Trials (and Tabulations): Typed Exams

28/3/2017

JACOB RODRIGO

Vol 11, Issue 5

We Melbourne Law School students love to complain.

The topics we gripe about are varied: the length of our readings, Commerce students in our library, the inscrutability of clerkship applications. So too the forums in which we grumble: seminar breaks, pre-drinks, LMR Facebook groups—even the very pages of this hallowed scandal rag.

But give a JD student a break in conversation, or a few column inches, and they'll fill it with criticism of MLS life every time.

At times our indefatigable predilection towards griping is a force for good. The fusses we have kicked up recently have resulted in deserved fines being levied against rogue developers and a partial backdown of a discriminatory institutional policy against recorded lectures. Our Type A personalities and august training in rhetoric and logic give us what amounts to a magical power: the ability to transmute complaint into crusade in a flash.

But more often than not, our complaints are just that. As is the case with the reaction to the recent announcement that Property students will be piloting computer-typed exams though the use of the 'SoftTest' application.

When news broke of an electronic exam pilot, the second-year cohort leapt straight to Facebook. The cohort's anxiety was palpable in the multiple comment threads that suddenly burst up.

Opposition to the change could be measured in the Likes that comments hostile to the pilot received, comparative to those that supported it. Three themes of dissatisfaction emerged: unease about how the SofTest software will work, worries about typing speeds and fears for the pilot's impact on grade distribution. One of the LSS Education Directors has committed to hearing the views of students and discussing the pilot with faculty. (De Minimis wishes to advise that in the print edition we incorrectly stated that the Education Director had committed to asking faculty to change the pilot. We apologise for any misrepresentation)

There are, no doubt, legitimate concerns about this move. As a third-year student has informed me, last year's Property exam was excessively long. Many students failed to finish. A typed exam is not a panacea for a poorly designed course. Fears about technology failing mid-examination, and equity for those without laptops, are genuine issues that should also be addressed by faculty.

However, these issues were not the key concerns of the cohort. Our reaction was just another manifestation of the eternal piteousness of the JD student. One fact underlines this: a three-page explanation of the electronic exam policy and procedure was posted on the LMS four days prior to the Facebook breakout. It succinctly explains nearly all of the issues raised—if you read it.

Maybe we don't want solutions. Perhaps the reason that the smallest controversies at the MLS often escalate is because what we JDers truly desire is the catharsis of a good whine and the opportunity to blame someone else for our woes. Rallying against faculty is an emotional win-win: either they accede to pressure, and we get the satisfaction of victory, or they don't, and we get the security blanket of a straw-man to blame for our failings.

It would be a shame for electronic exams to be another victim of the MLS sacrificial altar, another offering for the sanity of the second-year cohort. Handwriting is no longer a necessary skill in the legal world. In the 21st century, all vital legal work is done on computers. Our course mostly reflects the fact that computer literacy is the new mandatory competency: we applied for the degree electronically, we submit assignments online, students fought hard for access to lecture recordings. Handwritten exams predicate academic success in the JD on a dying skill—one that most of us aren't very proficient in anymore.

Furthermore, handwritten exams are inequitable. People with certain motor disabilities and learning disorders (like dyslexia) are disadvantaged by them. University policy generally allows such students access to typed exams already. However, accessing these exams comes with social stigma: it clearly signals to other students that you have such a condition. Universal adoption of typing would allow these students discreet access to the tools they need.

The JD is a reasonably difficult degree. Releasing some steam with a occasional complaint is no doubt a natural and healthy strategy to cope with its pressures. But if that tendency isn't checked it can devolve from a tendency for advocacy into mere oppositionism—as our reaction to a simple pilot for typed exams illustrates all too clearly.

Jacob Rodrigo is a second-year JD student

More articles like this

Comment: The 5 Worst Habits of MLS Students

The rest of this issue

Piteous whinger. Probably votes coalition.

28/3/2017 03:41:28 am

The document on the LMS doesn't explain how we go about applying for a university provided laptop. I imagine this isn't too difficult but we do still need to know how.

It also hasn't been clarified, either in that document or anywhere else, whether those who type the exam and those who hand write it will be marked on the same curve and to the same standard. I imagine there will be few to none electing to handwrite it. I'm more concerned about technology failure, even possibly of university provided laptops, resulting in the rest of the exam needing to be written and placing any such unfortunate person at a hue disadvantage. This isn't a negligible possibility, technology fucks up all the time. Such a risk is totally absent with all hand written exams. I also think the content of the 'troubleshooting during and after the exam' section in the LSS document is totally unsatisfactory.

There also seems to have been very little discussion about cheating. Yes the software locks down your laptop or whatever, but I imagine this wouldnt be insurmountable to someone with enough tech savvy, who could probably also hide what they are doing on screen from invigilators. If they are connected to the Internet the whole time.

On balance I'm probably in favour of the typed exam, but there are still these things nagging me.

User of pens and paper

28/3/2017 01:36:51 pm

Frankly I like my fountain pen and paper and maintaining the age-old tradition of handwriting, in the spirit of our forefathers; shame on you for shitting on my maintenance of the art of penmanship

Jacob Rodrigo

28/3/2017 04:20:10 pm

I love a good fountain pen and cursive script too—forefathers aside. But our lifestyle choices shouldn't hold back the MLS from adopting new technology where it can provide benefits to many students.

lol

28/3/2017 04:31:25 pm

Literally no one is suggesting that dude. Addressing very legitimate student concerns is not equal to "holding MLS back".

Jenny

28/3/2017 04:36:02 pm

Very interesting article. I took agree that the typing of exams should be offered, as it clearly is the way forward.

However, like one of the other commentators I do have some nudging issues. I certainly don't see it as a great equaliser though, with typing you get new problems, new issues.

As a person with fucked up hands from typing on a tiny keyboard and who previously got though their typed assignments by stocking up on boxes of panadol. Typed exams are a nightmare. They will let somebody else get in 80 words per minute, while I trudge along at 40 at the most with the added bonus of an ungodly amount of typos and a decent amount of pain.

Sure allow typing, its a good idea, but handwriting should always remain a genuine option. ( not suggesting that you want to stop handwritten exams). Despite our tenancies to complain about change at MLS our concerns are almost always genuine. However, like you I don't think they should always get in the way of something as simple as a pilot.

The power of the status quo

28/3/2017 10:16:49 pm

I think that if we are to change the status quo, people want to be satisfied that the new system cannot be worse than the current system.

Handwritten exams have a few issues:
- handwriting is slow, so you can cover less material in a set-time exam than on computer.
- editing is more difficult, so your structure or clarity may be less coherent than on computer

Computers ameliorate those two issues, but have a couple of their own:
- they are prone to technological failure, while physical exams cannot stuff up
- they require equitable access to technological equipment
- people may be able to cheat via their technological criminal deviancy

Equitable access should be simple enough to organise, and criminal deviancy is a small risk that may be mitigated by watchful invigilators, provided that everyone sits the exam under their watch. But technology failure is always a risk.

My personal view?
Exams are sat on laptops with the no-cheating-software installed, with invigilators in the room. In the event of any crash, that person gets extra time equal to the time they lost from the crash. It would be hoped that there are spare laptops ready to go in the event of any crash.

Alternatively, those day-long online take-homes (e.g. Consti) seem to be long enough that troubleshooting in the event of technological failures should not disadvantage the student too much.

My computer is from the dark ages

29/3/2017 10:26:58 am

I have never heard of a university laptop before, only the communal computer lab desktops. Has anyone used a MLS provided one? Were they decent?

One of the students from an elective trial told me if your computer crashes you need to hand write the rest - which seems terrible since you won't have access to the old work!

Comments are closed.

Trials (and Tabulations): Typed Exams

Archives