Osler's Razor

I certainly think this is an accomplishment, as it has created a sounding board for faculty & students alike in a way which is non-threatening. I'd like to think that through the spasm of comments last October regarding the grading policy helped foster the change to the policy which looks strangely like the method Poseur proposed.
 

Well, I sure am glad we got that cleared up. I would hate to find out that the students were really doing well in "criminal practice" and that they were going to use the proceeds from their ill gotten booty to build a new mansion next door, or something.

I heartily approve of your testing method--a thoughtfully written exam is much more useful than one jammed with a bunch of hastily memorized facts.
 

I decided not to list it. I think the blog may have had some good effects, but it is more of a personal thing than a professional thing, and at any rate lacks official sanction.

I did list the blog over at Law School Innovation, though.
 

I endured a few take home exams along with the typical 3 hour blue book variety and didn't like either one.

What I objected to in law school was that in all but one or two classes, the entire grade depended upon the final exam.

The argument could be made that a final verdict is all that matters in a trial and that having just as a trial builds to that final decision, so does a law school course with a final. The difference is that in a trial, lawyers can adjust and adopt to changing circumstances. Not only that, the "grading" starts with the opening statement, if not earlier in pre-trial briefs.

More importantly, many law students never become trial attorneys, and even those that do often do not see cases go all the way to trial. The vast majority of civil cases settle and as I understand it, sentencing deals are cut in many criminal cases.

Life and the practice of law are too complex.

So I guess a take home is better than a pressure cooker 3 hour deal.

On the other hand, lawyers often need to be able to make decisions and move forward without much time to reflect. Not just in the Courtroom, but on the phone with a client or opposing counsel or government official/judge. One needs to be able to draw from his or her memory and experience and decide how to proceed. Usually without notes or research.

And an "on-the-spot" type test may be a better way to assess that ability.

I always thought a fairer way to judge a grade would be the combination of classroom performance, a paper or two and a final.
 

IPLG--

Actually, the take-home final for today is only 50% of the grade, the rest of it being from five different exercises as the course progressed.
 

Alrighty then! I would have liked that kind of grading better. Perhaps I could have improved upon that 2.8 GPA I had in law school