View Full Version : People not following the rules
General_Sax
Oct30-09, 05:57 PM
Today I wrote a chemistry mid term examination. I was nearly finished when I heard "OK, times up, bring your test to the front", too bad i didn't finish I thought. On my way to the front I noticed people still writing the exam. I thought well that's unfair, but hey that's life. After I handed my exam in I looked around, and people were STILL writing the exam. I did a quick calculation: at that time (who knows if they kept writing) these people had 6% more time to write the exam than I did.
I decided to talk to the prof about the matter, just to inform her as to what is happening. She told me that she had discussed the matter with her TA's and they had fanned out to bring the "stragglers" in. I told her that's not what happened, she says something along the lines of "I only saw a few keep writing" .... uumm WHAT?
Why is it acceptable for these "few" to have an unfair advantage over me? What they're doing amounts to cheating plain and simple. I'm competing against a number of these students for entrance into second year programs, and she finds it acceptable to provide them with an unfair advantage? If I was the prof. I would've taken their exams and given them all 0! Because they're cheaters.
All the while one TA was giving me a dirty look. I was thinking "Yeah, I'm ratting you out for doing a terrible job".
Is my experience the norm? In the future, should I flagrantly disregard the rules and continue to write an exam until they rip it out of my hands?
Is my experience the norm? In the future, should I flagrantly disregard the rules and continue to write an exam until they rip it out of my hands?
I wouldn't say your experience is the norm. I've heard plenty of stories of people receiving 0 for continuing to write. However imagine the position the TA is in to give a a mark of 0 to these people who just took the 3 hours to write the damn thing anyways just because they wanted to finish writing down their final thought. They should have gone around forcing people to submit but hey that's not what they did that's life.
If I were you I would feel that if I was comfortable enough to get up with my unfinished exam and hand it in that regardless of how much extra time these people took I would probably end up doing better anyways.
ideasrule
Oct30-09, 06:31 PM
If the professor felt generous and wanted to give people a little more time, why did you not take advantage of it? In the real world, you'll rarely be in a situation where doing a problem 6% quicker will make a huge difference. If somebody needed several extra minutes on a three-hour exam to finish their calculations, I really don't think it's a big deal.
rasmhop
Oct30-09, 06:34 PM
I told her that's not what happened, she says something along the lines of "I only saw a few keep writing" .... uumm WHAT?
Are you saying "uumm WHAT" due to the inaccurate number of people continuing to write, or due to the relaxed nature of the reply?
Why is it acceptable for these "few" to have an unfair advantage over me? What they're doing amounts to cheating plain and simple.
I agree and I think it's totally unacceptable if nothing is done about it.
If I was the prof. I would've taken their exams and given them all 0! Because they're cheaters.
In my opinion this would be the proper response, but only if the prof. made sure to inform everyone in unambiguous terms before the tests that to keep writing would be considered cheating. Some people may be under the mistaken impression that this is acceptable due to prior experiences with inaction from the professors' side.
All the while one TA was giving me a dirty look. I was thinking "Yeah, I'm ratting you out for doing a terrible job".
I'm thinking that perhaps the right thing here to do is to tell the prof. discretely that he/she really ought to do something about it because the scores have a lasting effect for you. Depending on policy you may even point out the fact that it's against university/department policy to ignore the issue, in a non-accusatory manner of course (I know it would be against policy at my university to accept such behavior). Don't go blaming the TA or prof. because that is likely to give you bad results, but urge them to consider the problem.
Is my experience the norm? In the future, should I flagrantly disregard the rules and continue to write an exam until they rip it out of my hands?
I don't know whether it's the norm since frankly I have never really stayed till the end of a college test, but the instructors make sure to inform us prior to every test that not stopping to write will result in a 0 and no one I have spoken to have complained about this kind of behavior so I suppose it's not an issue here. I have been attending some math competitions when in high school (such as IMO), and there it was never an issue (everyone stopped the second time was called).
I would advice against disregarding the rules since:
1) It's frankly an inconsiderate thing to do.
2) The time you do it, you may be unlucky that the prof. listen to you, or that you have another prof. who do give 0s for this behavior.
3) Most tests are made such that a good student will be able to finish in time.
General_Sax
Oct30-09, 07:25 PM
Are you saying "uumm WHAT" due to the inaccurate number of people continuing to write, or due to the relaxed nature of the reply?
The implication that she allowed the few an unfair advantage over the many.
I'm thinking that perhaps the right thing here to do is to tell the prof. discretely that he/she really ought to do something about it because the scores have a lasting effect for you.
Yeah, I'm thinking about going to her office hours one day to speak about the matter. I just want to say my piece. My problem is that on the front of the test it says: "You have 50 minutes to complete this examination", and she doesn't enforce this rule.
Really it's more than that; I had 50 minutes to determine 20% of my mark, why should some have 53 minutes?
Redbelly98
Oct30-09, 11:21 PM
Is my experience the norm? In the future, should I flagrantly disregard the rules and continue to write an exam until they rip it out of my hands?
I once had a high school teacher tell our class that we should do exactly that.
Now that you have seen that people are permitted to keep writing a few extra minutes, you may want to use that to your advantage in future exams if you are not quite finished with writing something down.
DrClapeyron
Oct30-09, 11:26 PM
rules were meant to be broken. in these situations it doesn't help to be the leader, it's not like the professor is going to fail half the class.
Pengwuino
Oct30-09, 11:50 PM
I wouldn't worry about it. People who finish at the last second usually don't get much help by having a few more minutes to finish the test in my experience.
Moonbear
Oct31-09, 02:17 AM
Perhaps all the people who were supposed to hand in their exams when time was up did so. It's possible that the TAs failed to be discreet about allowing a few students to remain who were granted extra time or an untimed exam due to learning disabilities, or some other issue.
Beyond that, I agree with Pengwuino that those who are desperately struggling beyond the allotted exam time are usually getting pretty lousy scores anyway. I have never had an A student be the last one to leave an exam, but have regularly had that last person lingering get the lowest score. Even when I was a TA and worked for one professor whose only time limit on exams was that the students had to turn in their papers if another class needed to use the room (oh, did I HATE that assignment on exam days), and one student always tried to stay forever...he still got the lowest score even if he sat there for an hour longer than everyone else.
ideasrule
Oct31-09, 03:02 AM
P
Beyond that, I agree with Pengwuino that those who are desperately struggling beyond the allotted exam time are usually getting pretty lousy scores anyway. I have never had an A student be the last one to leave an exam
That's quite interesting. I used to get the top mark in my science and english classes, but I was always the last person to hand in my test. (My philosophy was that taking advantage of every available second can't possibly disadvantage me in any way.) By contrast, the people who hand in tests 20 minutes before the end of class tend to get below-average scores.
Why is it acceptable for these "few" to have an unfair advantage over me? What they're doing amounts to cheating plain and simple.
That's one way to look at it I suppose. The other way is that you failed to take advantage of an opportunity given to all of the students in the class (to work a few extra minutes).
The best, most effective, people in real life, know which rules can be bent, and which can be broken. This one can be bent, sometimes, if need be, and now you've learned that. Instead of mouthing off to the professor and everyone else about how your experience didn't live up to your idealized vision of fairness, perhaps you should take the lesson that this is how the world works, and learn from it.
If I was the prof. I would've taken their exams and given them all 0! Because they're cheaters.
Heh. Sure you would have. And had no problems when your supervisor comes down on you, because he just got 20 calls from students and parents of students outraged at this blatant overpunishment. All actions have consequences.
In the future, should I flagrantly disregard the rules and continue to write an exam until they rip it out of my hands?
Learning how far you can push the limits is part of learning to function in the real world. There's a middle ground.
But most importantly, life isn't always fair. Deal with it.
All of this said, I agree with the previous posters that a few extra minutes shouldn't be necessary, or make a difference. Personally, I think its better to focus on your own knowledge and mastery, then to get caught up in the competition with Joe Schmoe.
Moonbear
Oct31-09, 02:14 PM
That's quite interesting. I used to get the top mark in my science and english classes, but I was always the last person to hand in my test. (My philosophy was that taking advantage of every available second can't possibly disadvantage me in any way.) By contrast, the people who hand in tests 20 minutes before the end of class tend to get below-average scores.
Not in my classes. If they know the stuff well, they can finish the test in 20 minutes, still take another 20 minutes to go through and recheck all their answers, and turn it in 20 minutes early. I've also encountered a lot of students who do more harm than good by spending too much time rechecking...they end up second-guessing themselves and changing right answers to wrong ones.
There are sometimes good students who stay until the end of the exam just to give themselves time to consider one or two questions they had difficulty on, or to double check, etc., but they have no problem with just turning in the exam as soon as time is called, because they really were done with it well before that. They aren't the very last out the door. The last ones out the door are just the type the OP is talking about, the ones who are desperately trying to scramble for some extra time.
When I give exams, I hand them out from the front to the back of the room, and then collect from front to back, so generally, it ends up pretty even if someone in the back is still writing when I take the exams from the front row, since the students in the front row never wait until everyone has their exams to begin (and I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing silly things like sealing the exam book so they can't start).
The only time I ever had an issue with a professor who allowed students to take longer to complete the exam was one chemistry course I took. We weren't told ahead of time we could have longer than the scheduled lecture period, but then students were allowed to stay as much as a half hour or more later. I had another class right after that one, so had to leave to get to my other class. I thought that if we were going to be given the option of THAT much extra time, not just 3 or 5 minutes, the professor should have either let us know ahead of time so we could let the instructor of the next class know the situation, or find out if people had other classes to get to and not allow the added time if we couldn't all use it.
I don't have those particular issues with the classes I teach, because all my students are in the same major and take all their classes together, so if one has a conflict, they all do.
Redbelly98
Oct31-09, 04:41 PM
.
.
.
The best, most effective, people in real life, know which rules can be bent, and which can be broken.
.
.
.
Learning how far you can push the limits is part of learning to function in the real world. There's a middle ground.
Well said. I know it took me many years to appreciate this, and I'm still not very good at bending the rules when appropriate. But at last I appreciate it's okay to do that sometimes.
OP:
You can also break the rules but there is certain risk invovled. I agree with the above post that "The best, most effective, people in real life, know which rules can be bent, and which can be broken." You have to think yourself how much risk is invovled and how much you can gain by breaking those rules, and how long you can do this. I don't hesitate to break ones where risk is low and I can gain more.
I mostly finish my exams before the end time but when exam is hard and I have some incomplete questions I don't try to work overtime because it's never been the case that I would have gotten more than 2% if I had gone overtime. I just think of the bell curve :).
Pengwuino
Oct31-09, 05:08 PM
The best, most effective, people in real life, know which rules can be bent, and which can be broken.
Is this why government employees are the way they are? :rofl:
Why is it acceptable for these "few" to have an unfair advantage over me? What they're doing amounts to cheating plain and simple. I'm competing against a number of these students for entrance into second year programs, and she finds it acceptable to provide them with an unfair advantage? If I was the prof. I would've taken their exams and given them all 0! Because they're cheaters.
I disagree with the punishment. What's the penalty for turning in homework late? The only reason giving a 0 would be seen as acceptable punishment is because turning in an incomplete test is seen as about an equivalent result as turning the test in late. The punishment of not finishing the last problem or two is about equivalent to deducting points for turning the test in late (which would be a more appropriate punishment than giving the student a zero - rule 42 in parenting is don't lay out consequences/punishments you can't see yourself actually enforcing; like grounding your kid until he's 18, for example).
Other than that, you could ask the same question about whether it's fair for a few people to get away with speeding while the majority of us have to manage our time if we want to get to work on time. Of course, that 'few'/'majority' estimate would probably be a little naive. Most people take the attitude that small stuff isn't worth sweating about - and people who speed just a little or people who take just a little extra time really aren't a big enough issue to worry about. The absolute deadline is probably set as much for the time that the resources are available as for any other standard (testing based on availability of resources instead of the course objectives is an undesirable practice, by the way; it's just one of the compromises one has to make with life).
Here's how people feel about deadlines (and authority in general):
The setting is a huge lecture hall (approximately 1000 students) for a Calculus final. Apparently this particular calculus teacher wasn't very well liked. He was one of those guys who would stand at the front of the class and yell out how much time was remaining before the end of a test, a real charmer. Since he was so busy gallivanting around the room making sure that nobody cheated and that everyone was aware of how much time they had left before their failure on the test was complete, he had the students stack the completed tests on the huge podium at the front of the room. This made for quite a mess, remember there were 1000 students in the class.
Anyway, during this particular final, one guy entered the test needing a decent grade to pass the class. His only problem with Calculus was that he did poorly when rushed, and this guy standing in the front of the room barking out how much time was left before the tests had to be handed in didn't help him at all. He figured he wanted to assure himself of a good grade, so he hardly flinched when the professor said, "pencils down and submit your scantron sheets and work to piles at the front of the room."
Five minutes turned into ten, ten into twenty, twenty into forty ... almost an hour after the test was "officially over", our friend finally put down his pencil, gathered up his work, and headed to the front of the hall to submit his final. The whole time, the professor sat at the front of the room, strangely waiting for the student to complete his exam.
"What do you think you're doing?" the professor asked as the student stood in front of him about to put down his exam on one of the neatly stacked piles of exams (the professor had plenty of time to stack the mountain of papers while he waited) It was clear that the professor had waited only to give the student a hard time.
"Turning in my exam," retorted the student confidently. "I'm afraid I have some bad news for you," the professor gloated, "your exam is an hour late. You've FAILED it and, consequently, I'll see you next term when you repeat my course."
The student smiled slyly and asked the professor, "Do you know who I am?"
"What?" replied the professor gruffly, annoyed that the student showed no sign of emotion.
The student rephrased the question mockingly, "Do you know what my name is?"
"NO," snarled the professor.
The student looked the professor dead in the eyes and said slowly, "I didn't think so," as he lifted up one of the stacks half way, shoved his test neatly into the center of the stack, let the stack fall burying his test in the middle, turned around, and walked casually out of the huge lecture hall.
You don't become the hero of a story by enforcing standards. You become the hero of a story by cleverly violating "unreasonable" standards.
I disagree with the punishment. What's the penalty for turning in homework late? The only reason giving a 0 would be seen as acceptable punishment is because turning in an incomplete test is seen as about an equivalent result as turning the test in late. The punishment of not finishing the last problem or two is about equivalent to deducting points for turning the test in late (which would be a more appropriate punishment than giving the student a zero - rule 42 in parenting is don't lay out consequences/punishments you can't see yourself actually enforcing; like grounding your kid until he's 18, for example).
Other than that, you could ask the same question about whether it's fair for a few people to get away with speeding while the majority of us have to manage our time if we want to get to work on time. Of course, that 'few'/'majority' estimate would probably be a little naive. Most people take the attitude that small stuff isn't worth sweating about - and people who speed just a little or people who take just a little extra time really aren't a big enough issue to worry about. The absolute deadline is probably set as much for the time that the resources are available as for any other standard (testing based on availability of resources instead of the course objectives is an undesirable practice, by the way; it's just one of the compromises one has to make with life).
Here's how people feel about deadlines (and authority in general):
You don't become the hero of a story by enforcing standards. You become the hero of a story by cleverly violating "unreasonable" standards.
Hahaha that movie is great!!
I'd have to disagree about the receiving a mark of 0 though. This is completely different submitting an exam and an assignment.
Assignments lose how much per day on average 10% of their mark? Should a person be ablet o sit in the exam class for a full day and lose only 10% of their mark? Taking extra time is tantamount to cheating and cheating in the schools I've gone to always receives a mark of 0.
If you think that the universities should allow students to write their exams with extra time just because they want to then I don't know what to think. My senior year of high-school would probably be more difficult than how you think an university should be run.
...Beyond that, I agree with Pengwuino that those who are desperately struggling beyond the allotted exam time are usually getting pretty lousy scores anyway. I have never had an A student be the last one to leave an exam, but have regularly had that last person lingering get the lowest score. Even when I was a TA and worked for one professor whose only time limit on exams was that the students had to turn in their papers if another class needed to use the room (oh, did I HATE that assignment on exam days), and one student always tried to stay forever...he still got the lowest score even if he sat there for an hour longer than everyone else.
that's an unfair sweeping statement Moonbear:grumpy:
well...you’re partly correct, but for instance, I remember that I never hand in any of my QM exams before time expires…….hell, I never get the final answer, I only get it in the last min second and I never had the time to review my calculations.
When I give exams, I hand them out from the front to the back of the room, and then collect from front to back, so generally, it ends up pretty even if someone in the back is still writing when I take the exams from the front row, since the students in the front row never wait until everyone has their exams to begin (and I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing silly things like sealing the exam book so they can't start).
that's just so fair, I might follow that. thanks for sharing :smile:
Taking extra time is tantamount to cheating
No it isn't. This is like saying going 48 mph in a 45 mph zone is the same as going 80 mph in that same zone. The actions carry vastly different risks (in terms of bodily injury) and rewards (in terms of time saved).
The potential gain of working an extra 3 minutes on a 50 minute exam, while people are bustling about to put their papers on the desk, is no where near the potential gain of actually cheating-- say, stealing an advance copy of the test and working out the solutions.
It's all a moot point anyways. Frankly, most teachers write their tests such that those extra few minutes aren't going to make any difference anyways. This is why they do not worry so much if a student doesn't slam their pencil down immediately.
Pattonias
Nov2-09, 12:00 PM
Yours is not the only school that does this. At my school, I've seen teachers have to physically take the test away from a student. The student isn't punished so their isn't any reason for this to discontinue.
At my high school we lost points or failed if we didn't put pencils down when told to do so. As a result, we got really good at time management on a test. I guess this was part of the standardized test conditioning.
I agree with some of the posters above, most students who need the extra time are not doing well anyway. The extra time will mean little to them. If you think that you could actually gain from this time wait, observe the environment, and make a decision. If they don't punish the others, then take the extra time and use it to your advantage.
leroyjenkens
Nov2-09, 12:22 PM
Well said. I know it took me many years to appreciate this, and I'm still not very good at bending the rules when appropriate. But at last I appreciate it's okay to do that sometimes.
Seems like some people just get away with bending the rules because they're lucky, not because they have some intricate understanding of the world.
No it isn't. This is like saying going 48 mph in a 45 mph zone is the same as going 80 mph in that same zone. The actions carry vastly different risks (in terms of bodily injury) and rewards (in terms of time saved).
The potential gain of working an extra 3 minutes on a 50 minute exam, while people are bustling about to put their papers on the desk, is no where near the potential gain of actually cheating-- say, stealing an advance copy of the test and working out the solutions.
To use your analogy against you, going 48 in a 45 is speeding, just as going 80 in a 45 is speeding. Of course going 80 will get you a stiffer penalty, but just because speeds exist that are higher than 48 doesn't mean that 48 isn't still speeding.
There's different degrees of cheating. Some give you a slight advantage, some give you a huge advantage, but it's still cheating nonetheless and still giving you an advantage that others didn't get.
Of course going 80 will get you a stiffer penalty,
Exactly. The idea of getting a zero for working for 3 extra minutes would be equivalent to getting your license suspended for a year and a thousand dollar fine for going 3 miles over the speed limit.
It doesn't happen, because its not fair (and impractical).
still giving you an advantage that others didn't get.
It's worth pointing out that all students were given the opportunity to work a few extra minutes, its just that only a few, apparently, took advantage of it, in this case.
leroyjenkens
Nov2-09, 01:05 PM
It's worth pointing out that all students were given the opportunity to work a few extra minutes, its just that only a few, apparently, took advantage of it, in this case.
There's no way to know that you do have that opportunity until you take it and then maybe when you do take it, you get caught and punished.
Do you think everyone had that opportunity? What do you think would happen if everyone kept working for a few minutes after the time was up?
Pattonias
Nov2-09, 01:46 PM
There's no way to know that you do have that opportunity until you take it and then maybe when you do take it, you get caught and punished.
Do you think everyone had that opportunity? What do you think would happen if everyone kept working for a few minutes after the time was up?
Very good point, If the entire class ignored the teacher we would all get written up for insubordination. As long as people are lining up and going through the motions of leaving, the teacher doesn't care that his/her instructions were ignored by a few.
Do you think everyone had that opportunity? What do you think would happen if everyone kept working for a few minutes after the time was up?
Just because every single individual can't bend the rules at the same time, doesn't mean each individual in particular didn't have the opportunity to do so.
This is like looking at a room of 1st graders and saying that each and every one of them can, when they grow up, become President of the United States, if they work hard enough. It's perfectly reasonable that at that point in their lives, each one of them has that opportunity, if they work hard. However, clearly they can't -all- become President of the United States, because they're the same age, term limits, etc... but each one certainly has the capability (say).
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.
Pattonias
Nov2-09, 02:11 PM
I think we need to pose this question to the US Congress. Obviously we can't come to any straight answer just "discussing" it so I think we should let our elected officials decide for us.:biggrin:
leroyjenkens
Nov2-09, 03:22 PM
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.
Your original point was that it's not cheating. Well here's a definition of cheating that says that breaking the rules is cheating.
Cheating: to violate rules or regulations.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheating
If you're playing poker, is hiding cards up your sleeve not cheating since everyone has the opportunity to do so as well?
You're right that they all, individually, have the same opportunity to break the rules. But that just sounds like you're advocating breaking the rules, because you know not everyone will do so as well, which allows you to get away with it.
Your original point was that it's not cheating.
No, it wasn't. My original point was:
That's one way to look at it I suppose. The other way is that you failed to take advantage of an opportunity given to all of the students in the class (to work a few extra minutes).
The best, most effective, people in real life, know which rules can be bent, and which can be broken.
You're right that they all, individually, have the same opportunity to break the rules. But that just sounds like you're advocating breaking the rules, because you know not everyone will do so as well, which allows you to get away with it.
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.
What advice would you give the OP in dealing with this situation?
There's no way to know that you do have that opportunity until you take it and then maybe when you do take it, you get caught and punished.
Do you think everyone had that opportunity? What do you think would happen if everyone kept working for a few minutes after the time was up?
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.
On the other hand, if a teacher penalizes every student 5 points for turning their test papers in a few minutes too late, the administration might consider taking a look at that teacher's test to see if the difficulty is appropriate for the amount of time allotted. If the test has a long history of reasonable results, a single 'bad' class won't have a huge impact on anything. Or, a look at the test will result in the test either being made slightly easier or a little more time being allocated for the test.
The difference between the administration looking at one of a teacher's products and the administration looking at that teacher's ability to control a classroom is huge even if the actions were exactly the same. Students can deal with losing a few points, a teacher can deal with having the administration reviewing one of his/her products, etc. Everything is kept at manageable levels. Failing students right off the bat escalates everything to levels where there isn't a single party involved in the situation that can afford to retreat even a bit. There will be huge losers even though there might well be no winners (how long a winning streak in successfully failing every student do you think a teacher will be able to accumulate before they're terminated completely).
Pattonias
Nov2-09, 05:08 PM
So far, all the teachers I have taken that don't use standard tests have told me that they determine the length of test by taking the test themselves. They work out the problems using the methods they have taught you and then calculate the amount of time they think it would take the average student to take the same test based on past experience.
I always thought this reasonable. Most of my teachers grade on the curve to fill in the gaps. I can say that I have not yet taken a test that I prepared for that I ran out of time on. I have used up all the time on tests that I was ill-prepared for. Judging from the looks on the faces of the people I was sitting next to, when turning in my paper they were falling into one of those two categories as well.
I doubt you will get an answer to your problem in this forum. It is unfair to the students as a whole that some are allowed to take advantage of the stated time limits.
The world is not fair so I guess it could be looked at from the stand point of a life-lesson.
If you are accustomed to finishing on time then I think you will be better prepared in the future. If these individuals get to accustomed to being allowed "extra" time whenever they are ill-prepared, they will probably reap accordingly.
NeoDevin
Nov2-09, 05:17 PM
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.
I remember in highschool 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 highschool 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
Nov2-09, 06:40 PM
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.
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
Nov2-09, 07:45 PM
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.
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
Nov2-09, 08:33 PM
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
Nov2-09, 10:10 PM
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
Nov2-09, 10:27 PM
...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.
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
Nov3-09, 02:54 AM
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
Nov3-09, 04:50 AM
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
Nov3-09, 09:16 AM
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
Nov3-09, 10:33 AM
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.
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
Nov3-09, 05:44 PM
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.
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
Nov3-09, 06:06 PM
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
Nov3-09, 07:30 PM
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.
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?
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
Nov3-09, 10:10 PM
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
Nov3-09, 10:24 PM
If it wasn't a rule, she wouldn't have specified the time limit on the cover sheet of her exam.
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
Nov3-09, 10:45 PM
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
Nov3-09, 10:57 PM
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
Nov3-09, 11:55 PM
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
Nov4-09, 12:33 AM
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
Nov4-09, 10:19 AM
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.
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.)
Besides, the person who makes the rules is allowed to change or waive the rules. .
This is a very poor excuse. "Rules of engagement" aint to be changed during the game. If you think the rules are poor, change them for the next exam you keep, but as long you are in the game (i,e. exam running), rules currently in effect should be observed and not changed. First and foremost by the one who made them.
I have nothing against ppl testing the "limit of the rules", but then again, the person who conducts the examination should be prepared to enforce the rules. It is very unfair for an educator to willingly participate in a scheme which result in unfair advantages to a subgroup.
Also, the thing with 0 for all ppl who dont put the pencil down is forced. If the purpose of the examination is to test and evaluate the knowledge of the subjects, then evaluate the content of their work, don't give them a 0 for what can be a impressive display of knowledge.
If the numbers of ppl examined are small it's very easy to get all work collected. Just have your TA collect the work, or doit yourself.
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.
Indeed , is so boring to respect the canon. Especially rules made by boring ppl, rules who so well reflect their personality :P
But the role of the educator is to enforce the rules. Anything else is to offer unfair advantages to a subgroup, and whats more, it teaches the students that the best way to progress is using unfair advantages.
Universities make such a big deal of "Academic Honesty". Well, the first to adhere to "academic honesty" should be the educators. Never give a person unfair advantage over another. Respect the rules. Respect your students.
But the role of the educator is to enforce the rules. Anything else is to offer unfair advantages to a subgroup, and whats more, it teaches the students that the best way to progress is using unfair advantages.
Universities make such a big deal of "Academic Honesty". Well, the first to adhere to "academic honesty" should be the educators. Never give a person unfair advantage over another. Respect the rules. Respect your students.
Before you start worrying about college educators enforcing the rules, and worrying about how that affects fairness, you should ask how many college educators have ever taken a course that teaches them how to create tests. A military instructor? Real good chance (well, at least part of the courses on how to develop courses includes test development). A high school teacher? Maybe - I'm not sure what's included in the mandatory certification they have to get. Your most esteemed college professors? Probably not, since their prestige comes from the research they've done; not from their teaching proficiency.
It might sound nice to say an instructor should be qualified to create a test before being allowed to teach a class, but it's not the reality and it means enforcing the rules could be grossly unfair to all of the students; not just a few.
It might sound nice to say an instructor should be qualified to create a test before being allowed to teach a class, but it's not the reality and it means enforcing the rules could be grossly unfair to all of the students; not just a few.
Well, they (the most esteemed college professors) are pretty intelligent and driven individuals. Certainly they have the capability to self-evaluate their teaching / testing abilities and improve.
I don't believe in quantifying "unfairness" in terms of numbers. A situation IMO is not better if it's unfair to say 5 ppl than if it's unfair to 10 ppl. Granted, it's very hard to create something which is fair to all in whatever circumstance imaginable. However, some things are pretty basic, and letting someone compete for longer is unthinkable. Especially if the result of the competition are used , directly or indirectly, to qualify for a further position. I would never accept something like this. It;s also good material for lawyers IMO.
It's like sending a football team off the filed, but allow the opposing team to play another 5 mins before you register the score. Then say, they qualified to quarter finals. It's like allowing a 100m sprinter 1 sec early start , then motivate it with something like "Well, you know, the poor guy runs a bit slower than the other 9, so lets give him so advantage". What ? What is he doing here in the first place if it;s slow ?
This is a very poor excuse. "Rules of engagement" aint to be changed during the game. If you think the rules are poor, change them for the next exam you keep, but as long you are in the game (i,e. exam running), rules currently in effect should be observed and not changed. First and foremost by the one who made them.
I have nothing against ppl testing the "limit of the rules", but then again, the person who conducts the examination should be prepared to enforce the rules. It is very unfair for an educator to willingly participate in a scheme which result in unfair advantages to a subgroup.
Also, the thing with 0 for all ppl who dont put the pencil down is forced. If the purpose of the examination is to test and evaluate the knowledge of the subjects, then evaluate the content of their work, don't give them a 0 for what can be a impressive display of knowledge.
If the numbers of ppl examined are small it's very easy to get all work collected. Just have your TA collect the work, or doit yourself.
I agree that a professor proclaiming the punishment for turning a test in late will be a 0 is his first mistake. He's squeezed himself between administering a bizarrely inappropriate punishment or diminishing his own credibility because he can't really dish out that kind of punishment.
I'm not sure strict adherence to the rules is the answer when the instructor hasn't correctly assessed how much time is required to complete the test.
Assuming a course costs around $250 per credit hour (obviously there's a huge variation from university to university, so what can you do but assume some cost) and a course is 5 credit hours and there's around 50 students in the class. I guess having half the class receive a grade low enough to require them to retake the course is good for the university (the teacher's ineptitude in creating tests has netted the university over $31,000). It's not good for the 25 students forking out an extra $1250 in tuition, not because they don't know the material, but because the instructor couldn't create a fair test (okay, realistically, a few of those were going to fail regardless, so maybe 20 are getting unfairly abused).
You're talking about people's money, their schedule (since they've probably already scheduled next semester's classes), their time and lost income (delayed graduation). If Nissan sold you a lemon of a car, you'd want them to fix it. You wouldn't want to be forking out over a $1000 in repairs for something that should have operated properly in the first place.
A professor is going to have to have enough leeway to fix whatever mistakes they've made in assessing a test's difficulty or else the students are going to have a legitimate complaint about the university failing to deliver the product they contracted to deliver.
Not that a university would ever be held liable in a court - tradition says that part of what a student pays for is abuse from the university and that abuse is held pretty dear. Kind of like a fraternity pledge surviving the hazing of hell week considers being abused by his "friends" to be one of the most valuable experiences of his life. I think that abuse is part of what makes alumni so loyal to the university they graduated from.
In other words, you may be right since little about universities follow any sort of standards that would be applied to the usual consumer commodity.
Well, they (the most esteemed college professors) are pretty intelligent and driven individuals. Certainly they have the capability to self-evaluate their teaching / testing abilities and improve.
Aristotle was pretty darn smart. That's why people figured his model of the universe must be correct. Never mind that he had done almost no study or research of celestial mechanics or gravity. Those were things completely out of his realm of experience. None the less, that stuff can't be so tough that a person of extraordinary intelligence couldn't just sit down and reason it out in about an afternoon or so.
I'm not sure strict adherence to the rules is the answer when the instructor hasn't correctly assessed how much time is required to complete the test.
I agree, but the instructors usually have a lot of data about exams at the faculty. They have previous exams, previous results, average success rates and so on. It should be their responsibility to deliver realistic test scenarios. I think (I can be mistaken ofc) most of such cases of very hard exams come from overzealous faculty members, rather from a fundamental wrong approaches in designing tests.
Not that a university would ever be held liable in a court - tradition says that part of what a student pays for is abuse from the university and that abuse is held pretty dear. Kind of like a fraternity pledge surviving the hazing of hell week considers being abused by his "friends" to be one of the most valuable experiences of his life.
Tradition suxs :P World changes. If you pay a insane amount of money for education , you pay for a product to be delivered to you, not to be abused.
By the same token, it would be a invaluable life experience for a women to go to a fertility clinic, pay large amounts of money for whatever treatments, only to have her eggs removed and used god knows for what purposes. Abuse is plain wrong.
While "hell week" like experiences are very useful in situations where you have to craft indomitable individuals with extremely high tolerance to fatigue, fear and famine (military settings usually, but here they become mandatory part of the curriculum hence they cant be called "abuse") , IMO they have no place in academia.
Aristotle was pretty darn smart. That's why people figured his model of the universe must be correct. Never mind that he had done almost no study or research of celestial mechanics or gravity. Those were things completely out of his realm of experience.
Sure, but if for a educator balancing coursework and tests is "out of his realm of experience", his place is not in a university. Maybe the individual in question should seek employment at a private funded research institute , where he can focus on research and work with a insanely narrow group of overachievers.
JasonRox
Nov4-09, 10:21 PM
Aristotle was pretty darn smart. That's why people figured his model of the universe must be correct. Never mind that he had done almost no study or research of celestial mechanics or gravity. Those were things completely out of his realm of experience. None the less, that stuff can't be so tough that a person of extraordinary intelligence couldn't just sit down and reason it out in about an afternoon or so.
I don't think he reasoned it out in one afternoon.
ideasrule
Nov4-09, 10:40 PM
This is simply bizarre. I honestly can't understand why anybody would care if the teacher wants to give people a few extra minutes. (I agree, however, that cutting into a student's next class is unfair.) I also can't understand what's so hard about looking at the teacher, listening to him/her, and judging whether it's OK to continue writing. There has never been a problem in my high school; the teachers always made it obvious whether extra time was allowed.
This is simply bizarre. I honestly can't understand why anybody would care if the teacher wants to give people a few extra minutes. (I agree, however, that cutting into a student's next class is unfair.) I also can't understand what's so hard about looking at the teacher, listening to him/her, and judging whether it's OK to continue writing. There has never been a problem in my high school; the teachers always made it obvious whether extra time was allowed.
This isn't highschool it's university. When you spend upwards of 10k a year for a program which getting into second year is competitive then come back here.
physics girl phd
Nov5-09, 01:27 AM
So far, all the teachers I have taken that don't use standard tests have told me that they determine the length of test by taking the test themselves. They work out the problems using the methods they have taught you and then calculate the amount of time they think it would take the average student to take the same test based on past experience.
My rule... If I can take the test in 15 minutes, my students can probably finish in an hour and 15 (and like Moonbear says, the good ones can usually finish earlier). I'd still have students that wanted to stay over, but I announce every minute for the last 3 minutes and do take it from them if they aren't done (My large classes are also helped by the fact that another class come in right after). This is more for my sanity though... I administer my own tests and I don't want to stay late.
My latest stoke of brilliance was also letting my EM students pick 3 of 4 problems for the midterms and 5 of 6 for the final (this saves them from playing and playing with that one they just can't seem to get, which is usually the easiest if they know the tricks of the trade).
This is simply bizarre. I honestly can't understand why anybody would care if the teacher wants to give people a few extra minutes. (I agree, however, that cutting into a student's next class is unfair.) I also can't understand what's so hard about looking at the teacher, listening to him/her, and judging whether it's OK to continue writing. There has never been a problem in my high school; the teachers always made it obvious whether extra time was allowed.
1. Money. When you enroll in a university undergrad program, you buy a product. You expect it delivered, fair and square.
2. Since results of a test can be used to determine whatever you can be or not part of a certain program, it is a competition. Allowing more time to some students, in a discretionary manner, while others already had already presented their work in the allocated time, constitutes direct corruption of competition results.
This isn't highschool it's university. When you spend upwards of 10k a year for a program which getting into second year is competitive then come back here.
2. Since results of a test can be used to determine whatever you can be or not part of a certain program, it is a competition. Allowing more time to some students, in a discretionary manner, while others already had already presented their work in the allocated time, constitutes direct corruption of competition results.
This suggests that individual instructors of any course that will be part of a competition to advance further into a degree shouldn't be allowed to create their own tests. The competitive advantage of a few students in a class being allowed a few extra minutes pales in comparison to entire classes taking tests of different difficulty levels.
Even with the university providing standardized tests that all instructors have to use, you'll never have a truly fair competition. Some instructors just teach better than others. I doubt the necessary information is ever available to students except via anecdotal information, but the best way to improve your odds of advancing into a program is to find out which instructor has the most students advance - and I guarantee there will be some big differences. The problem with the anecdotal info is that it isn't enough to just find out who gives out more good grades - you also have to be able to figure out how an instructor's students do in their next class that uses that instructor's class as a prerequisite.
In fact, if you're ever tempted to start forking out money to "cheat" the system, you'd be a lot better off bribing someone in the admin office to give you access to the database of student records than paying someone for a copy of a test. Having some measurable standard to help you decide which instructor you want for a given class is pretty valuable.
Unfortunately, a little luck is always going to come in play since a student just won't have that info. In the case of the borderline students close to the cut-off, a lot of luck winds up coming into play. A student's only defense is to be smart enough (luck in itself) and to put in the work necessary to put them well above the variations in instructors.
This suggests that individual instructors of any course that will be part of a competition to advance further into a degree shouldn't be allowed to create their own tests. The competitive advantage of a few students in a class being allowed a few extra minutes pales in comparison to entire classes taking tests of different difficulty levels.
Even with the university providing standardized tests that all instructors have to use, you'll never have a truly fair competition. Some instructors just teach better than others. I doubt the necessary information is ever available to students except via anecdotal information, but the best way to improve your odds of advancing into a program is to find out which instructor has the most students advance - and I guarantee there will be some big differences. The problem with the anecdotal info is that it isn't enough to just find out who gives out more good grades - you also have to be able to figure out how an instructor's students do in their next class that uses that instructor's class as a prerequisite.
In fact, if you're ever tempted to start forking out money to "cheat" the system, you'd be a lot better off bribing someone in the admin office to give you access to the database of student records than paying someone for a copy of a test. Having some measurable standard to help you decide which instructor you want for a given class is pretty valuable.
Unfortunately, a little luck is always going to come in play since a student just won't have that info. In the case of the borderline students close to the cut-off, a lot of luck winds up coming into play. A student's only defense is to be smart enough (luck in itself) and to put in the work necessary to put them well above the variations in instructors.
This is all stuff YOU control. It's your duty before choosing your classes to find out which prof. is the best at teaching and the most involved with helping students. It's also your duty to make friends who can help you through previous classes.
This is all stuff YOU control. It's your duty before choosing your classes to find out which prof. is the best at teaching and the most involved with helping students. It's also your duty to make friends who can help you through previous classes.
Isn't it your duty then to find out which instructors never enforce their own time requirements? What makes you so sure you'll never be in a situation where 10 extra minutes gives you time to go back and figure out that one problem that had you stumped?
Yes, it's unfair that some of the students in your class will get an advantage over you personally, but it's advantageously unfair if your instructor is the only instructor teaching that class that does so and you wind up needing that extra 10 minutes. You (and the rest of the students in your class) have at least a potential advantage over the rest of the students in your university even if only a few will capitalize on it.
And what does the poor person that's ugly and has no friends do? Life is pretty much unfair to him in general. He gets no dates, he probably gets served last, not only will very few people smile at him, but they'll actually avoid making eye contact. And, on top of all that, no one will want to help him with his classes.
Isn't it your duty then to find out which instructors never enforce their own time requirements? What makes you so sure you'll never be in a situation where 10 extra minutes gives you time to go back and figure out that one problem that had you stumped?
Yes, it's unfair that some of the students in your class will get an advantage over you personally, but it's advantageously unfair if your instructor is the only instructor teaching that class that does so and you wind up needing that extra 10 minutes. You (and the rest of the students in your class) have at least a potential advantage over the rest of the students in your university even if only a few will capitalize on it.
And what does the poor person that's ugly and has no friends do? Life is pretty much unfair to him in general. He gets no dates, he probably gets served last, not only will very few people smile at him, but they'll actually avoid making eye contact. And, on top of all that, no one will want to help him with his classes.
This is an excellent and through line of thought, but here is my "applied theory":
1. I have an outcome goal. Let's simply say it for now is "winning". Although not apparent
at the first sight, you have very little control over this outcome goal. You compete against other highly motivated individuals, which train maybe at least as well as you, which may have a better coach . They also can be more genetically gifted. You can do almost nothing (unless your name is Tonya Harding) to influence this. Keep the goal, but dont dwell on facts on which you dont have control.
2. You have process goals. Those are totally within your control. I.e you can train harder, you can learn more, you can help nature with a lot of work if you are less gifted genetically (within reason). Basically, all the factors over which *you* have control.
Now the sensible thing to do is to worry less about things you cant control, and act upon the variables you can change to maximize the chances. In the issue of this thread for example, I have very little control about university policy when multiple instructors teach different courses, or different instructors evaluate test results. But I have control about
acting or not acting when someone does something in my face. In this case, letting some of the individuals from my group compete for longer.
The bottom idea is to recognize variables on which you have control over and variables on which you don't. It's wasted time to try to change variables you cant control, time which is too valuable to be diverted from process goals. In hindsight, I believe its common sense.
Sure, but if for a educator balancing coursework and tests is "out of his realm of experience", his place is not in a university. Maybe the individual in question should seek employment at a private funded research institute , where he can focus on research and work with a insanely narrow group of overachievers.
My latest stoke of brilliance was also letting my EM students pick 3 of 4 problems for the midterms and 5 of 6 for the final (this saves them from playing and playing with that one they just can't seem to get, which is usually the easiest if they know the tricks of the trade).
Mistakes in creating tests are easy to make.
In physics girl's case, her students take 4 different tests on a midterm, yet their scores are all compared as if they took the same test. For the final, students take 6 different tests, yet have their scores compared to each other.
Worse, while her test may adequately cover the course objectives, none of the students are tested on all of the course objectives unless the course objectives can be tested by a single question, in which case it doesn't matter which questions the student chooses to answer.
In essence, optional questions mean a student needs to know 75% or 83% of the material and the student gets to choose which 75% or 83% they want to learn. Optional questions mean only the results of students making the same choices can be directly compared to each other.
By the way, it's an overstatement to say optional questions are a "mistake". Most handbooks on test creation recommend against it, but that's a general recommendation. You can take recommendations for what you think they're worth. For example, if one can make sure the questions are of equal difficulty, then comparing students taking different tests isn't going to be as big an issue on physics problems as it would essay questions for a history class, since essay questions almost always require some subjectivity. (For example, is it more advantageous or is more disadvantageous to answer the instructor's favorite question?)
(In fact, one of factors that can influence essay grades is whether it's one of the first graded or last graded. Seeing how the tests are being stacked can influence whether the student wants to be the first one done or the last one done. i.e - cheating by just 2 or 3 minutes could be a definite advantage on an essay question).
lawtonfogle
Nov5-09, 02:36 PM
This is all stuff YOU control. It's your duty before choosing your classes to find out which prof. is the best at teaching and the most involved with helping students. It's also your duty to make friends who can help you through previous classes.
Yes a student should check, but the end result is still corrupted. Do I hire student A who made an A in easy math or student B who made a B in hard math (both of them being the same class, but with teachers of two different teaching levels). A university should not allow for the difference in teaching/testing between two of the same classes grow to the point where the expected grade letter grade for some level of knowledge is different. Otherwise the results for the GPA from this class becomes corrupted (slightly, not fully of course).
Speaking of tests, here's a fun one. You should be able to score a 100% on this. The test is in English, even if you're not familiar with some of the technical terms.
1) The primary advantage of the adzontial clev is:
a) elomulation
b) sidrathion
c) musticulation
d) ancharition
2) Noficariating a druxmential clev causes a:
a) bifulations
b) bendolation
c) efscolation
d) elomulation
3) Stolitization of the endacrinatial clev:
a) does nothing
b) elomulates
c) causes the trachnicol to cortinate into strachinilate
d) polesis
4) Characteristics of the bruchinactial clev include:
a) sidrathion
b) efscolation
c) locumulation
d) all of the above
5) Strachinilate is most often the result of:
a) stolitization
b) sidrathion
c) locumulation
d) ectagulation
6) Bruchinactial clevs:
a) providing fulmation to reminify.
b) require stilagulation to reminify.
c) yields enginati.
d) efscolation
7) Polementaric clevs:
a) always decays into delvisia alamente
b) never decay into andale crenitente
c) decay into andale crenitente
d) none of the above
d) all of the above
8)
a)
b)
c)
d)
lawtonfogle
Nov5-09, 03:51 PM
Mistakes in creating tests are easy to make.
In physics girl's case, her students take 4 different tests on a midterm, yet their scores are all compared as if they took the same test. For the final, students take 6 different tests, yet have their scores compared to each other.
Worse, while her test may adequately cover the course objectives, none of the students are tested on all of the course objectives unless the course objectives can be tested by a single question, in which case it doesn't matter which questions the student chooses to answer.
In essence, optional questions mean a student needs to know 75% or 83% of the material and the student gets to choose which 75% or 83% they want to learn. Optional questions mean only the results of students making the same choices can be directly compared to each other.
I don't remember the last time I had a test that covered 100% of the material in class. The very thought scares me, some classes such a test would take hours and a final would take half a day or longer.
By the way, it's an overstatement to say optional questions are a "mistake". Most handbooks on test creation recommend against it, but that's a general recommendation. You can take recommendations for what you think they're worth. For example, if one can make sure the questions are of equal difficulty, then comparing students taking different tests isn't going to be as big an issue on physics problems as it would essay questions for a history class, since essay questions almost always require some subjectivity. (For example, is it more advantageous or is more disadvantageous to answer the instructor's favorite question?)
(In fact, one of factors that can influence essay grades is whether it's one of the first graded or last graded. Seeing how the tests are being stacked can influence whether the student wants to be the first one done or the last one done. i.e - cheating by just 2 or 3 minutes could be a definite advantage on an essay question).
How about a more convoluted method I had for my computation theory class. We were given 3 choices from a number of sections, each one of varying difficulty. Each choice was worth points from 10 to 30 based on the varying difficulty (and there was a major amount of difference between some, one 30 was to write the proof that a Halting machine was Turning incomputable.
He then graded based on your total points divided by the largest number of points earned. He then converted this grade to the standard A,B,C... scale, but gave a +/- on each letter except D and F. He then converted this to the following scale.
250 A+
225 A
200 A
175 B+
150 B
125 B-
100 C+
075 C
050 C-
025 D
000 F
You got four such grades (two test, final, and one composing assignments and a paper. These were totaled to a scale from 0 to 1000. Your final grade was then assigned by the following scale:
1000 A+
0900 A
0800 A-
0700 B+
0600 B
0500 B-
0400 C+
0300 C
0200 C-
0100 D
0000 F
So if you get an A on your first test, you are guaranteed a C in the class. Except your highest grade can be no higher than the percent of classes you attended or had an excused absent for.
Pattonias
Nov5-09, 04:03 PM
He then graded based on your total points divided by the largest number of points earned. He then converted this grade to the standard A,B,C... scale, but gave a +/- on each letter except D and F. He then converted this to the following scale.
250 A+
225 A
200 A
175 B+
You got four such grades (two test, final, and one composing assignments and a paper. These were totaled to a scale from 0 to 1000. Your final grade was then assigned by the following scale:
1000 A+
0900 A
0800 A-
0700 B+
So if you get an A on your first test, you are guaranteed a C in the class. Except your highest grade can be no higher than the percent of classes you attended or had an excused absent for.
Wow, that professor was into some serious personal abuse. I wouldn't want to be his TA.
I don't remember the last time I had a test that covered 100% of the material in class. The very thought scares me, some classes such a test would take hours and a final would take half a day or longer.
How about a more convoluted method I had for my computation theory class. We were given 3 choices from a number of sections, each one of varying difficulty. Each choice was worth points from 10 to 30 based on the varying difficulty (and there was a major amount of difference between some, one 30 was to write the proof that a Halting machine was Turning incomputable.
He then graded based on your total points divided by the largest number of points earned. He then converted this grade to the standard A,B,C... scale, but gave a +/- on each letter except D and F. He then converted this to the following scale.
250 A+
225 A
200 A
175 B+
150 B
125 B-
100 C+
075 C
050 C-
025 D
000 F
You got four such grades (two test, final, and one composing assignments and a paper. These were totaled to a scale from 0 to 1000. Your final grade was then assigned by the following scale:
1000 A+
0900 A
0800 A-
0700 B+
0600 B
0500 B-
0400 C+
0300 C
0200 C-
0100 D
0000 F
So if you get an A on your first test, you are guaranteed a C in the class. Except your highest grade can be no higher than the percent of classes you attended or had an excused absent for.
Did you still get credit for attendance if you were drunk? Just saying, if you can ace the first two tests, who cares about the rest of the course. Well, aside from you guys that have some strange compulsion to excel. Us slackers are going to par..tay, bab..eee!
lawtonfogle
Nov5-09, 05:02 PM
Did you still get credit for attendance if you were drunk? Just saying, if you can ace the first two tests, who cares about the rest of the course. Well, aside from you guys that have some strange compulsion to excel. Us slackers are going to par..tay, bab..eee!
Hmm... I thought his test were great in a puzzle solving way. I went in and tried to score the highest I could on the exam even though technically I could have failed it and gotten the A. The thing was, he was 80+ years old, and one of the best most lively professors I have ever had. He really taught the material.
As for being drunk, some times he would go on a tangent and explain things that normally he saved for his grad level version of the class, in which case being drunk might help you actually understand what he was saying. Then again, sometimes those were the best days, the times I actually understood what he was saying.
Now the sensible thing to do is to worry less about things you cant control, and act upon the variables you can ... I have very little control about university policy when multiple instructors teach different courses, or different instructors evaluate test results. But I have control about acting or not acting when someone does something in my face. In this case, letting some of the individuals from my group compete for longer.
The bottom idea is to recognize variables on which you have control over and variables on which you don't.
Yeah, but this is where you're mistaken. You don't actually have any control over the last part either. If the professor chooses to give time, you're naive in thinking you can stop them. Especially in the OPs case, going to a professor and complaining about it after the fact only serves to tick off the professor, since there's very little action they can take at that point. You can act or not act, but its not going to have an effect on the outcome.
You fight the battles that need fighting. You fight the battles you can win. This is neither.
Yeah, but this is where you're mistaken. You don't actually have any control over the last part either. If the professor chooses to give time, you're naive in thinking you can stop them. Especially in the OPs case, going to a professor and complaining about it after the fact only serves to tick off the professor, since there's very little action they can take at that point. You can act or not act, but its not going to have an effect on the outcome.
You fight the battles that need fighting. You fight the battles you can win. This is neither.
The OP never said the prof. said it was acceptable to take extra time that is why going to talk to the prof. is the best way.... of course if they say extra time is ok then by all means use it but don't just use it because other people are.
This has been what I've been saying the entireeee time lol.
Yeah, but this is where you're mistaken. You don't actually have any control over the last part either. If the professor chooses to give time, you're naive in thinking you can stop them. Especially in the OPs case, going to a professor and complaining about it after the fact only serves to tick off the professor, since there's very little action they can take at that point. You can act or not act, but its not going to have an effect on the outcome.
During the last 20 years I seen ppl doing a lot of crazy stuff and getting away with it.
Back home in Romania, I had an acquittance which used to blog about the incompetence of his cell biology instructor and in general about the quality of instruction at the faculty he was in. You can imagine the faculty wasn't very happy when they seen his opinions floating on internet. Nevertheless, there wasn't too much they could do about it. As far as I know, he later applied and was admitted to one of the top USA universities, abandoning his studies home. I guess the faculty was very happy to see him gone. He was trouble.
I don't recommend to anyone to do this, it's something very personal and perhaps case dependent if you want to open your mouth or keep it shut.
My personal opinion is that ppl do in general take too much "abuse" , and too many developed in fat depressed ball-less wimps. ( This affirmation is general in nature, and has nothing to do with anyone involved in this thread)
General_Sax
Nov6-09, 11:07 AM
I definetly could've used 5 more minutes, as I forgot to completely answer 2 questions. I still beat the class average, but I could've doen alot better with 5 more minutes.
Hmm... I thought his test were great in a puzzle solving way. I went in and tried to score the highest I could on the exam even though technically I could have failed it and gotten the A. The thing was, he was 80+ years old, and one of the best most lively professors I have ever had. He really taught the material.
I always loved "puzzle solving" tests. Many instructors accidentally do this. When they intentionally do this, it's even better. An ability to solve puzzles can make up for a lot of "forgetting to study". I wouldn't recommend the "forgetting to study" part, though, but one of my proudest "dubious achievements" was getting a 'C' on a essay about a short story that I had to write solely from the T/F and multiple choice questions because I "forgot" to read the story. (Okay, I didn't forget - it looked like a stupid "chic" story and what were the odds that would be the story we'd have to write the essay on?)
Bourbaki1123
Nov17-09, 06:14 PM
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.
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.
Yeah, but how much time did they save over all the years of driving slightly over the speed limit? Probably more than they spent on the side of the road because they got unlucky and there was a cop having a bad day (and make no mistake, the only reason a cop will pull you over for going 5 MPH past the limit is to go power tripping when he's having a bad day, I mean; you really think he cares about the speeding?). I guess they could have gotten a fine depending on what state/city they were in, oh well, to him time may be worth more than a little money (if not, he did a poor job with his risk/benefit analysis).
I think in general you should be able to make a rational decision and make a reasonable risk analysis. If there is some malum prohibitum rule you will gain a lot by breaking and it doesn't run against your moral standards to do so, why wouldn't you do it? I guess if you have some kind of goofy (usually contradictory when compared against other moral standards held by the person, easily refuted by a simple reductio ad absurdum argument) moral standard that 'breaking the rules is wrong', then oh well, you have an ineffective worldview that will make life harder for you. If you can break a rule and are reasonably sure you can get away with it, live with the consequences (this is a key point, for most people this weeds out malum ensae rules/laws such as 'don't murder etc.') and will gain by doing so; I think most rational people who are not confused will do so.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.