Not only does he reuse exam questions. Professor William Bratton, U Penn law school, writes poorly.
Here’s an email he sent to his students about the reused questions:
Last Monday’s Corporations examination utilized a set of multiple choice questions that I had used previously at Georgetown. I reused the questions in reliance on an understanding I had with the authorities there pursuant to which multiple choice questions from my exams would no longer be posted absent my express permission. It now turns out that, unbeknownst to me, the questions were posted on the Georgetown Law website.
It has come to my attention that the some but not all students who took the exam had access to copies of the questions. Indeed, a group of five students notified Dean Clinton that they had copies of the questions within minutes of the conclusion of the exam. It is clear that other students also saw the questions.
Let’s (No, UD! Let’s NOT.) take a closer look (PLEASE NO.). It’s for your own good. Shush.
And let’s remember. This is not an address to Parliament, a Supreme Court presentation, a last will and testament. This is a simple straightforward note to students.
**************************************************
Last Monday’s Corporations examination utilized [Never use utilize. Why not, UD? What’s wrong with utilizing utilize? It’s in the effing dictionary… Well, is it pretty? Is it human? Does it sound like the sort of sound a human being, or a machine, would make? Is there a better, simpler, more attractive, more human, less robotic, less pretentious word that would be an equivalent? Hm. Hm. Remember the word use? How is use different from utilize? Oh yeah. It doesn’t allow you to use a big long pretentious word in place of a short non-pretentious word. And if you’re Professor Bratton, you desperately want to be pretentious. Better pretentious than, say, apologetic.] a set of multiple choice questions that I had used previously [that I had used previously. Again, how lovely. And how remarkably L….O….N…G. Loaf and invite yourself to my prose! Take all day! You have nothing better to do with your time than delectate that I had used previously instead of I used.] at Georgetown. I reused the questions in reliance on an understanding I had with the authorities there pursuant to which [Hey, I told the guys at Georgetown to take the questions offline because I’m a busy important person not about to devote ten or so minutes to coming up with new questions…. An understanding with the authorities there … The authorities!] multiple choice questions from my exams would no longer be posted absent my express permission. [Absent my express permission! Off with their heads!] It now turns out that, unbeknownst to me, the questions were posted on the Georgetown Law website. [Unbeknownst, my loyal subjects! Unbeknownst!]
It has come to my attention that the some [Royals don’t revise.] but not all students who took the exam had access to copies of the questions. Indeed, a group of five students notified Dean Clinton that they had copies of the questions within minutes of the conclusion of the exam. It is clear that other students also saw the questions.
*******************************************************
January 16th, 2011 at 9:37AM
Can I join the “I hate ‘utilize’ society”? And can we start another to wipe out “in order to”?
January 16th, 2011 at 9:40AM
I’m on board for wiping out ‘in order to,’ Sherman.
January 16th, 2011 at 10:41AM
“It has come to my attention that…” looks redundant.
I think some use the phrase because they think it shows an objective view or detachment. Others avoid the phrase because it shows aspects of personality that might better be kept hidden. I fall into the second group.
January 16th, 2011 at 10:56AM
Seems like *pomposity* in writing and speaking has become increasingly common in recent years. William Ian Miller, in a Chronicle of Higher Ed piece several years ago, said:
“So distasteful is the style, given democratic assumptions, why on earth would any American adopt it? Here is one reason that transcends the cultural: I have found over the years that students tend to confuse pomposity with knowledge, nastiness with smarts. Students thus force otherwise indifferently kind and modest teachers into being mean windbags to get the respect they crave. It may be less that pompous power generates toadies than that toadyism generates pompous power.”
Not sure this is the right explanation…Certainly, there is plenty of pomposity outside of academia as well. I do think pomposity is often used to cover up slowness of mind or thinness of understanding: in business, the PR person who doesn’t really understand the new product is likely to write a much more stilted and pompous press release than is the product manager who actually understands the product and grasps who might want to buy it.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:18AM
The comic strip Dilbert had something to say on this subject.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:21AM
WONDERFUL, Dave. Thanks for the link.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:52AM
At my institution, there is a plague of beginning official letters and memos with a chummy “As you know,…”. Well, no, I don’t know, because that’s why you’re writing to me. I am waging a one-person campaign to suppress this nervous bureaucratic tic.
January 16th, 2011 at 11:53AM
Delightfully nasty, UD. The ATL link you provide includes Elie Mystal’s concise evaluation:
“I understand the William Bratton’s explanation, but I don’t like it. Because really all he is saying is that he relied on Georgetown hiding his old exams so that he wouldn’t have to bother doing any work. He wanted to take a short cut, and he figured he’d get away with it.”
January 16th, 2011 at 4:49PM
I love “…the authorities there pursuant to which….” The sentence gets worse and worse!
January 16th, 2011 at 5:17PM
Michael: Mr UD asked me why I didn’t say anything about the pursuant phrase. I said it wouldn’t be prudent at this juncture.
January 16th, 2011 at 7:28PM
Oy…this is “professor my a** weighs a ton” language used to obscure the fact that the professor in question is too lazy to revise their exams.
He should spend the rest of his career working in judicial affairs–only, with the expected salary reduction.
I do have a nasty thought: If he recycles exams, has he recycled any other scholarly work?
January 16th, 2011 at 9:06PM
First attempted comment didn’t make it; if it was deleted on purpose rather than by my mistake, apologies, and you can kill this without fear of further repetition. I originally commented on the style of the post, to criticize the nastiness that others seem to appreciate, but will leave that out, on the tentative theory that perhaps gooses and ganders aren’t equal. Previously you seemed open to criticism.
I think it’s mistaken to say this is a “simple straightforward note to students,” as they will pore over this like it was a statute. On the other hand, I doubt it was written with broader publication in mind.
On the merits, the suggestion that it takes 10 minute or so to come up with new questions is of course misleading. I would suppose that questions are re-used not only because the professor wants to save time in writing questions that take *much* longer, but also because the old questions have been tested for difficulty and discrimination. Perhaps multiple choice questions are always too lazy, but two-thirds of the test was essays, according to the link.
The problem seems to be not re-use, but prior disclosure, and the email is obscure as to whether these questions had previously been posted with his permission (but later supposed to be taken down) or whether they were part of a later group that were never supposed to be posted. Perhaps there’s a disagreement about how it happened.
January 17th, 2011 at 3:51AM
@Ani: When I prepare exams, I do a brand new set of questions every time; and for some of the exams I also prepare a complete listing of correct answers. This takes time, indeed, but that’s part of the job.
By the way, regarding reusing multiple-choice questions, I was told the following story: some US state (I don’t remember which) allowed taking the driving test in multiple languages, including French. The thing is, they had only a single set of French questions, so basically any French visitor who wanted a US driving license could cram the MCQ test easily…
January 17th, 2011 at 10:41AM
@DM: “the job” is designing a fair and effective means of examining students. Clearly giving them an exam they’ve already seen doesn’t qualify; that’s the problem here. Students should have illustrative examples of prior questions on which to practice. Beyond that, it’s a fair question as to whether entirely new questions are better than (secret) ones that have had their validity proofed before, but I doubt the amount of professorial effort involved should matter much. Probably sufficient effort entailed by grading the two hours or so of essays.
Oh, and re. the “royal” theme, assessment is done without the assistance of courtiers. The flaws in this scheme are many, but it is hard to dismiss the work involved.