On Nov 16, 2010, at 7:26 AM, John Wager wrote: > 1. There are quite a few reactions on "Slashdot" to this story. You can > follow them here: > > http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/ZrcuFv28xwI/story01.htm Several hundred! I like the tales of Feynman doing a student's exam, and the fellow who had a grad student stand on a piece of paper, because for me the whole fuss misses the point. There are cheats in sports too. They win this or that match or game. They may even become rich as a consequence of cheating. Good luck to them..if that's how they want to live...it takes all sorts to make the world. Yesterday in class I could see one or two students wondering how they might cheat. I gave up tests and quizzes long ago. To me it matters very little that someone can remember when this or that event happened, or what the three causes of the First World War might be. Each week my students (all upper division) write an analysis of what they have read. They know they may be asked to read this aloud in class. If someone says, "I haven't got any writing," I say, "Fair enough, but remember that you have to produce a substantial paper at the end of the semester, which is based on this writing. If you let too many weeks pass, that task will be harder. It's far easier to reduce thirty pages of writing to fifteen good ones, than it is to write fifteen good pages on a short deadline." Good students figure out this system. Yesterday it suddenly dawned on those few who are still adrift that they will have to come up with a substantial paper in three weeks and that it will have to reflect in-class discussions, on which they have taken no notes, readings they haven't done, and conclusions they haven't yet reached. Tough spot to be in. I'm anticipating complaints to the dean that I "haven't been clear," or negotiating tactics of that ilk. David Ritchie, Portland, Oregon