I was horrified the first time I had to hand in how I got my answers on a math exam. I generally got the correct answers, but apparently managed to do so in a manner unknown to the rest of mankind. While those who actually knew what they were doing might take four to six steps to solve a problem, I would often wander all over the place, taking 15-20 steps to get to an end. Can I help it if I like taking the scenic route?
I did figure out that I could often eek out a passing grade by getting partial credit for every problem, even if I only actually completely finished a relatively small number of them.
Awww!
Well, for me, in HS my teacher would often only look at the final answer, if you got it right, you got full marks. But, if you got it wrong, she would go back through your answer and follow your logic...at the very least you got partial marks (and thus rewarded for an honest effort, which I think was encouraging for those who had trouble rather than getting a zero). And if your only mistake was one of those stupid ones ( 2 cubed is 6, right?
) then you would only usually lose half a mark.
Also, when we had to solve equations and stuff, I too would sometimes take the scenic route....we never got docked marks for it, she would just draw an arrow connecting the more direct route.
Of course, this was the same teacher who enforced no calculators. Which while I thought it was a pain in the ass, it was a good skill to practice. Especially given increasing reports that not only are university students shitty at writing, they can't do math either. (a whole other lengthy debate)
My high school and college was into the whole liberal arts, seminar style classes so most of my college exams, at least junior and senior year were essays. I always did better on those, but usually preferred multiple choice b/c the profs could have them Scantron'd within 24 hrs and we wouldn't have to wait forever for the prof or TA to grade. The scores I got on my standardized tests (ACTs) never matched my actual grades, but I always hated writing pages and pages even if I did better (ugh, theology exams were the worst!!).
We must have done a lot more writing at my HS than others b/c when I was a TA in college I could not believe how few students could write a thesis statement and structure even the most basic of essays (I TA'd for a half-semester class that touched on how to research, structure a paper, prepare works cited, etc).
Well, considering how long some of my profs took to get scantron results to us, it made zero difference to me. Hell, sometimes the long answer profs got marks back sooner.
And depending on the size of the class, and how many TAs there are (and how qualified they are), long answer is not that difficult for them to handle. Especially if they limit how long the long answers are. Ie. a short paragraph about something, or a definition, rather than a full blown essay.
All the benefits of asking for long answer, yet none of the length.
(unless you had me
)
And university's have been complaining for years about the writing skills of students, and I don't think it's gotten better, despite efforts to do so. When I read emails from fellow students - especially one's to prof, my brain hurts and I die a little on the inside.
The teacher that I was out late with on Thursday night could never have had time to wake up before school and correct a bunch of long answer tests. She got the multiple choice ones done over breakfast though.
Time management? *shrug*
Some teachers used to give us our MC marks, and the long answer marks a little later. Most of us could comprehend why long answer takes longer to mark.
It comes down to class sizes too...smaller classes make long answer more manageable. Meanwhile, I know a prof with a class of 600 who still insists on giving all long answer tests. It's insane, and the marking suffers because of it...too much skimming, etc. Lots of complaints.
In that case MC really is the only way to go.
(but then, that leads me back to my arguments about how universities are run and the value of learning....)