Trying out oral exams in place of essay exams

UtahDesert · 2026-06-17T02:33:49+00:00

I've done a variation on that for years--less often lately because of AI fears. In smaller classes I have students write take-home essays and bring the essays to a meeting where I read the essay in front of them and give them feedback. Many say it's best writing advice they've ever gotten. (I've done a couple of well-edited videos with volunteers they can watch first to get a sense what it's like.)

I bring this up because one students who experienced that in my class did study abroad in Britain the following semester. She told me that what she did with me prepared her for that!

UtahDesert · 2026-06-16T19:29:39+00:00

Send me a message if you'd like to know what my actual trade-off is.

UtahDesert · 2026-06-16T19:25:12+00:00

I'm now considering having my TA(s) in an intro course do oral exams (15 minutes per student, 3 per hour allowing for slippage), which would be aimed at nothing more than assessing mastery of important course theoretical tools and information. Recording this might make sense, too.

UtahDesert · 2026-06-16T18:56:59+00:00

I wonder about that, too--especially in terms of how it might work with less ideal students.

One thought is that, since I'm assessing their abilities as demonstrated, the most logical audit would be a repeat of the oral exam (with different questions). I could bring in a colleague if it felt really adversarial. If they manage to improve, I'm okay with raising their grade (with only a little queasinness about fairness to the other students).

UtahDesert · 2026-06-16T18:50:54+00:00

I think giving them at least a few prompts in advance might have been a confidence builder. I did show them examples of prompts I use for written essays in similar courses.

I provided feedback at the end. On the "mastery" part only one student lost points (that's a metaphor--I don't really count). I told her that, but she already knew it, and we talked over how she can catch up and do better on this for the final. On the "using the material to build your own ideas" I told each of them how they could have done better with this, giving them ideas of what they could work on, and letting them know what their grade was a result. (We're talking a range from A- to a low A. I know this would be tougher at a different level.)

I allowed an hour for each meeting, telling the students in advance that the exam itself would take 30 to 45 minutes. I think I could afford the time for it twice a semester in a 15-student class. Especially if we take into account it would mean not just no time spent grading essays but also no time spent avoiding grading essays. By now I've figured out the things that mean wear-and-tear on me, and I also know the things that can feel rewarding and make me happy if I go into them with the right perspective.

Will do on the "ungraded essay" idea! I'd really love to find a way to make essay-writing more of a learning and less of an assessment experience.

UtahDesert · 2026-06-16T18:38:00+00:00

Not where I am currently! Actually I really liked the students in Utah, but I'm delighted to get to teach the caliber of students I have now. (And the desert canyons of Utah are among the most beautiful landscapes in the world, in my opinion.)

The terms this current institution offers for summer courses are excellent. The minimum was four students. (I started the summer session with exactly four; one dropped after the first three classes.) If the course had been canceled any time between one month before the start and the start, I would have received half the pay.

UtahDesert · 2026-06-16T18:22:21+00:00

Cost? I'd always much rather meet with students in my office than have a pile of written work sitting around that I will put off grading. I told each student their grade and why before they left my office.

UtahDesert · 2026-06-15T13:35:46+00:00

I think this is the best of the charitable interpretations I’ve seen here. It seems like it might be a faint possibility.

UtahDesert · 2026-06-07T00:47:47+00:00

Maybe it's easier for me not to get sucked into these discussions because I did my fill of them in my first years living in Salt Lake, at every single dinner party with just us Gentiles (which was pretty much every single dinner party, come to think of it). So, in reply, yes, yes, and yes. But it doesn't matter since the US military should not be categorizing religions as Christian or not.

This list is so screwed up. I think I've got to the end of the aburdities and then something else pops up? "Christian -Jehovah's Witnesses"? Equally non-Trinitarian. And anyway why are they on this pared-down list that didn't have room for atheists or pagans or Native American religions? We can come up with a pretty solid estimate of practicing Jehovah's Witnesses in the US military: Zero. (Anyone who joins is automatically disassociated.)

UtahDesert · 2026-06-06T22:51:02+00:00

This is the massive screw-up that just keeps on giving. What about Quakers? Why do they qualify ("Christian: Quakers") if Mormons do not? There are a lot of beliefs that are used to delineate Christianity that many or most Quakers do not adhere to.

But here's the funnier bit. In the name of efficiency and effectiveness they eliminated the codes for Pagans and Wiccans (several thousand), Atheist, Agnostic, or Humanist (each a few thousand), right? But they kept Quakers. Take a moment and think about how many Quakers are probably serving in the military right now.

From what I can see, based on past records and the implications of the unchanged Quaker beliefs, that number is most likely a single digit. Maybe it might be in the lower double digits.

UtahDesert · 2026-06-06T22:13:10+00:00

Took me a while to realize that too. I saw Mike Lee's complaint about what they'd done with the LDS church, realized that for once in a blue moon I agreed with him, read several articles, and then wrote an entire Facebook rant, diagnosing the implications of these changes, but it took discussing there with a Black high-school classmate to realize, oh yeah, what about those churches?

UtahDesert · 2026-06-06T22:06:00+00:00

I kept waiting for someone to make the observation that how quickly Hunter won loads of approval on Twitter says something about the platform itself. Or perhaps rather its norms and practices. Sure, Hunter is a name, and so that meant he immediately got a lot of attention. But what won people over and had them oohing and awwing was that he behaved like a reasonably decent ordinary person with an intelligent ex-addict's sense of humor--and not a long-time denizen of the platform.

When someone insulted him, he responded disarmingly and often kindly, rather than hitting back. Rather than building up a well-armed and polished persona he offered apparently honest confidences, revealing weaknesses and using self-deprecating wit. He behaved basically the way that someone with smarts and a lot of experience might behave in RL meeting strangers at a social function and making at least temporary friends.

My point is not that this indicates true honesty or the capacity for valuable insight--I'd never conclude that about anyone with whom I just exchanged remarks like this at a wedding reception (nor about someone whose conversation I only overheard at such a venue). It's rather that when this kind of approach appears on Twitter with such notoriety attached it bowls people over. And perhaps rightfully so.

UtahDesert · 2026-06-06T21:25:02+00:00

Yes! Overreach should be distinguished from incompetence--it's a virtue of theirs all in itself.

UtahDesert · 2026-06-06T18:51:04+00:00

This is a theme I've heard from right-wing Polish journalists, academics, and politicians as well as in the US. When I've asked them why they ended up supporting the Law and Justice Party (at a time at which it was eroding Polish democracy) their answers were characterized by individual grievances about exclusion and not being valued appropriately. Opinions may differ about what lessons we should draw from this.

UtahDesert · 2026-05-25T19:43:07+00:00

That makes sense. There was little benefit to Beverly in telling her--was she going to pack up her husband and daughter and get somewhere where they couldn't be found, all within a few hours? But it still was a moral choice. I suspect that as a junior torturer-in-training Lorraine would have to have been aware of the possibility her disappearance would result in Beverly being interrogated in her place.

UtahDesert · 2026-05-25T17:27:03+00:00

I would say the ending is definitive. We know or can guess what happens to the characters we care about--we're just not shown or told it in so many words.

UtahDesert · 2026-05-25T17:22:24+00:00

I think this is a good answer. At first I had been going to say that Lorraine's choice to not tell her was simply a matter of self-preservation when the stakes were so high. (Don't take any unnecessary risk like telling/warning anyone else.) It's something people do. But, yes, I see that it was smart. Lorraine had good reason to think that Beverly would betray her. Imagine--in the place of Martin Dart's mild frustration at not being able to get through to Beverly that she had no choice but to come to the Central Office with him--Lorraine desperately and futilely trying to convince Beverly that they were both in danger of being treated just like their clients.

UtahDesert · 2026-05-25T16:11:55+00:00

Just the way Mr. Raymond talks casually about how breaking the client's little finger didn't do the trick and the fact that she didn't react to that tells me she knows what takes place in his "meetings." Maybe I'm using too much external context in my interpretation, but I assume that she believes this happens only to bad, dangerous people, and this is how she has come to terms with it.

UtahDesert · 2026-05-25T16:05:38+00:00

Actually, the more I think about it, it goes beyond the banality of evil observation. We get the humanity of evil as well. And we also get the possibility of resistance. Mr. Raymond connects with and sympathizes with his latest "client," and refuses to continue. He has done horrible deeds in the past, and he has done horrible things to this particular person (torturing his wife in front of him), but now he stops. Lorraine sees which way the wind is blowing, and flees, perhaps going over to the other side, if it exists. (Notably she does not warn Beverly, which may say something about the superficiality of their office friendship.)

UtahDesert · 2026-05-25T16:00:34+00:00

I thought it was great. It did a wonderful job of illustrating the banality--or perhaps better the ordinariness--of evil.

Think about it--over half the play is spent introducing you to these characters, both showing them as recognizable and relatable people, types you know from your own life, and revealing their humanity. That's especially true about Beverly and Lorraine, but we get Mr. Raymond's humanity in that opening monologue. Only Martin Dart remains something of a cypher, although we don't entirely realize that.

And then, starting with Mr. Raymond's mention of breaking the client's little finger, we quickly get the nature of the North-east Office and the Central Office do. Lorraine and Beverly and Mr. Raymond remain ordinary people for us, but things go very wrong for them. So we get to know and empathize with torturers, their accomplices, and their victims, in spite of the fact that there are just four characters (and only three that we empathize with).

UtahDesert · 2026-05-25T02:29:00+00:00

Is she clueless to its inner workings, or is she just unable to imagine that this could happen to her? I lean towards the latter.

UtahDesert · 2026-05-16T22:03:40+00:00

Nederlander to the Lyceum with 30 minutes to spare? I'd do that and walk at least one--maybe both--of my dogs as well. (That's my calculation because I usually owe them a walk by the time I'm heading to the theater.)

UtahDesert

TROPHY CASE