२६ ऑक्टोबर, २००५
When the lawprof proctors the exam.
I've got a question for you law students. Do you like it when the professor proctors the exam (or would you like it)? What does the lawprof proctoring the exam signify to you? Seriously. I'm trying to figure something out.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६ टिप्पण्या:
It could be several things:
Wants to watch the students suffer.
The exam was poorly written and is anticipating questions.
Nothing better to do.
Of course, I attended law school before proctor-blogging was invented.
I hated it as a student although my students say they like to have the lecturer there for the first twenty minutes or so in case of questions, meltdown etc...
I tend to think it encourages unnecessary questions though: if they have questions they know the invigilators will call the lecturer to clarify, when we're there they seem to imagine problems and get themselves into a real palaver...
Most of my lawprofs proctored their own exams. I don't recall caring either way since the exams were as self-explanatory as a Nazi-inspired torture instrument can be.
Maybe there's some "in it together" mojo if you're all there in one room -- as in "Why is my prof out blogging/squirrel chasing, etc. instead of here with me?" But that's both 1. a stretch and 2. whining.
In a completely unrelated vein. Can these word verifications be used in Scrabble? I could kill with all these Vs Qs and Bs in a triple word score.
Personally, I always liked the way it was at my undergrad, where exams were wholly unproctered, but professors generally remained in their office for the duration of the exam.
That said, I went to a school that had a strict honor code which was taken seriously by students and faculty alike, rendering proctors, at least in theory, superfluous.
My 1L class had an issue with students not handing their exams in when time was called (and literally writing for 5 minutes after). Even though my section was in 2 different rooms it would have been nice to know the prof was in one of them taking note of who was cheating.
But, at my school a professor was also shot during an exam in the undergrad-so I do not harbor any hope that law profs will be dumb enough to start showing up anytime soon.
As a graduate student I remember taking a Latin Silver Age Poetry final which consisted fo translating and then explaining some 200 lines of a Latin poem I thankfully do not remember. What I do remember is the proctor, the instructor, peeking over my shoulder, giggling and then walking away quickly, I suspect to avoid laughing out loud. Did wonders for my confidence.
My answer is based on experience in law school 30 years ago so it is clearly dated. However, most of our exams were proctored by the professor during the first year, but not in the second or third year classes.
I thought it was distracting when the professor came at the start of the exam, not only because of the many questions that people felt they had to ask, but also because I was anxious to read the questions and start writing. I thought it was equally distracting when the professor stayed throughout the exam - primarily because too many people took it as an invitation to ask questions.
Some professors would come in at the halfway point in the exam, but we rarely asked questions because we wanted to keep writing. (Any questions were asked and answered aloud, for everyone to hear, but there was no extension in the time allowed to finish the exam so questions were rare.)
I do recall that most of my professors returned at the end of class to make sure the exams were turned in on time. There were always a few people who felt they could safely write beyond the time limit when the only oversight was a student proctor.
I'm sorry. You directed this question to law students. Please disregard my rambling.
our exams were, by rule, administered by proctors
i thought it was beneficial knowing in advance that there could be no questions, as to anything, in the exam room
the presence of the professor invites unnecessary questions and is somewhat distracting, etc
especially to a bunch as neurotic as law students
I don't teach law. I teach math.
But what I have observed is that the more tightly an exam is proctored (and in particular, by me) the less students attempt to cheat.
And unfortunately, there are more students who cheat now than there used to be (I've been teaching for twenty years). This summer I caught two students cheating who had actually signed a contract promising not to cheat. I don't know what it is, but there is a certain segment (though fortunately still not numerous) among current students (especially those fresh out of high school) who believe that
1: they are invincible and so smart that they won't get caught (no matter how brazen their cheating actually is),
2: believe they can lie their way out of any situation and don't have any problem at all looking you in the eye and telling a lie, and
3: almost go through life with a video-game like trance and just about expect they will be able to hit 'replay' when they screw up-- and probably HAVE done that in the past when they were spoiled rotten by parents, a few easy-to-fool high school teachers and coaches, among others. The idea that they could one day be building a bridge for people to drive on when they don't understand basic math doesn't even enter their minds--it's all about getting the grade-- and if it does, they probably figure they can cheat their way around that one too, or find a computer program that can do it for them (many of them are quite smart and techno-savvy), or if the bridge collapses, well somehow they will find a way to make sure someone else gets blamed.
I'm not saying that describes all, most, or even a very large proportion of today's college students (most of whom are good, honest and hard working) but trust me, Anne-- this component is out there, I know because I've sat down and talked to several, and the gears aren't running quite the way they should. Proctoring their exam personally may at least limit the cheating, though, TO this group, and then you can focus on catching them.
It signified two things to my fellow students at Ole Miss:
1. You're the one professor not smart/ambitious enough to get the hell out of Oxford for the winter;
or
2. You enjoy watching students suffer.
I am a UW Law alum and I absolutely hated it when professors proctored the exam. I felt like they were watching me drown. I know that sounds a little dramatic but I much preferred a ambivalent grad student.
as a grad who's proctored many exams let me tell you that having the prof there absolutely makes a difference in the level of cheating. it's also nice to have the prof there if something goes wrong - we once were 100 exams short and had to send for more - a situation that was made even worse because no one knew where the other half of the class was taking the exam or if they had any extras. i'll never do that again! but, maybe the law school is better organized than over here in social sciences and these things don't happen to your proctors.
As is the case in all questions in law school, the answer is "it depends." If the professor is competent and can write a cogent exam free of confusing typos, then the "professor as proctor" model can have a detrimental effect on the exam, as profs are compelled to provide the clueless student who doesn't know how to read yet is gregarious enough to ask for preferential treatment/an answer to his question.
On the other hand, if the prof is some incompetent adjunct recently hired by a fund-deprived state institution that engages in zero oversight over the exam, then he/she must serve as proctor so as to correct the confusing directions or lack thereof, or potentially misleading typos.
If the professor does proctor, they should not be the ones "collecting" the exams. They should stand off to the side. Then, if students want to say goodbye, thank them, or share thoughts about the test, the rest of the group does not have to wait to turn in their exam, or seem rude if they "butt in" to drop theirs in the pile because they have to leave right away. Also, if you were one of the professor's good students, shown in how they respond to you in discussion, you might like them to be there, for moral support or whatever. If you were not, you might not like them watching you take the exam, especially if they are actively observing you, (ie what you're drinking, how much you're flipping through your notes, how much time spent writing, etc.) which generally a neutral proctor does not. Is cheating such a big thing on law school essay exams that the professor needs to be in the room? I doubt it. Sure these exams are graded anonymously, so what you do taking the test does not factor into the grade. But if you just want to turn in the bluebook and be done with it, do you have to wait your turn in line and have a good word in the end for the professor? Who gains by this?
Mary: You raise a lot of the points that I am concerned about too. I've actually decided not to proctor anymore. The teacher has a different effect on different students, and it would be better to have a neutral environment. Most of the teachers who believe in proctoring sincerely think they are giving the students support. It's not about catching cheaters or enjoying watching students suffer. The professors really believe they are helping students. I wrote this post to see if that belief was well-founded.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा