You know, I actually had a student say to me, as I was on my way to invigilate her exam, "I've got R50 000 - let's talk...".
I laughed, and life went on. But what if I'd said "Yes, let's?"
I recall the incident of a few years ago, in our Department, when a Dept Assistant was in fact bribed - and escaped with a warning, as "the bribe was so high". The student disappeared overseas, incidentally.
And why do they bother? I tell everyone in advance what the questions will be, anyway - some believe me, some don't, and the marks end up on the normal distribution curve anyway, because in order to answer the questions, they have to learn pretty much the whole syllabus...which is the point, isn't it?
I must actually state, at this juncture, that I consider exams to be an unconscionable waste of time; examinations at University level are an archaic ritual which is a poor means of assessing the career preparedness or level of training of the people who come here to be taught.
And there's half the problem...being "taught". Students in general, and South African students in particular, seem to need to be taught, whereas what they should be doing is being educated - which is largely a self-driven thing.
But we are still left with the need to "assess" - and there's the other half of the problem. The sooner we can fall back on multiple choice exams administered via the Web, the happier I'll be: if I have to read one more slavish regurgitation of my freely-given course material, in handwriting that emulates a spiky wave-trace on an oscilloscope rather than anything actually legible, I will strip my moer.
You have been warned....
14/11/2007, 11:14
That is the problem with teaching in the Sciences. You can't simply wake up this morning, find some really interesting phenomenon unfolding in a college dormitory in the US midwest which may or may not illustrate some arcane footnote to some afterthought of some minor social scientist, and ask students to "compare and contrast" or "discuss and illustrate" in an essay, assured that you'll at least have some variety in the offerings when you mark them. Science still has a canon. Science still has some notion of some answers being more correct than others, based on more than the student's power of argument and substantiation. No matter how convincingly, and with how many sources cited accurately, a student argues that the earth is flat, they're still likely to achieve a lower mark than a student who produces a comparably articulate argument for a round earth. But south of Jammie steps, a coherent post-modernist (if that's not already a contradiction in terms) and an articulate post-structuralist and an adroit social constructivist could all argue completely different standpoints and outcomes, and all be equally "correct" or deserving of marks. So greater variety becomes possible - students aren't all trying to come up with The Correct Answer (i.e., the lecture notes) but are trying to second-guess the viewpoint or style of whoever will be marking that particular assignment.
15/11/2007, 14:38
MM, you are absolutely right: there is not a lot of debate to be had in a fact-rich environment; not a lot of wriggle room when how something works is quite clear. As for an articulate post-structuralist deconstruction of the prevailing paradigmatic interpretation of...sorry, we just go for "articulate"!