The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Interesting blog discussion on enforcing exam word limits
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:23 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce Pretty interesting discussion; a lot more issues involved in this thing than I imagined.
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/12/enforcing_word_.html |
 |
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:28 AM Author: Balding dead house elastic band Seems pretty straight-forward. Stop at the word limit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256087) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:31 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce That would seem to encourage more rule breaking though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256108) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:32 AM Author: Balding dead house elastic band 1. I don't see how.
2. I don't see why that would even be a problem. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:34 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce Well, if you know the prof will stop reading at word 250, you can write a self-contained 250 word answer, and then throw in a few other paragraphs that go into the less important issues that you couldn't fit in 250 words.
If the prof enforces the word limit and stops reading at wod 250, you're no worse off than you were before.
If the prof disregards the word limit or doesn't cut off the grading exactly at word 250, you just gained a windfall.
It seems that the proper way to do it is to cut off off reading at 250 words, and in addition to that impose a penalty for not following the rules. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:36 AM Author: impressive red church roast beef "Well, if you know the prof will stop reading at word 250, you can write a self-contained 250 word answer, and then throw in a few other paragraphs that go into the less important issues that you couldn't fit in 250 words." How is this beneficial? The less important issues don't get read and time wasted. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:38 AM Author: Balding dead house elastic band Students don't know whether it will be strictly enforced in advance. There's no loss other than the time spent, but there is a signficant potential gain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256144) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:54 AM Author: useless stage Students don't know whether GTO's penalty will be enforced either. That's why GTO's argument makes so little sense. He seems to think it's ok to claim uncertainty with respect to the cut-off, but it's not ok to claim uncertainty with the imposition of a penalty.
There's abso-fucking-lutely no reaason to think that's a reasonable conclusion. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:39 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce Well, if it's a 24 hour takehome you have a shitload of time at your disposal to waste.
Also you're assuming that the prof will stop at word 250. As mentioned in the comments to that blog post, not all profs actually do that. Basically, by going over the word limit you lose nothing at worst and get a windfall at best. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:39 AM Author: impressive red church roast beef It's not this profs job to subsidize other prof's faggotry. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256153) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:40 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce I'm not sure I understand your point here whatsoever. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256159) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:41 AM Author: impressive red church roast beef Other profs reading after 250 words is not his concern. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256161) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:43 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I'm writing from the student's perspective, not the prof's. If the student knows the only punishment a prof will give for going over the word limit is not read the words after word #250, the student has a very strong incentive to break the rules and write an answer greater than 250 words.
Worst case scenario: student gains nothing and loses nothing, since the professor just stops reading after word 250.
Best case scenario: the prof ignores his own stated word limit, reads the whole ansewr (or reads past word 250), and the student gets a higher grade. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:46 AM Author: adulterous boltzmann The proposal of take the grade and divide by the relative amount word limit was exceeded has the defect of efficient breach also. Any other penalty seems Draconian because it was not announced in advance. OH GNOES! What's the dood to do?!? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256182) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:49 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce The stuff about not being announced in advance seems silly; the guy was warned about the word limit and chose to break it anyway, so he deserves a punishment.
It seems the best thing to do is to stop reading after the word limit, and then provide an additional penalty to discourage efficient breach. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:51 AM Author: Balding dead house elastic band If there's no negative to them going over (from the profs standpoint), I'm not sure why there's a need to impose a penalty.
I think this was :D's point. Not imposing a penalty doesn't hurt this particular prof, but may hurt other profs (by making their systesm unfair if they choose to count over 250). |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:52 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce Presumably it's to prevent people from going over in the first place (if they know they can't benefit from efficient breach, but would actually suffer, they won't do it). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256201) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:53 AM Author: Balding dead house elastic band Right, but it's not hurting this prof, it is only helping other profs.
See my edit. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:51 AM Author: adulterous boltzmann Ok. What about the other students that broke the word limit by a significantly less egregious amount. Doesn't that just encourage simply a prudent level of cheating? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256199) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:53 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce I don't see why those people shouldn't be punished also. Maybe he could just make the punishment be a factor of the # of words went over (in addition to not grading anything past word 250). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256205) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:54 AM Author: adulterous boltzmann Well, then he has to do his own word count on every essay. Which he probably should do. Fuck. I hope my Energy Law prof doesn't do that.
Point is: he has to do a wordcount on everyone (or at least the essays that are anywhere close to the limit). If he only does a wordcount on obvious violators, that isn't fair. He's probably not going to take the time to do a wordcount on everyone. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:47 AM Author: impressive red church roast beef If a worthwhile portion of his answer is after the word limit, which is almost definitely, he loses points the 250 word person doesn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256187) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:49 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce Spoken like someone who has never taken a law school exam. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256193) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:49 AM Author: adulterous boltzmann If the student knows this is going to happen, he can write his full 250 words answer. Then, during hours 13 and 14 when he's run out of creative steam, he raise the flag on all his BS answers and see if anyone salutes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256194) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:37 AM Author: Balding dead house elastic band Well, you've answered 1, but haven't answered 2.
If the prof cuts off at 250, no harm no foul, unless you consider having the prof count words a harm. I assume this would be a problem regardless, though. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:38 AM Author: impressive red church roast beef Wasting his time and not reading answers he should've had inside of 250 words is punishment enough, geez. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256146) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:39 AM Author: Balding dead house elastic band The problem is that he's going to have to waste his time counting to 250 as it is, regardless of whether they go over. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256151) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:52 AM Author: useless stage "That would seem to encourage more rule breaking though."
Who cares? They can waste all the time they want. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:53 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce It's unfair to people who chose to follow the stated rules. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256207) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:55 AM Author: Balding dead house elastic band How does that hurt those that follow the rules? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256217) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:59 AM Author: useless stage Take a position on this: There is certainty of rule enforcement (penalty or not).
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:29 AM Author: impressive red church roast beef People suggesting Fs need to be lynched. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256094) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:30 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce Why? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256107) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:35 AM Author: impressive red church roast beef The punishment of not reading after 250 is harsh enough. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256131) |
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:25 AM Author: naked brunch friendly grandma wgwag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256072) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:35 AM Author: Nofapping aromatic field voyeur scroll to the last comment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256133) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:40 AM Author: beady-eyed lettuce Heh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256154) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:45 AM Author: useless stage "I would sometimes flaunt the rule."
FLOUT, you fucking retard. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:46 AM Author: Balding dead house elastic band Maybe he made nice pretty jewelry out of the clippings. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256179) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:48 AM Author: multi-colored mad cow disease http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/flaunt
"2 : to treat contemptuously <flaunted the rules -- Louis Untermeyer>" |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:51 AM Author: useless stage "If you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake."
Damn straight.
http://www.answers.com/flaunt&r=67
Usage Problem. To show contempt for; scorn.
...This usage is still widely seen as erroneous and is best avoided. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2006 2:54 AM Author: supple nighttime people who are hurt stag film That's not interesting at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=548963&forum_id=2#7256213) |