The very word "comprehensive" suggests an approach that takes the pieces and puts them together into a whole.  That kind of comprehensive I can understand; that kind of comprehensive exam I'd have to support, though I'd still make a pitch for a choice between written and oral examinations.  But, of course, that is not the kind of   "comprehensive exams" we have.

Nope.  Our "comprehensives" are one exam (in theory), with six sections, which just happen to correlate to the six courses we took.   While all six professors read the answers to all the questions, they each take the lead in judging the answer to the question that relates most closely to their specific course.   So, this means we have six exams.  And in two of these courses, we've already had closed-book exams.  So where is the 'comprehensive' part? 

And then there's how we do six sections over two days.  That is, the exam is divided into two "parts", with three questions in each part.   We do three sections in the first part on one day (today, in my case), and three sections in the second part on a second day (tomorrow).  Now, I can understand why those who have attached meaning to a ritual that is basically intellectual hazing might insist that one demonstrate the breadth and depth of one's knowledge at any given point in time.  That would mean writing both parts on the same day.  I can even understand why acting out of sympathy for human limits, they might choose to divide them into two days.  But to have them on two days, back-to-back, is surely the result of trying to mix hazing and humanity.  Which, I suppose I'd have to grudingly acknoweldge is better than hazing without humanity.  But just barely!

I suppose it's possible I'd be less cranky about it if I had done well in all three sections today.  But I didn't.  I completely blanked on calculus. What a surprise (NOT).  I did a problem last night without problem; today, the same problem was like a visitor from another planet -- familiar and alien at the same time.  Does this mean I've blown it, and don't have to even try to write tomorrow's exams? No such luck, I've been told.  Instead, I've been advised to excell at the public choice "section" of tomorrow's part, demonstrating that I understand the concepts the economists have been trying to impart.  And, I'm told (as though it's a comforting thought) that at the very worst, I'll have to answer the calculus question again. 

Didn't I say I'd never write a closed-book exam again as long as I lived?  Why is that this program continually challenges me to go back on everything extreme I've ever said in response to it?  Mostly, I'm tired of whining about this particular two-day period.  I can't imagine that anyone else could be less than thoroughly satiated with the discussion of the subject.   So, I'll stop.  I hope forever.  But, if I have to write more closed-book exams, I might have to whine again, so I'll not make any foolish commitments to myself or to anyone else.

In the words of a card given to me today by a good friend, quoting Winston Churchill, "If you're going through hell, keep going."   Hopefully, I'll be out of hell by tomorrow afternoon.   

Next entry

Archived entries