What Princeton needs is a self-scheduled finals period. Finals period should be exactly the same length, starting the day after Dean's Date and lasting through the following Saturday. Finals would be still taken at the same times, but students would chose when they took each of their exams. All exams would be available at one central location. Students would sign their exam out and take the test in a predetermined location based on the resources allowed for the exam. There would be a room for closed everything, a room for open notes and books, and a room for open everything. A proctor would give timing information, and students would return their test after the three-hour period.
This system would allow students to allocate their study time exactly as they see fit. Students who do not like the new schedule can maintain the study schedule they would have had. For some, however, this would be a marked improvement. Currently, students with their only exams the final Saturday of exam period have them hanging over their heads for 10 days. If this schedule were adopted, they could study as long as they wished, take their exams and start their breaks. Students with many exams at the front of exam period would be able to space them out over the 10-day period. Most importantly, it would allow students to study for exams according to their needs.
When I propose this plan casually, I usually get two main objections. The first is from individual students who say that this proposed system would just result in procrastination and that the current system is preferable because it forces students to get their work done. Granted, with the knowledge that my exams were not for another 10 days, the day after Dean's Date would probably consist mostly of Guitar Hero and napping. The administration, however, is not here to set our study schedules. Dean's Date is almost the same way, and people do not complain now that they wish different papers were due on different days. The point of this system is to allow students to set their own study schedule in whichever way would maximize their understanding of the material.
But then often comes the most pressing and troubling issue: What about cheating? More freedom in testing opens the doors for more instances of cheating. With students taking the same exam at different times, one who already took it could reveal questions to classmates. There would be a temptation to take a closed-book examination in the open-book room.
My response to this complaint is two-fold. First, the University already permits situations that allow for much more rampant cheating. Professors are allowed to give timed take-home exams, where students are on their honor to work on the exam for only a given amount of time. It would be easy enough for students, alone in their room, to work for additional time. Students are allowed to push back an exam if they have more than one on the same day. It would be easy enough for students to ask their friends in the class what questions are on the exam. But the University does not protest these situations, as it sees they are sometimes necessary for a fairer testing system.
This system still relies on the same Honor Code that has been in place for years. Though students may be taking different exams in the same room, they would still be required to report incidents of cheating. There are few things more sacred to this university than the Honor Code. We should be able to trust it in all situations. Anyone who dislikes this proposal for fear of cheating should also be protesting the current testing system as well. A system like this is not without precedent. It is in place at colleges with honor codes similar to ours like Haverford and Bryn Mawr. If they can trust it in this capacity, surely we can too.
Of course there would have to be exceptions to the rule, as there are now. There are classes in music, languages, art and other subjects with audio and oral examinations that would have to be dealt with. Granted, the system is not perfect. But overall, this system would do a better job at demonstrating a student's mastery of the material. This system eliminates much unfairness and ensures that when someone takes an exam, he or she is demonstrating a full ability to master the material. And after all, isn't that why we are here?
Simon Fox Krauss is a sophomore and can be reached at skrauss@princeton.edu.
Read More
Public service still serves the public
Guest ContributorsIt is sometimes difficult to see the value of service in times of instability, disinvestment in public services, eroding public trust in government, and an uncertain job market. But even in times of massive turmoil, public service is still able to drive initiatives that aren’t sufficiently politicized to make newspaper headlines.
As academia and the federal workforce have adapted to rapid policy changes, the SINSI program and the students it supports have had to adapt. We are the first generation of SINSI Scholars, the SINSI program’s graduate fellows, to contend with this new era of uncertainty.
Charlie Kirk died for ideals the left has ignored
Maximillian MeyerKirk’s killing will mark a turning point. The question is whether it leads America and those who diverge from the prevailing orthodoxy on its college campuses into fear and silence, or towards courage and conviction.
Kirk’s killing will mark a turning point. The question is whether it leads America and those who diverge from the prevailing orthodoxy on its college campuses into fear and silence, or towards courage and conviction.
Why did we go to see Ketanji Brown Jackson, anyway?
Shane McCauleyAs a community, though, we should honestly acknowledge our bleak feelings on the Trump administration and look for genuine coping mechanisms, rather than compartmentalizing our anxiety into ceremonial events like these.
As a community, though, we should honestly acknowledge our bleak feelings on the Trump administration and look for genuine coping mechanisms, rather than compartmentalizing our anxiety into ceremonial events like these.