How many times in your job have you ever not been allowed to look something up?
It’s rare, but not unheard of, that I can’t look things up, but the point of closed book exams is is to demonstrate that you know the subject well enough that you don’t need to look things up. Obviously, exactly what this entails is going to vary depending on the level if the exam. If it’s testing foundational knowledge, then it should all be in your head, if it’s more advanced, a crib sheet with key facts (say certain more complex, but necessary, equations for a non maths subject, or similar support prompts).
If you’re working, you can’t be stopping every few minutes to look up basic information. A computer programmer who has to keep looking up the syntax of their language, or basic algorithms, for example, won’t get very far.
The algorithms one in particular is a bugbear of mine, because if you don’t already know the computational complexities of the operations on the common basic data structures then no way are you taking the time to look them all up each and every time you declare one. And yet one of the bitchwhiniest complaints I frequently see online about coding interviews is how dare hiring managers ask you to prove you understood CS201 Data Structures & Algorithms…
There’s a big difference between double checking things occasionally, and needing to look up fundamental things. I’ve been a sysadmin for, well, a long time, and there have been many occasions where I’ve been pulled in to rescue a situation and had to rely on what I knew, without being able to refer to other material, either due to intense time pressure, or enough being down that there isn’t anything to reference.
Besides, exams should be testing your core understanding of the subject, the sort of knowledge everything else is built on, and your ability to apply that knowledge in different scenarios. Practical tests, are better suited to assessing how you use novel information, do more advanced things, and handle reference material. Maybe we’re talking about the same sort of thing in different ways?
I think both closed book exams, and practical tests/discussions and the like have an important role to play in assessing your performance, whether a teacher sets them or you challenge yourself.
I think the difference here is we’re disagreeing on your first sentence. I disagree that needing to look up fundamental things is different than double checking. For instance off the top of my head I don’t remember if C# uses a case statement or a switch statement. But I know what those are and how to use them. I also have a fundamental disagreement with the idea that you could ever be in too much of a time crunch to not have to look something up. I’ve worked at hospitals and literally had lives on the line based on what I was doing and still felt like I had the time to make sure that what I was doing was correct.
At the end of the day, I personally feel that it’s more important that one have a general understanding of their subject and an ability to confirm their understanding of that subject quickly then simply memorizing facts.
It’s rare, but not unheard of, that I can’t look things up, but the point of closed book exams is is to demonstrate that you know the subject well enough that you don’t need to look things up. Obviously, exactly what this entails is going to vary depending on the level if the exam. If it’s testing foundational knowledge, then it should all be in your head, if it’s more advanced, a crib sheet with key facts (say certain more complex, but necessary, equations for a non maths subject, or similar support prompts).
If you’re working, you can’t be stopping every few minutes to look up basic information. A computer programmer who has to keep looking up the syntax of their language, or basic algorithms, for example, won’t get very far.
The algorithms one in particular is a bugbear of mine, because if you don’t already know the computational complexities of the operations on the common basic data structures then no way are you taking the time to look them all up each and every time you declare one. And yet one of the bitchwhiniest complaints I frequently see online about coding interviews is how dare hiring managers ask you to prove you understood CS201 Data Structures & Algorithms…
I’ve been a computer programmer for 15 years, Not once have I ever been in such a time crunch that I couldn’t double check something.
There’s a big difference between double checking things occasionally, and needing to look up fundamental things. I’ve been a sysadmin for, well, a long time, and there have been many occasions where I’ve been pulled in to rescue a situation and had to rely on what I knew, without being able to refer to other material, either due to intense time pressure, or enough being down that there isn’t anything to reference.
Besides, exams should be testing your core understanding of the subject, the sort of knowledge everything else is built on, and your ability to apply that knowledge in different scenarios. Practical tests, are better suited to assessing how you use novel information, do more advanced things, and handle reference material. Maybe we’re talking about the same sort of thing in different ways?
I think both closed book exams, and practical tests/discussions and the like have an important role to play in assessing your performance, whether a teacher sets them or you challenge yourself.
I think the difference here is we’re disagreeing on your first sentence. I disagree that needing to look up fundamental things is different than double checking. For instance off the top of my head I don’t remember if C# uses a case statement or a switch statement. But I know what those are and how to use them. I also have a fundamental disagreement with the idea that you could ever be in too much of a time crunch to not have to look something up. I’ve worked at hospitals and literally had lives on the line based on what I was doing and still felt like I had the time to make sure that what I was doing was correct.
At the end of the day, I personally feel that it’s more important that one have a general understanding of their subject and an ability to confirm their understanding of that subject quickly then simply memorizing facts.