And before anyone accuses me of jealousy, I'm saying this as a person who always aced tests by cramming the night before, while taking 0 notes, sleeping in class and never turning in homework. If I can do that they're clearly not very useful. You learn much more by doing projects and homework.
Tests can maybe gauge how well-stuck everything is in the emotional recall part of your brain. Maybe have them, but let them be 20% of the total grade maximum. Any more is dumb because they can easily be gamed by cramming--and keeping the % low disincentivizes people to cram for the test. They should also be administered at random unannounced times, so they truly serve their purpose.
A lot of people think of high test-scorers as "lazy but smart" but the truth is that many of us just crammed, it's like everyone else is running a marathon, we just sit around doing nothing and when the video camera (aka the exam) comes, we start sprinting for 20 seconds to look good.
Lectures are also extremely overrated because it's impossible to keep pace with everything said, and to get all your questions answered. 1-on-1 sessions with professors is really the only only useful part of teaching.
1-on-1 sessions with professors is really the only only useful part of teaching.
Any university that has the resources to this may as well replace written exams with oral ones. They're hard to cram for and typically it's much easier to gauge understanding when the instructor can ask follow up questions. My preferred testing method for a final exam is an independent small research project, with a written component, an oral presentation, and follow up questions by the instructor. I've never seen this in anything but graduate courses, primarily due to class sizes, but also a typical undergrad cohort's breadth of knowledge isn't exactly large enough to implement practically for 1st and 2nd year courses. Worth mentioning that Italy and, I think, Russia tend to do oral exams in undergraduate, and grad students from those places tend to think it was a great way to be tested.
I disagree on the lecture part. A good professor budgets in (and encourages) questions to make sure everyone understands the material. Tests are indeed incredibly easy to cram and cheat on. I crammed all of my HS and college math tests and passed every one of them. I remember literally zero of it.
Just stop testing altogether. It's mostly useless
And before anyone accuses me of jealousy, I'm saying this as a person who always aced tests by cramming the night before, while taking 0 notes, sleeping in class and never turning in homework. If I can do that they're clearly not very useful. You learn much more by doing projects and homework.
Tests can maybe gauge how well-stuck everything is in the emotional recall part of your brain. Maybe have them, but let them be 20% of the total grade maximum. Any more is dumb because they can easily be gamed by cramming--and keeping the % low disincentivizes people to cram for the test. They should also be administered at random unannounced times, so they truly serve their purpose.
A lot of people think of high test-scorers as "lazy but smart" but the truth is that many of us just crammed, it's like everyone else is running a marathon, we just sit around doing nothing and when the video camera (aka the exam) comes, we start sprinting for 20 seconds to look good.
Lectures are also extremely overrated because it's impossible to keep pace with everything said, and to get all your questions answered. 1-on-1 sessions with professors is really the only only useful part of teaching.
Also if I can cheat on your test, your test sucks
deleted by creator
Any university that has the resources to this may as well replace written exams with oral ones. They're hard to cram for and typically it's much easier to gauge understanding when the instructor can ask follow up questions. My preferred testing method for a final exam is an independent small research project, with a written component, an oral presentation, and follow up questions by the instructor. I've never seen this in anything but graduate courses, primarily due to class sizes, but also a typical undergrad cohort's breadth of knowledge isn't exactly large enough to implement practically for 1st and 2nd year courses. Worth mentioning that Italy and, I think, Russia tend to do oral exams in undergraduate, and grad students from those places tend to think it was a great way to be tested.
I disagree on the lecture part. A good professor budgets in (and encourages) questions to make sure everyone understands the material. Tests are indeed incredibly easy to cram and cheat on. I crammed all of my HS and college math tests and passed every one of them. I remember literally zero of it.
I wish my math cramming abilities had lasted into college, I burned out by sophomore year.