knowledge of the subject matter? What you have just said there is that a company doesn't want a person who knows the subject extremely well.

A company wants to hire a person to do exactly what they are hired to do. They don't care if you can also solve very complicated mathematical derivations if that's not what they are paying you to do. You are wrongly using the word 'strong knowledge' because, again, you do not have a strong knowledge in what you have studied. At best, you have a strong understanding of the fundamentals and that's about as far as it goes.

Having a 'strong knowledge' means doing graduate level work that is equal or above that of industry. If you do not have graduate level understanding of engineering (or equivalent through work experience) all you have is "strong fundamentals". Aka, to a company they still need to teach you how to do things. You will pick it up and learn it quicker because you have a strong background. But you don't have a strong knowledge. The only way you can have a strong knowledge is if you actually do it (not reading about it in a book). The people who are good at doing it are the ones that can find the important information very quickly and not spend time on non-relevant topics. This is exactly what the OP did wrong studying for his exam.

OP:"Hey boss, I just spend 99.99% of my time getting paid by you to read all 200 pages of this book"

Boss: "I Told you to order the part from page 200, why did this take you so long? Bob down the hallway did it in half the time"

I always study the past exam papers, the OP has a problem with people who simply study the past exam papers only. And in his particular case, the questions were repeated.

Well, that's the OP's problem: he should get over it or change schools.

 

[AshNZ]

Few things:

- 200 pages in 2 days is not hard especially during the study week. Think about it - I spent 6-7 hours each day and that's about 15 pages/hour. Not uncommon at all during study week and it is not cramming. And I agree with Moonbear that highlighting is passive - that's why I took notes and drew mind maps etc (read my first post). Also, Moonbear, note that I mentioned I got about 90% in one of the assignments (I mentioned that too) before assuming that I was not listening in the lectures. Lecturer gave few hints and sure enough they were asked, and sure enough, I did pretty well with that (2-3 marks max).

- I'm from New Zealand (someone asked before)

 

[moose]

What I don't understand is how you got a 70% if you claim that you studied extremely well.

You said you glanced at old exams. Does that mean that you saw that you didn't know something that was on a previous exam, but didn't worry about it? Whenever I see old exams, I at the very least make sure I know how to do the problems on that previous exam.

I just can't seem to figure out how what you said was possible...

EDIT: Reading 200 pages, for an engineering class? Really?

 

[cristo]

Meanwhile, it was the OP himself who was doing the cramming.

That's nonsense. Cramming is leaving studying to the last minute and then doing so only to pass the exam. The person who did the 1-2 past papers the night before is the one cramming for the exam.

When did I say that? (Please don't argue things I'm not saying) I don't understand what you mean by 'no way to revise'.

Revise means study.

Having a 'strong knowledge' means doing graduate level work that is equal or above that of industry. If you do not have graduate level understanding of engineering (or equivalent through work experience) all you have is "strong fundamentals". Aka, to a company they still need to teach you how to do things.

I don't know why you're talking about companies and industry: the OP is studying for classes in college. You appear to be advocating the 'bare minimum' approach to studying for exams. Whilst this may work for whatever you're doing in grad school, it is not advisable for undergraduate studies. The whole point of an undergraduate degree is to learn the basics, so that whenever you go off into the wide world you have the fundamental knowledge to apply to other situations. By circumventing the actual study process, you will essentially be able to remember nothing about those courses in the future.

Your point about strong knowledge vs. strong fundamentals is purely semantics.

OP:"Hey boss, I just spend 99.99% of my time getting paid by you to read all 200 pages of this book"

Boss: "I Told you to order the part from page 200, why did this take you so long? Bob down the hallway did it in half the time"

This is irrelevant.

Your real life situation is slightly different to cramming for an exam. In your situation, yes getting straight to the point and not wasting time is key. However, that is no way to revise.

My thoughts exactly.

I do apologise, it's just I'm used to using it so it's quite natural to me.

Sometimes we have to gently point our cousins across the pond to a dictionary, but never apologise for using correct phrases!

 

[JaredJames]

See previous post, couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[arildno]

I have never crammed for any exam, and I would strongly discourage anyone from doing that. (I happened to get very good grades).

What I did instead was, throughout the semester, to work systematically with the material, not neglecting to go back on topics covered weeks before (in case I had forgotten about it).

When the sense of "mastery" was achieved, I didn't see any point of continuing study, but used, for example, to relax the night before exam by going to the cinemas or having a beer or two.

 

[Moonbear]

Few things:

- 200 pages in 2 days is not hard especially during the study week. Think about it - I spent 6-7 hours each day and that's about 15 pages/hour. Not uncommon at all during study week and it is not cramming.

That is cramming, spending 6-7 hours a day studying in your last week for one course. You couldn't have been doing more than skimming the words. By the time you are in finals week, you shouldn't NEED to read 200 pages. You should already know the material fairly well and spend the final week just buffing up the weak areas and making sure you can do the hardest problems, and making sure you've learned the most recently presented material.

The proof is in your grade. Obviously, it didn't work. If your study approach was effective, you could have passed your exam with flying colors even if you had never seen an old exam before. You had access to the old exams, but claim that those who studied from them had an unfair advantage on the exam. You really need to stop making excuses, because the bottom line is that even if the exam had been different from previous years, or had those other people not seen old exams, you still only knew 70% of the material on the exam. If they all failed, you still only would have had 70%. So, you really need to consider that your method of studying is NOT effective. I know I'm sounding harsh, but I'm doing it to try to help you.

That you got 90% on assignments doesn't mean you're studying effectively or listening well to lecture either. Assignments generally are easier than exams, because they are there to help you practice along the way, not to truly test your retention of the knowledge. Assignments also are done with full access to your book and notes and fairly unlimited amounts of time. They also usually only focus on one chapter at a time, while exams test if you can synthesize all the information that's been covered to really apply it.

You're claiming unfairness, but there wasn't any. Everyone had access to the same materials. It's not as if some students had obtained old copies of exams by dishonest means and didn't share them with everyone. You were given access to them the same as everyone else, and for some reason chose to ignore the one resource most likely to give you insight into the thinking process of your professor in writing an exam. When you have multiple years of exams to look at, it's not hard to find patterns and say, "Okay, EVERY year there was a question on ..., I need to be able to solve those problems cold because I know I'm going to see one on that." Why were you unconcerned when you looked at the old exams and there were problems on them you could not solve? Maybe you wouldn't expect the exact problem to appear, but why didn't you consider that you still should learn how to solve that problem in case something similar appeared? Or did you glance at them, think, "Oh, I know how to solve that," without actually trying it to be sure, and when in fact you couldn't solve it? Because, that is what I often see from students coming to my office with grades in the 70% range who don't know why they are only getting a 70% in my class. They describe their studying just as you did, and the advice I've given you is the advice I give them to pull their grades up...and it works.

Where in your studying was the problem solving? Taking notes on chapters and preparing concept maps are things to do as you're assigned the chapters early in the term, so at the end, all you need to do is skim over those notes to refresh your memory on the key concepts rather than rereading your whole book. Instead, you should be making sure you can actually solve the problems, and that you can apply material in one chapter to problems in another chapter. Let's face it, in the real world of engineering, you're not getting presented with problems that are completely isolated according to textbook chapters. You're always looking at a whole system, and need to understand how every component of that system interacts with every other component of that system.

Do you know what happens when you only get 70% of a pump design right, or 70% of a levee designed right, or 70% of a bridge designed right? It fails.

So, seriously, take this opportunity to reevaluate your study strategy. My guess is that you ARE a bright student, and your approach to studying used to work for you, so this is the first time you're running into a course where it didn't work. Why? Because you are probably a very bright student who really didn't need to study for previous classes, so never got that punch in the stomach of a bad grade to tell you that it's not effective studying. Now you're in the harder classes that even bright students can't coast through, and really need to learn to study well.

 

[Moonbear]

That's nonsense. Cramming is leaving studying to the last minute and then doing so only to pass the exam. The person who did the 1-2 past papers the night before is the one cramming for the exam.

Not necessarily. That's the point I'm trying to make. Everyone is assuming that is ALL they did and the only time they looked at those exams. If someone has studied all along, and is well-prepared by the week before exams, and has already used those exams to study from earlier, it is not cramming to run through them one more time the day before the exam just to keep it fresh and reassure yourself that you can do all those problems.

Granted, arildno's suggestion to relax the night before the exam is really a great one, most students are too jittery about exams to take that advice, and need to feel they are doing something the night before the exam, so running through practice tests to reassure yourself you can do it all is a good activity to build confidence. If you can't solve those problems the night before the exam, something went wrong long before that night.

 

[cristo]

Do you know what happens when you only get 70% of a pump design right, or 70% of a levee designed right, or 70% of a bridge designed right? It fails.

That's like comparing apples with goats. How can you extrapolate a score in an exam to performance on a task in a real engineering job? Furthermore, you're assuming that he got 70% of every question right, which is likely not true: how do you know he didn't get 7 questions correct and 3 questions wrong? That shows knowledge in most areas, having overlooked one area, say.

Anyway, an exam is not a complete task, so it doesn't make sense to compare this to designing 70% of a bridge correctly. You also aren't likely to be sat down and told to design a bridge in a couple of hour timeframe to then have the designs taken away from you and sent off to the manufacturer with no chance to consult any reference books, or other people, or have drafts etc etc..

Not necessarily. That's the point I'm trying to make. Everyone is assuming that is ALL they did and the only time they looked at those exams.

I'm assuming that, since that is what the OP said. Given that he is a primary source, it makes more sense to believe him than try and either conjecture myself, or use others' conjectures.

 

[rootX]

What I did instead was, throughout the semester, to work systematically with the material, not neglecting to go back on topics covered weeks before (in case I had forgotten about it).

This works pretty well.

I start slacking off as exams approach.

 

[JaredJames]

In the OP he specifically says that reading the past exam papers in the last two days before the exam is ALL the others did. He say's they did no revision, and as it is his 'scenario' we are discussing, that is what we must discuss, not that the person already knows the stuff because that is just hypothetical (even if it is true).

I do agree though moonbear, there is nothing 'unfair' regarding the teaching itself, everyone does have access to the same materials and has the same opportunities. However, I think this is more of a 'feeling' on the part of th OP who feels it is unfair that he works hard and only gets 70% when someone who (as he wrote) "ONLY reads the past exam papers" gets 90%, again as he points out, simply because the questions were near identical so it was a case of learn and repeat. Normally someone going into an exam with the answers is unfair, however as you all had the past exam papers it is not.

Also moonbear, you compare an exam to a pump saying 'what happens if you only get 70% of a pump right?' and then say that assignments are easier than exams (which is true). A pump design would be more like an assignment. You can consult your books and notes and do a much better job, hence getting 90% on the assignment in the OP's case. To do design something without consulting any reference materials is asking for failure.

 

[Moonbear]

That's like comparing apples with goats. How can you extrapolate a score in an exam to performance on a task in a real engineering job? Furthermore, you're assuming that he got 70% of every question right, which is likely not true: how do you know he didn't get 7 questions correct and 3 questions wrong? That shows knowledge in most areas, having overlooked one area, say.

So, it's better if he knows NOTHING about 30% of the course content than if he knows 70% of all of it?

Anyway, an exam is not a complete task, so it doesn't make sense to compare this to designing 70% of a bridge correctly. You also aren't likely to be sat down and told to design a bridge in a couple of hour timeframe to then have the designs taken away from you and sent off to the manufacturer with no chance to consult any reference books, or other people, or have drafts etc etc..

If you were to write an exam, what would you put on it? Would you pick the material that most people in practice will just look up as they work, or would you pick the content that anyone in the field should have a working knowledge of without having to consult a reference book every time they need to use it? Unless the professor is a complete hardnose, exams are usually written keeping in mind the material that they really feel a student needs to have mastered to be competent in that field. If you haven't even mastered the fundamentals, how can you apply them to the more complex, real world problems? The reason people need to use references in practice is that real world problems are harder than what you see in the exam room. If you need days just to look up and figure out how to use the basic concepts you should have learned in school, you'll never get the project done on time or stay employed very long if your competitors or coworkers who already know that stuff are spending their time applying it to the much bigger problem of getting a fully operational system with a completely unique design rather than the simple textbook examples.

Exams don't test everything covered in a class, for good reason. Nobody expects students to have memorized every nitpicky detail. What they cover is the portion of the material that the professor thinks are the most important things to know before advancing in coursework or being employed in that field. So, when you get a 70% on an exam, that doesn't mean you know 70% of the material covered in the course, it means you know 70% of the 30% or 50% that is the most important material. Yes, it's possible that you knew 100% of the rest of the material, but that would indicate you're not judging appropriately what the important material is vs the things one would assume that you would or could look up if you needed it again.

Though, what the OP was complaining about was fairness because the exam closely resembled a previous exam. There is no inherent unfairness because all students had access to the old exams and an equal opportunity to study from them, regardless of when or how they used them. If a student practicing them the night before the exam didn't already know how to solve those problems, it's really not that likely they'd have learned it all in one night to be substantially better at it the next day, especially when they too did not know the exact problems would appear on the exam. The student who took the practice exams a week in advance, and then spent the week revising/studying the topics where they made errors would have a better chance of getting more questions completely right on the actual exam. And a student who looked at the old exams a week in advance and could already solve all the problems would practically be guaranteed a 100% regardless of how they spent that last week. The students using the exams to study last minute would not have an advantage over a student using the exams to study sooner. They did have an advantage over someone who didn't choose to use the exams to study, but that's not an issue of unfairness, that's an issue of choosing to ignore a valuable resource provided for the purpose of helping with studying.

Let's look at other material. The OP did get 70% of the exam correct by using the textbook and notes. Would s/he feel it was unfair if a student, who spent all their time just looking at notes, starting two weeks ahead of the exam, yet never looked at the textbook, only got a 50% on the exam while everyone who the notes manage to get a 70%? They had the book, they knew the book might contain useful information or additional examples not in the notes, but chose to ignore it. Would that be unfair that someone who used the book got a better grade? It's really the same issue. If you don't use all the resources offered, yet everyone has equal access to the resources, you're gambling on your grade.

 

[Moonbear]

In the OP he specifically says that reading the past exam papers in the last two days before the exam is ALL the others did.

But he still does not know how prepared they already were going into the exam week. I highly doubt that is all they did. It is very likely they did not put in 80 hours rereading the book the week of the exam, but that could simply be because they were already keeping up in the course all along and didn't need to cram in an entire term's worth of reading into one week.

I don't know about other educational systems, but I never had an entire week to prepare for just one exam. Our exam weeks were usually an exam a day for each of the courses we were taking, sometimes with a first exam only 3 days after the last lecture in that course (Friday lecture, Monday final exam), which meant you had to know the material BEFORE the exam week and spent your last few days studying the material from the last lectures. Reviewing an old exam the night before the exam wasn't cramming, it wasn't even studying, it was just reviewing to get comfortable with the exam format and catch any last minute small details that had slipped from memory. Basically, by the week of exams, you either knew the material or you didn't. If you were still learning it, you were in deep trouble.

 

[JaredJames]

Moonbear, you cannot compare an exam to an assignment. Any real world project is an assignment, not a closed book exam. No body knows everything. My lecturers keep on that they don't expect us to remember everything (wrt formulas and stuff) and so they provide tables of them in the exams. 70% in an exam simply means that person knew that much at that point without any external help, this not taking into account stress levels within the exam. Some people (me included) get extremely stressed/anxious going into exams and it does affect me performance wise, regardless of how well I know the subject. (not sure of this but how many companies shut you in a room with only a pen an paper and expect you to design a product for them without any outside referencing? I'm guessing none.)

Generally we get our exam timetable a month in advance but even so we know when the exams are coming. Regardless you should be working throughout.

 

[Cyrus]

Anyway, an exam is not a complete task, so it doesn't make sense to compare this to designing 70% of a bridge correctly. You also aren't likely to be sat down and told to design a bridge in a couple of hour timeframe to then have the designs taken away from you and sent off to the manufacturer with no chance to consult any reference books, or other people, or have drafts etc etc..

What do you think happens in real world engineering? Project deadlines have to be met. In other words, you have to work, and work quickly much like an exam. (It's not 100% the same, but the point still stands).

 

[JaredJames]

What do you think happens in real world engineering? Project deadlines have to be met. In other words, you have to work, and work quickly much like an exam. (It's not 100% the same, but the point still stands).

Yes the point stands, but how often do you walk into an exam with materials to help you such as textbooks? I am yet to find a person who sits in an exam and (within rules) asks the question on PF. There is help available in the real world. In an exam there is not. I understand the whole deadline side of things, but assignments also have deadlines you have to work to.

 

[Cyrus]

Moonbear, you cannot compare an exam to an assignment. Any real world project is an assignment, not a closed book exam. No body knows everything. My lecturers keep on that they don't expect us to remember everything (wrt formulas and stuff) and so they provide tables of them in the exams. 70% in an exam simply means that person knew that much at that point without any external help, this not taking into account stress levels within the exam. Some people (me included) get extremely stressed/anxious going into exams and it does affect me performance wise, regardless of how well I know the subject. (not sure of this but how many companies shut you in a room with only a pen an paper and expect you to design a product for them without any outside referencing? I'm guessing none.)

Generally we get our exam timetable a month in advance but even so we know when the exams are coming. Regardless you should be working throughout.

I hope you don't get stressed when your boss say's he wants this done by FRIDAY, no excuses.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes the point stands, but how often do you walk into an exam with materials to help you such as textbooks? I am yet to find a person who sits in an exam and (within rules) asks the question on PF. There is help available in the real world. In an exam there is not. I understand the whole deadline side of things, but assignments also have deadlines you have to work to.

Every time I have an open book exam. My last class was like that, in fact all my graduate exams are like that. You need the book, and you still write write write as fast as you can. Otherwise it is take home and you have a few days and you work as fast as you can because you need ever day you get. (Hint hint: Just like a project the boss wants BY FRIDAY OR YOUR FIRED!

FYI: These professors are considered the best in their fields. I won't name any names, but you probably use their textbooks and know their names if you work in Aerospace.

 

[JaredJames]

Every time I have an open book exam. My last class was like that, in fact all my graduate exams are like that.

I don't get stressed with assignments, just exams, I don't know why (although my point below with open book exams probably is something to do with it). I spend ages learning and perfecting the work until I can do almost all questions I see, yet as soon as the exam starts I just panic, my biggest problem is I over-think things in exams far too much and end up second-guessing myself.

None of my exams are open book. Although that is something I disagree with, I think exams should be open book as that reflects more on your ability to use your own knowledge and materials correctly, as in real world (again, this view also relates to my problem above).

 

[Cyrus]

I don't get stressed with assignments, just exams, I really don't know why. I spend ages learning and perfecting the work until I can do almost all problems I see, yet as soon as the exam starts I just panic, my biggest problem is I over-think things far too much and end up second-guessing myself.

Then you don't know the fundamentals of what you are doing if you second guess yourself. If I ever doubt myself, I just revert back to fundamentals and then realize why the number seems off.

None of my exams are open book. Although that is something I disagree with, I think exams should be open book as that reflects more on your ability to use your own knowledge and materials correctly, as in real world (again, this view also relates to my problem above).

This statement is wrong. You just said yourself (In the real world you have access to your books). The exams I just told you that I have to take, are very much like a real world task.

 

[Hootenanny]

If you were to write an exam, what would you put on it? Would you pick the material that most people in practice will just look up as they work, or would you pick the content that anyone in the field should have a working knowledge of without having to consult a reference book every time they need to use it? Unless the professor is a complete hardnose, exams are usually written keeping in mind the material that they really feel a student needs to have mastered to be competent in that field.

I have to disagree with you there. I have personally sat examinations where before the exam, the lecturer has admitted that we will be expected to know material that he cannot remember, without reference to a text. One lecturer has gone on to admit that he believes that a particular exam should be an open-book exam, because of the vast amounts of material we were required to know. Perhaps the ethos is a little different in the US, but in the UK often-times the lecture's hands are tied by board, who dictate what is on the exam.

I have long held the belief that after first year, the assessments should be weighted more in favour of continuous assessment and project work. Such an arrangement would be more realistic and would be closer to what life in academia or industry is really like, rather than expecting students to regurgitate a semesters worth of work in a series of three-hour exams.

 

[Hootenanny]

I hope you don't get stressed when your boss say's he wants this done by FRIDAY, no excuses.

That is utter garbage Cyrus! In no way whatsoever is working to a tight deadline like sitting a closed book examination.

 

[Cyrus]

That is utter garbage Cyrus! In no way whatsoever is working to a tight deadline like sitting a closed book examination.

You misread what I wrote Hoot.

 

[JaredJames]

This statement is wrong. You just said yourself (In the real world you have access to your books). The exams I just told you that I have to take, are very much like a real world task.

I DON'T in my exams, so how is my statement wrong? If I don't have books in my exams, it is not like a real world situation.