I'm sure you Chicagoans are familiar with this story about the Illinois state ethics test. Those who completed it in under 10 minutes were forced to take a "retraining" program and sign a form for "non-compliant employees," implying that, because they were fast readers and thinkers, they were somehow dishonest! Some professors at S.I.U. Carbondale have refused to sign. I think I would too.

Honestly, what's the matter with your people there in Springfield? Is there any chance this regulation can stand?

Wordmatic

Wow. I haven't heard about this. I'd go to the mat on that one. Geez!

This is slightly frightening. I've been in exams where I finished 10 minutes before anyone else, even in large classes, with dozens of students. This isn't too say I did the best, I just take tests fast. I parse material quickly, and if I can't remember a fact right away, chances are I won't remember it until after I've left the room. I have been accused by a teacher of not taking her class seriously due to my speed at taking the exam, but that is far from the truth. Many of us here are very fast readers, which means we could do a reading based test several times faster than others. Furthermore, professors tend to have a pretty good grasp of tests, especially multiple choice, and would easily complete such a test.

I once had to take an employee conduct test. There was a video, with a transcript. I would read the transcript in 30 seconds, and had to sit there waiting for the video to finish before I could answer the question. The funny part is that I had no speakers, I couldn't have listened to the video if I wanted to, and none of the video was about a physical matter, like "is this touching inappropriate?" In this case, though, I new the constraints, and didn't have to worry about a lower time bound, which I would certainly have violated if allowed.

It's appalling, but hardly surprising. That's the way state bureaucracy (yours and ours) works. I'll bet there are thousands of similar incidents in the UK and US every day and they don't come to light because they don't have the same potentially awful consequences.

I can give an example from my Cert Ed course.

I was doing a subject specialisation of ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) but part of the requirement is that everyone passes a fairly basic on-line numeracy test. Now I say fairly basic but some of the people on the course found it difficult. People who have no mathematical background. I, on the other hand, have a Maths degree. This qualification is already several levels higher than the test I was asked to take. I decided to take a principled stand and refused to take the test. I argued for several months that the copy of my degree certificate that I had provided should be sufficient evidence that I am numerate. Eventually I won and they agreed to accept it.

So of course I then wanted to know just what I had missed. Perverse I know, but I was curious. So I logged on as an anonymous user and took the test. It was designed to be a ninety minute test. I completed it in about twenty with a 100% score. This isn't because I'm a genius - it's because the test was too easy. It was only the design of the test (it has built in delays to hold information on the screen) that stopped me being faster.

Now the penalty for not completing this test was having an incomplete portfolio and hence failing the course. My "special dispensation" meant that I didn't have to take it. I did however feel damned insulted that they'd asked me. As far as I'm aware though there was no penalty for completing it too quickly. The built in delays ensured that it couldn't be done in under twenty minutes anyway.

As I said, thousands of examples everywhere, all the time.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

It can work the other way round too. There is an online version of the Level One and Two National Literacy Tests. They are so awkwardly designed (you can't see the text and the questions at the same time, for example) that it would be a challenge for most literate native speakers to complete with 100% accuracy*.

For ESOL students at Level One and Two the reading section of the City and Guilds Exam is the National Literacy Test. While I personally think this is inappropriate for all sorts of reasons the students have a reasonable chance at the paper based version.
Two years ago we gave some students the online version. We had 100% failure and not one student actually managed to complete the test, never mind pass it.

*They may well have been redesigned now. I haven't taught that level since.

Interesting, Bob, as well as discouraging.
The worst thing about the case in Illinois is that the professors who have refused to sign the paper will probably be punished in subtle ways for having done so, even if they eventually win their point.

Wordmatic

I'll try to keep up on this, Wordmatic. I know a dean SIU Carbondale, and I will ask her to keep me informed. Somehow I don't think these professors will really be in trouble, though.