From: kolstad@cae.wisc.edu (Joel Kolstad)
Subject: Re: Taking exams?
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:29:46 CST
Originator: kolstad@sun-23.cae.wisc.edu

In article <1jsfavINNh0d@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca> ochealth@unixg.ubc.ca (ochealth) writes:

>if the student is guilty of cheating, then you have to prove that.

I'm not suggesting that the student should ever be accused of cheating.
Just that professors should be able to issue exams on a per-individual
basis, if they see fit.  (To take the extreme case, is it fair that I use
different homework and different exams than Joe Blow if we end up learning
the same things?  Sure, why not?)

>Forcing a student to retake an exam, when the professor or university
>can not otherwise *prove* the student's guilt, is arbitrary and unjust.

Proof is difficult to find, which is exactly why we haven't accused the
student of anything.  I was serious when I said that I think it's a really
sad day when we start having video cameras in classrooms...  

But anyway, how is having a student re-take an exam any more arbitary and
unjust than having them take it in the first place?  (Assuming they've been
informed of the possibility at the beginning of the class year.)

I'll grant you that giving this power to professors opens up the possibility
for abuse, and that you'd need an appeals board or something to handle
complaints.  Such boards are already in place in colleges, so this wouldn't
be much of a problem.  (Remember, professors really have no incentive
to take their own time to make up new exams if they don't have to.)

>I think you are losing sight of
>some fundamentals, in the process of solving a problem you face as a teacher.

I'm not a teacher, but I might be someday. :-)

WARNING WARNING WARNING
Loooooong philosophical espousition on education coming up.  Hit 'n' now if
you're already sick of this topic.  You won't see any more of _my_ posts of
this particular topic; this is the last one -- really!



Here we go:

I think that a function educational institute is largely based on a certain
amount of trust between the educators and the educatees.  It's assumed that
students want to learn what is being taught to them (note that this kicks
out required classes for this argument).  Professors are there because it's
part of their job, and they (hopefully) enjoy it as well.  Students cheat
because they've misprioritized their lives, and didn't learn something that
they were supposed to before an exam.  Cheating is unfair to the other
students in the class, although if very few people cheat (as one would
expect), it doesn't make a significant difference in the other student's
grades.  Realizing this, professors are only prone to "recognize" cheating in
students who are cheating in a very obvious manner.  In reality, catching
cheaters doesn't help the professor any, it just helps the rest of the
class, which the professor has (hopefully) felt some responsibility to.
Given the difficulty in _proving_ that someone has cheated, I think it's
entirely reasonable to let professors have people re-take exams on the same
material.  In this case, the professor has lost something because he/she
had to make up another exam, the class lost a little bit because they
weren't allowed the extra time before the "re-take", and the cheater either
loses a little time if he/she wasn't really cheating, or has the ability to
gain something by studying if he/she was really cheating.  Is it so much to
ask that an extremely small number of falsely accused students have to
spend a few hours re-taking an exam so that many true cheaters get to fall
flat on their faces?  I think not.  The option of always letting suspected
cheaters "go free" is sure to hurt many more students than those few
students who are slighlty inconvienced by the alternative approach.  In the
end, then, I think the best approach is to allow professors to have
students re-take exams.

Dissenting views are welcome... in my _mailbox_: kolstad@cae.wisc.edu.

Have a nice day.

						---Joel Kolstad