Slashdot Mirror
Are Written Computer Science Exams a Fair Measure?
me! asks: "I seem to have this inability to write substantial chunks of code (500+)
in exam conditions (for uni). I have been
writing code for years for open source and commercial applications, so I know a thing or two. There is just something about exams and code that does not work for me. I find that I need to be sitting in front of a computer to
get a problem out, to get in the 'vibe', have you will. I have done exams on computers (closed environment) that involve coding, and it work so much better for me. So what I am asking is...how do people tackle exams that involve solving problems on the fly, on paper, in exams?" I have this exact same problem, and I've never thought written tests were a fair way to measure someone's knowledge of coding. It's fine when you are asking questions about design and structure, but when you need to write code it falls way short. How do you feel about it?
Yeah, that works really well in the current job market. I dare you to try to find a job right now with what you had on your resume when you first got into the industry.
Moo
I personally hate it when they require programmers to write code on an exam. Every programmer knows that part of programming is debugging, and it's very difficult for many people to get chunks of code correct the first time. I can see, perhaps, requiring a small snippet of code, but large chunks are difficult to deal with in writing.
Due to complexity, programs simply cannot be written 100% perfect the first time around. Not only that, programming is very individual and specific to the programmer. Just because one person writes something one way, and the other writes it another way, doesn't mean either of them are wrong or right.
Written exams should be limited to syntax and concepts, to see how well you know the language. If you want to test a programmer's skills as a programmer, you should at least allow them to excercise their debugging skills...
Written exams are fine for computer science; Coding exams are dumb.
Remember, computer science is about methods and algorithms, not about learning syntax. If you forget a semicolon when you're writing a program, you'll remember about it as soon as you try to compile it; if you code a bubblesort where a quicksort would be more appropriate, you're going to be stuck with a slow program until someone more clued fixes it.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I've already finished my CS degree and one thing I like is writing code on an exam makes me happy. I mean of all the other exams I have to write with various degrees of memorization, writing code is *thinking*. So it means for me, less memorization bullshit.
Also another thing I would like to say: many would like online exams almost exclusively. But they are missing one crucial point: TAs and Profs mark such tests in "black & white", meaning if it compiles and passes the test cases you get most of your marks.
But if your program doesn't even compile, your mark starts at 0. And depending on the mercy of the marker, they *may* go back and look at your code and give you a mark here and there.
In such tense situations, I've seen people literally cry 'cause a) the program was too hard and b) they can't get it to compile. Where you literally get in a hack-peck/compile frenzy to get your program to spit out some correct output before the test is over.
In such tests we usually have 9 questions and gotta do about 6 of them. And the worst thing: they issue such online tests during the first year, where many are having their first crack at programming. Thank god, I was able to do the questions, but alas some individuals who struggled couldn't.
At least if the test was written you could get the core logic of the program done and you'll get most of the marks anyway.
But, I did enjoy online tests they were fun. The positive of such tests: if it compiles and spits out the correct output you've got 90% of your mark if not 100%.
Oh boy....talked too much...