Exams, Final Papers--Or Revise The System

An ancient (and perhaps apocryphal) College rule once entitled students taking final or midyear examinations to receive a mug of ale at the end of the first hour. This sympathetic gesture seems rather anomalous for the strait-laced old Puritans who supposedly made it. Perhaps even they, despite their conviction that "all work and no play sends Jack to Heaven," had some unconscious qualms about the examination system.

Progress has eliminated beer-quaffing in Memorial Hall, but it has also done away with universal agreement among Faculty members that examinations are a Good Thing. A few have gone so far as to suggest that examinations be abolished entirely, while many have ceased to regard formal testing as the only way to evaluate students' performance. These attitudes have produced a notable increase in the number of courses using term papers as a substitute for the once-ubiquitous "finals."

Supporters of the term paper tend to regard the development of intellectual skills as a more important part of education than the acquisition of particular information. Three hours, they say, is hardly enough time for a student to exhibit his skill in relating ideas. Furthermore, examinations put a premium on memory and glibness, whereas evaluation of a student should be based chiefly upon standards of accuracy, clarity, and perceptiveness--qualities which one hopes to find among adults. As one instructor put it, "Taking examinations is an activity peculiar to students. When you assign papers, you treat the student like an adult."

In some fields of study, such as History, however, there seem to be no feasible alternatives to examinations, as the mastery of a great many facts is deemed essential.

One of the chief purposes of History courses is to teach students what happened over a fairly long period, 100 years or so. Yet a good paper entails concentrating on a very limited topic over a very short time. Only a comprehensive final examination can require students to integrate the whole range of facts in the course. It is not surprising that some of the hardiest supporters of examinations come from the History Department.

One of the most convinced of these supporters is Franklin Ford, professor of History. While he concedes that the value of exams may vary from field to field, "in history, the payoff is what you can do with the material." Examinations are good, not so much because they require students to remember everything--"the police function of examinations has been over-emphasized"--as because a good examination gives students "a real intellectual experience." Answering well-formulated examination questions, the student "sits down at the end of a course and follows a theme through a 150-year period. He gets to see the forest as well as the trees."

The "professionalism" involved in writing papers causes Ford to regard them with some suspicion. "I would hate to think that every individual in one of my courses has to prove he would be able to write an article for a scholarly magazine."

Final papers have another, more mundane, drawback. The time required to grade them intelligently is far greater than that required for examinations. In some of the College's enormous and understaffed courses, this is quite impractical.

Underlying the qualms some Faculty members have about giving up examinations are fears that students might abuse an examination-free system. To them, examinations constitute a control which assures that students will not "get by" without doing their course work. William L. Langer '15, Coolidge Professor of History, whose courses are noted for their rigorous tests, maintains that "we can't get along without a system of exams ...because students as a class are not as responsible as they should be." For example, a lot of students leave their essays until the last minute. If the University were to adopt the German and French system (no examinations until the Senior year,) when there is a series of comprehensive exams, "the mortality would be enormous."

So it appears that, at least for the near future, the semi-annual ordeal will remain with us. To be sure, its critics have quite a few arguments left: examinations create arbitrary divisions between bodies of knowledge; they encourage students to cram in a hurry and forget equally rapidly. But given the practical advantages of examinations under the present educational system, one doubts that these criticisms will prevail. From a pragmatic standpoint, one can only ask: given examinations, how can they be made more tolerable? Or one can take a radical approach and inquire whether the entire system should be changed.

One often gets the feeling that taking examinations is like playing slot machines: you toss in your hard-earned studies, the grader's mind goes round and round, and, suddenly lo and behold! up pops a grade--often far different from the one you felt you'd won when you took the test. (In justice, it would be said that teachers probably feel the same way about students: they toss in their hard-won knowledge, our minds go round and round, etc.

The problem is essentially one of lack of communication between grader and graded. The grader cannot help tending to regard his task as a dreary, repetitious chore, enlivened only by an occasional witty or brilliant examination, and by the opportunity to discuss the answers with his colleagues. The student can't help regarding his grader as a mysterious nonentity who lurks in the corners during lectures and whose mental processes are utterly incomprehensible except for occasional rumor: "easy," "a bastard," etc. Most graders lack the time to comment on exams, and some courses even refuse to return them on request.

A number of proposals have been advanced to remedy this situation. Some would require that all exams bear detailed comments; others suggest that each student have a right to confront his grader. One of the more unique suggestions is that of Sanford A. Lakoff, assistant professor of Government. The present student-faculty ratio, Lakoff says, makes it "utopian" to expect elaborate comments or an individual session with a grader. Many courses might improve matters by devoting a special meeting to a "post-mortem" on the exam, but half-courses would find this difficult.

each major be given chance to publish their observation of the . Met only the the opportunity learn what went on in minds,--and perhaps how to better examinations--but it was the interest their .

The more radical approach taken by David 'SL. HarFord II Professor of the . Of each lying our educational system, man seems to ask; what does it to help or hinder, the, development of man into what he--is Riesman view--ought to be? Thus he that American culture generally volves thinking in terms of quenoes or categories which boxed off from one another, Riesman, the question is not one accepting this pattern as given of working within it, but one of olding whether or not it is Riesman regards examinations grading as manifestations of pattern. A examination than marks the end of one course the beginning of the next; a is a way of producing " people"--it assigns each person category which is impersonal rigid. In both cases, Riesman tends, the artificial "boxes" damaging.

By putting a student in a category, an assigned grade encourage him to avoid his most important task--that of self-evaluation. tends to accept the verdict of system: If successful, he may ask how to develop further; cessful, he may feel discouraged was just a 'B' student. Of course didn't know any Faculty member who would want to talk with asked a typical student.) When grades are coupled with a system of impersonal lectures and examinations, they discourage students from entering unknown are of study. It becomes advantages to "play from strength"--to courses where one feets rather than risk failure--quite possible in the absence of personal instruction--elsewhere. This " back" effect defeats the purpose of teaching, which is, Riesman's view, to help the student accomplish something new.

By sharply course examinations encourage lasiness; the student gets the that he has "completed" a of study and can now move something else. "If one doesn't exams, one's task is never Examinations , they are actually an way --a time-clock." In addition, tend to prescribe what the field like and what the relevant . A teacher may-tell his students think and evaluate things for themselves, but the examination R-1

The more radical approach taken by David 'SL. HarFord II Professor of the . Of each lying our educational system, man seems to ask; what does it to help or hinder, the, development of man into what he--is Riesman view--ought to be? Thus he that American culture generally volves thinking in terms of quenoes or categories which boxed off from one another, Riesman, the question is not one accepting this pattern as given of working within it, but one of olding whether or not it is Riesman regards examinations grading as manifestations of pattern. A examination than marks the end of one course the beginning of the next; a is a way of producing " people"--it assigns each person category which is impersonal rigid. In both cases, Riesman tends, the artificial "boxes" damaging.

By putting a student in a category, an assigned grade encourage him to avoid his most important task--that of self-evaluation. tends to accept the verdict of system: If successful, he may ask how to develop further; cessful, he may feel discouraged was just a 'B' student. Of course didn't know any Faculty member who would want to talk with asked a typical student.) When grades are coupled with a system of impersonal lectures and examinations, they discourage students from entering unknown are of study. It becomes advantages to "play from strength"--to courses where one feets rather than risk failure--quite possible in the absence of personal instruction--elsewhere. This " back" effect defeats the purpose of teaching, which is, Riesman's view, to help the student accomplish something new.

By sharply course examinations encourage lasiness; the student gets the that he has "completed" a of study and can now move something else. "If one doesn't exams, one's task is never Examinations , they are actually an way --a time-clock." In addition, tend to prescribe what the field like and what the relevant . A teacher may-tell his students think and evaluate things for themselves, but the examination R-1

By putting a student in a category, an assigned grade encourage him to avoid his most important task--that of self-evaluation. tends to accept the verdict of system: If successful, he may ask how to develop further; cessful, he may feel discouraged was just a 'B' student. Of course didn't know any Faculty member who would want to talk with asked a typical student.) When grades are coupled with a system of impersonal lectures and examinations, they discourage students from entering unknown are of study. It becomes advantages to "play from strength"--to courses where one feets rather than risk failure--quite possible in the absence of personal instruction--elsewhere. This " back" effect defeats the purpose of teaching, which is, Riesman's view, to help the student accomplish something new.

By sharply course examinations encourage lasiness; the student gets the that he has "completed" a of study and can now move something else. "If one doesn't exams, one's task is never Examinations , they are actually an way --a time-clock." In addition, tend to prescribe what the field like and what the relevant . A teacher may-tell his students think and evaluate things for themselves, but the examination R-1

By sharply course examinations encourage lasiness; the student gets the that he has "completed" a of study and can now move something else. "If one doesn't exams, one's task is never Examinations , they are actually an way --a time-clock." In addition, tend to prescribe what the field like and what the relevant . A teacher may-tell his students think and evaluate things for themselves, but the examination R-1