That hasn't been my experience, even at a community college I attended. I think it's really up to the teacher though, barring a school like Caltech that actually has policies to encourage better teaching methods. Ironically, some very well-respected schools seem to be big offenders. Berkeley, for example, uses scantron tests almost exclusively, from what I understand, and combined with the drive to achieve, I've heard that cheating there is rampant. It's not size though. I attended a CSU that had smaller classes and no standardized testing.
Sent from my iPhone On Nov 13, 2011, at 6:04 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote: > "Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> On 11/12/2011 9:15 AM, bcs wrote: >>> The/a solution to the cheating problem at anything but the last set of >>> classes >>> is to make the next set of classes *painful* to take if you don't know >>> the >>> materiel from the prerequisite. The point of the class after all is to >>> teach you >>> the materiel (whatever that amounts to) and if you've got the materiel >>> how you >>> got there is irrelevant. That all depends however on a carefully tuned >>> definition of "got the materiel". >> >> Caltech also had a policy that you could not only place out of any class >> by taking (and passing) the final exam for it, you would even receive >> *credit* for it. I've seen many that did the former, but none other that >> went as far as the latter. >> >> However, very, very few students ever managed to pass those exams without >> taking the class :-) I never even bothered to try. > > That's one of the main reasons I lost all respect for schools. With Caltech > apparently being the one exception, schools never care whether or not you > know the material (despite what they've convinced themselves). What they > care about is 1. whether you're shelling out those tuition $Gs, and 2. > whether you actually went through the class (and played "simon says" all the > way through). > > At all the schools I've been to that allowed testing out: > > 1. Like you said, they gave no credit. > > 2. They went to great lengths to prevent you from even *trying* to test out. > They *officially* allowed testing out, but realistically they never > *actually* granted permission to try. What they would do is hem and haw and > try to talk you out of it until you hopefully gave up and went away, and if > that didn't work, they would just outright deny the opportunity (or come up > with some obscure rule to hide behind). What make it all the more > infuriating, and patronizing, is that they would insist they were doing it > all in the name of "helping" you. > > 3. Most of the teachers were so bad at what they were doing, and at writing > good tests, that even if you did luck out and manage to get the opportunity > to try, there would be a very good chance that even an expert in the field > wouldn't be able to pass without knowing all the irrelevant details and > idiosyncrasies of *exactly* how the instructor presented the material. > >
