|
|
|
|
|
|
by jbullock35
1963 days ago
|
|
|
> for an important part of the exam he candidly said "I haven't understood what you did here so I didn't assigned any points to that" -- which is really bullshit. > You've got a phd in this shit, you're supposed to be a world-class expert on the matter, how could you not understand this? It's not that you haven't understood, it's that you didn't bother spending 30 seconds to look at the piece of paper. I can't speak to this specific case. And awarding no points at all does sound quite unusual. But, speaking as a professor, it's disturbing to see how often and how badly students overestimate the intelligibility of their work. Important qualification: I am thinking of student essays and prose answers to exam questions. The situation may be very different in circuit theory and other areas in which answers to exam questions often aren't in prose. |
|
|
Dude/Dudette, circuit theory can't be further than it already is from prose essays and and open-answer questions.
As I mentioned, part of the strategy was to use simple numbers (think of stuff like 1, 2,-1, pi, stuff like that) because the hard part of the exam was not in numbers and/or raw computation.
So basically if you can read numbers, you can see what's been done there.
And I expect an engineering professor to be able to read numbers.