Should be there be exams at masters level?

Flamed Diving

I am right in the middle of studying (well, not right this moment) for my finals and I'm mopey, disillusioned, bored so I thought I would throw this question out there.

Is masters level an appropriate place for examinations where the vast majority of your grade depends on a single two-hour block? I mean, I can understand the justification for having these at bachelors level, but surely the notion of "cramming" should be ditched once you have reached a certain stage? I never actually learn anything from examinations, just cram it into the head, spill it out on exam day and very little of it seems to be committed to long-term memory. I learned far more from the assignments and projects I complete this year. But maybe it's just me thinking this.

Thoughts?

r3nu4l

A taught Masters should be examined but I believe that course work accounts for more of the overall mark than with an undergrad degree in some institutions.

I also don't believe that a single exam is enough. Each module of the degree should have it's own exam. Again, I think a lot of institutions already do this rather than a single exam.

To my mind there is not enough distinction between a research Masters and a taught Masters.

They are both very, very different and I don't really believe they should be given the same status.

graduate

I see what you mean. The point is that exams are under controlled conditions, with projects and assignments it is difficult to guarantee that the person receiving the mark actually did the work.

Flamed Diving

What do people make of the statement:

Exams only test one thing: whether someone is good at exams or not.

Cannibal Ox

I can imagine that in some subjects exams might be useful in a masters. But in a subject (s) like mine, politics/sociology, which leans towards a kind of scholarly/research profession, where your work or research is necessarily going to be considered and done over a period of time, I don't see the use in exams because they don't prepare you for that kind of work. I think it's better that students are subjected to "difficult" essays that test a students ability to research, analyze, critique and do what ever else it is a researcher is supposed to be able to do.

If I was (planning on) going in to a job where I'd face conditions simillar to those of an exam where I'd need to be able to reel out facts and numbers on the spot, then I could see the possible use of exams in a masters for teaching, or refining, your ability to do that. Maybe.

petethebrick

Do many social science masters have exams?
I did a taught masters in International Relations and only had one exam - for Internaional Law.
I agree that having essays/assignments is better

r3nu4l

We should differentiate here between a taught 'Masters' and a research Masters!

A research Masters should be solid research with a 100+ page detailed analytical thesis produced at the end and no written exams.

A taught 'Masters' should have exams for every module IMO and the standard of the answers should be very high with a pass mark of at least 60%. There should also be graded assignments and internships/work placements of a minimum 6 months with these accounting for a large percentage of the final mark.

Most of the taught so-called 'Masters' I've looked at are pitiful and are nothing more than glorified higher diplomas with a few extra elements or simply an extension of the original degree that just focuses on a couple of modules with a bit more more depth.

Flamed Diving

I assumed that research masters didn't have exams. Not such a wild assumption.

Roro4Brit

r3nu4l wrote: »

Most of the taught so-called 'Masters' I've looked at are pitiful and are nothing more than glorified higher diplomas with a few extra elements or simply an extension of the original degree that just focuses on a couple of modules with a bit more more depth.

Yeah sure this is mostly true isn't it? The only major difference between a higher diploma and a masters is the reseach element that usually takes up semester 3 in the masters? Anyhow I dont see the problem....both types of masters require different skill sets. How for example can a masters that has varied modules such as finance, strategic management etc all be relayed as a research masters...? The taught aspects are quite important, as are the exams. And from my exp only about 20% max of the final course went on exmas...if even...the rest was C.A and the dissertation was 33% worth.

Bottom line is this folks (and I do recognise there are a few RARE exceptions)....that if you do the work asked of you, if you really know your **** and put in lots of work....you will get a first in your exams....period. and if you dont.....

I've never to been in a class where the exam results do not genuinely reflect the type of person who got them. Those who simply learn **** to slap it out on page half arsed...at master level...will be looking at a 50-60% max. Those who really learn it, who contextualise it, question it and critically think about it....at masters level..will be the 70+.

So dont rag on taught masters. They have their merits. And so do exams.

r3nu4l

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I assumed that research masters didn't have exams. Not such a wild assumption.

Wasn't really my point. I was basically saying that a taught 'Masters' should have a very distinct name to identify it as a non-research degree.

Every time I'm hiring someone and review a CV with a 'Masters' qualification I have to ask the recruitment people to establish exactly what type of Masters it is. Someone straight out of uni with a taught Masters is not up to par with someone with a research Masters in my field of work.

Unfortunately however, this is the case and we're stuck with it. Off topic? Sure but it's important that people know the difference.

Roro4Brit wrote:

Anyhow I dont see the problem....both types of masters require different skill sets. How for example can a masters that has varied modules such as finance, strategic management etc all be relayed as a research masters...? The taught aspects are quite important, as are the exams.

See my point above, these degrees should not be called 'Masters' Degrees or the 'letters' should indicate whether it's research or taught. This is vitally important for some jobs in Sciences.

An M.Sc. could be a dedicated researcher with up to two years of lab experience and good laboratory practice or someone who sat in lectures and did a few exams with a smattering of research experience...big difference in suitability for the work I'm involved in. The taught MSc won't cut it against a research MSc. So I'll rag on the taught Masters as much as I like and won't be hiring those who did the taught Masters... :pac:

That said, there are plenty of jobs where the taught Masters is very suitable, I'm just saying the line needs to be much more clearly defined.

I totally agree however that the exam should really be a smaller part of the overall mark for such Masters degrees.

Flamed Diving: as for the statement:
Exams only test one thing: whether someone is good at exams or not.

There's a certain element of truth to that but it's too simple an analysis.

Being good at exams means that you can interpret the question correctly, identify clearly what is being asked and regurgitate material associated with the question but add elements to the answer that tailor it more precisely to the question at hand.

However, exams also test performance under pressure and performance under a strict deadline. That's more than simply being good at exams and if someone can produce top class answers in the timeframe allotted then that's a very good thing!


EDIT: BTW, I know that my answers come across as 'elitist' or 'snobby' or whatever but they're not. I'm not saying one is definitely better than the other in ALL cases just that they are so different that they should not share the same title. A taught Masters is mostly 'more of the same' as an undergraduate degree and requires little extra in terms of new skills, you simply define and enhance the skills you already gained. A research masters requires gaining a whole new set of skills.

Flamed Diving

I realise the question was simplistic, but if I added a load of caveats and footnotes it would have ruined its impact, doncha think? But I think you know what the question broadly meant. Take the IQ test, for example. You can keep practising for them and, hey presto!, you are now more clevererer. :rolleyes:

I just don't like exams. Especially because I have one tomorrow.

Roro4Brit

r3nu4l wrote: »

So I'll rag on the taught Masters as much as I like and won't be hiring those who did the taught Masters... :pac:

As much as you like eh.....MMMM you sound like Veruca Salt

Anyhow I do think you have some points which are valid. It's just your explanation that I dont like. How about taught masters stay as is....and the research masters dont get to be called so. Think of a marketing manager who is hiring staff....do they want to hire someone who has a research masters in marketing - someone who can tell you everything there is to know about one certain area of marketing theory but when it comes to putting an IMC campaign together hasn't got the first clue?

I know all I'm doing here is reiterating your point that distinctions should be made. What I'm trying to say is that both have their merits, and that taught masters are not inferior to research masters as the tone of your previous posts seemed to imply.

r3nu4l

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I realise the question was simplistic, but if I added a load of caveats and footnotes it would have ruined its impact, doncha think? But I think you know what the question broadly meant. Take the IQ test, for example. You can keep practising for them and, hey presto!, you are now more clevererer. :rolleyes:

I just don't like exams. Especially because I have one tomorrow.

Rigggghhht! So you didn't want an answer? You posted a rhetorical question? What was the point in that? Your question didn't have ANY impact, it was merely an overused and rather simple cliché used by people who really haven't analysed the true benefits or otherwise of exams...

By the way, best of luck tomorrow

Roro4Brit wrote: »

As much as you like eh.....MMMM you sound like Veruca Salt

One of my favourite movies! Don't get me started on the Jonny Depp remake...I'll 'rag' on that all day too

Anyhow I do think you have some points which are valid. It's just your explanation that I dont like. How about taught masters stay as is....and the research masters dont get to be called so.

Fine by me, honestly! I just want an easy way to spot the difference between them so I can root out and bin the CVs I don't want. How about MScR and MScT (Research and Taught)? Don't care, if they are both Masters so long as it's simple to differentiate.

Think of a marketing manager who is hiring staff....do they want to hire someone who has a research masters in marketing - someone who can tell you everything there is to know about one certain area of marketing theory but when it comes to putting an IMC campaign together hasn't got the first clue?

As someone who works as a Medical Communicator (including Medical Marketing) I can tell you that I want the one with the research masters. I work with Regional Marketing Managers and Senior VPs of marketing in major pharma companies all the time, they want research scientists (note: not even marketers), preferably with PhDs, working on their campaigns, never mind a Masters! I also want PhDs working for me but a research Masters candidate with the right experience will do, while the taught Masters person is usually no better than a degree graduate, unless it's a decent MBA. That's very different

What I'm trying to say is that both have their merits, and that taught masters are not inferior to research masters

I believe I said that at the end of my last post.

as the tone of your previous posts seemed to imply.

I know how it's coming across and I do apologise for that. I'm not trying to be dismissive, it's just that in any circumstance I've come across in my career in Life Sciences (Research and Medical Communications), the research Masters pips the taught Masters all the time...that may change and as a scientist, when I get new evidence I'll take that into consideration and change my tack appropriately.

I want the best candidate for the job, the exam taker has one set of skills, the researcher has that skill set and another skill set.

Outside of my limited scope, the taught masters may be very useful but I'm speaking from my experience alone. So, inferior? No. That's not what I'm saying.

I just think they need reworking and a big part of that is removing the importance of the written exam. However, then you have the problem of discovering plagiarism and ensuring that the name on the essay/report is the actual person who wrote the piece...

So, the question was, should there be exams? Short answer, it's not ideal at all but for now it's the simplest solution.

Flamed Diving

r3nu4l wrote: »

Rigggghhht! So you didn't want an answer? You posted a rhetorical question? What was the point in that? Your question didn't have ANY impact, it was merely an overused and rather simple cliché used by people who really haven't analysed the true benefits or otherwise of exams...

By the way, best of luck tomorrow

No, I just tire of having to write posts in such a way that every person that comes along won't have to fumble all over it and I have me shaking my head at the screen in futile despair... I knew your response would come when I posted that question, and yet I posted it... hmm. Am I a masochist?

BTW, analysing the true benefits of exams? Sounds like a wishy-washy paper to me...

Danke!

Roro4Brit

r3nu4l wrote: »

Fine by me, honestly! I just want an easy way to spot the difference between them so I can root out and bin the CVs I don't want. How about MScR and MScT (Research and Taught)? Don't care, if they are both Masters so long as it's simple to differentiate.


As someone who works as a Medical Communicator (including Medical Marketing) I can tell you that I want the one with the research masters. I work with Regional Marketing Managers and Senior VPs of marketing in major pharma companies all the time, they want research scientists (note: not even marketers), preferably with PhDs, working on their campaigns, never mind a Masters! I also want PhDs working for me but a research Masters candidate with the right experience will do, while the taught Masters person is usually no better than a degree graduate, unless it's a decent MBA. That's very different


I believe I said that at the end of my last post.

Yeah i tried to edit my last post as I saw your edit at the end of yours but stupid boards said I didn't not have that authority....wft...to edit my own post?? Anyhow...so we both agree that they both have different merits that would make a graduate more/less appealing to a potential employer given the recruitment context. I'll take that

Well I'm doing my phd now so I shoudln't give two ****s about a masters anyhow as it wont matter once I get this bad boy in my back pocket :D KIDDING!!

Good luck to the OP in the exam tomorrow!

Flamed Diving

Roro4Brit wrote: »

Well I'm doing my phd now so I shoudln't give two ****s about a masters anyhow as it wont matter once I get this bad boy in my back pocket :D KIDDING!!

Good luck to the OP in the exam tomorrow!

I want to be you, in a years time. And thanks!

r3nu4l

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I just tire of having to write posts in such a way that every person that comes along won't have to fumble all over it and I have me shaking my head at the screen in futile despair... I knew your response would come when I posted that question, and yet I posted it... hmm. Am I a masochist?

That's one word for it! I'm genuinely curious as to what you intended to achieve!! I'll put it down to exam stress. Log off and get stuck into the books! Kick ass tomorrow!

BTW, analysing the true benefits of exams? Sounds like a wishy-washy paper to me...

Trust me, as a scientist, I've seen a LOT worse!

Cannibal Ox

r3nu4l wrote:

Every time I'm hiring someone and review a CV with a 'Masters' qualification I have to ask the recruitment people to establish exactly what type of Masters it is. Someone straight out of uni with a taught Masters is not up to par with someone with a research Masters in my field of work.

I think the bold part is the main point. I've talked to people in my area who would hire someone with a taught masters over a research masters on the basis that it's a much broader education then a research and it's more advanced than an undergrad. In fact, they had a similar attitude to research masters as you do towards taught masters.

I think I set my stall out in the last post. A masters should increase and refine your knowledge, and prepare you for working in your field. If that requires doing a research over a taught, or doing exams, or just doing essays, fine, as long as it helps you get to where you want to go, and gives you the skills to operate effectively there, then sure, go for it. If it's just a piece of paper, a credential for a CV, then it's not worth the price.

Flamed Diving

Thought I would drop in and let you know it went well. However, I did find myself thinking the same thing today. During one question, we were asked for a proof, however, it was not one seen in the notes before but the trick was that it was sort of a version of one we had done. It took a little bit of intuitive thinking to realise this. However, just because I knew the answer, did not mean I knew how to get there! (i.e. I knew A and I knew Z, but I had to figure out the middle bit). This required a little time to reflect and to think about how I would attack this, but, alas, because of the time constraint and the pressure involved with the situation I wasn't able to get down what was on my mind and truely flesh out the answer (I did get the general idea down, but it was sloppy).

What does that prove? Since when will rushing calculations in a pressured situation going to be useful to me? The quality of my delivery would have been much better had I had time to think more clearly, IMO. This is my problem with exams, I guess, its just a big rushfest with little room for original thought or intuition.

AARRRGH

I did an IT masters last year. It was extremely depressing when I discovered I was probably the only person in the class who wasn't a cheat, e.g. paying someone to do my project and assignments.

Therefore I think exams are essential, as there's only so much cheating you can do in an exam hall.

I think if you know a topic like you should know it you will always do well in exams. In my 5 years of secondary school and 5 years of college, I always did very well in topics I studied for. If I can do it, so can anyone else.

pisslips

That's a valid point regarding cheating.

However.
Regarding the project you probably had to present it and answer questions, so it would have been pretty obvious if it was not one's own work.

I have just completely a taught masters and I found that I knew the material well enough to do every assignment and I did quite well in my project but there comes a stage when one has absolutely no motivation to prepare for an exam. You say to yourself,"How will working hard for this exam improve my life, I've done 'x' amount of exams at this stage, people know whether I'm smart or not it won't even change my average, why should I care anymore"

The result was that I did quite poor in some but preparation wise, I just scanned a couple of critical notes.I literally had less material in my mind to write about than could fill the length of the exam, haha, eventually you just stop caring.

There's no reward anymore, I find, while with course work or a project there is some reward and when presenting work for the first time I realised the real challenge. A lot of people act apathetic towards exams, I really am, I feel no pride or shame and the results do not affect my future enough for me to care. Particularly when you are uncertain of what future you want.

So maybe after a few years they should ease up on the exams.

AARRRGH

pisslips wrote: »

Regarding the project you probably had to present it and answer questions, so it would have been pretty obvious if it was not one's own work.

Unfortunately you are assuming college's give a ****. They don't. I know one person who couldn't answer anything about her project, yet got a decent grade. She just switched on the waterworks and they stopped asking questions.

So as far as I am concerned, I want there to be difficult exams so the cheaters will definitely get caught. I understand there are some people who are poor at exams (for whatever reasons), but I see no other way of combatting today's lazy cheating students.

Personally I think college has gotten too easy. When I did my degree over 10 years ago they would fail you for anything. Nowadays it seems they will do anything to help you pass! Note I did a masters last year.

nyarlothothep

AARRRGH wrote: »

Unfortunately you are assuming college's give a ****. They don't. I know one person who couldn't answer anything about her project, yet got a decent grade. She just switched on the waterworks and they stopped asking questions.

So as far as I am concerned, I want there to be difficult exams so the cheaters will definitely get caught. I understand there are some people who are poor at exams (for whatever reasons), but I see no other way of combatting today's lazy cheating students.

Personally I think college has gotten too easy. When I did my degree over 10 years ago they would fail you for anything. Nowadays it seems they will do anything to help you pass! Note I did a masters last year.

Both extremes don't really make much sense imo. I think education should be more process focused rather than results based. The end result isn't necessarily that important if the person has learnt a great deal and shows promise. This isn't necessarily contradictory, it can be a mixture of both rather than binary opposites clashing together. It should be about fostering ability rather than pinning it down immediately so marking someone at an undergrad level to a very hard extent is usually counterproductive. Of course there is the other side of the argument that results are more important.

blucey

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Thought I would drop in and let you know it went well. However, I did find myself thinking the same thing today. During one question, we were asked for a proof, however, it was not one seen in the notes before but the trick was that it was sort of a version of one we had done. It took a little bit of intuitive thinking to realise this. However, just because I knew the answer, did not mean I knew how to get there! (i.e. I knew A and I knew Z, but I had to figure out the middle bit). This required a little time to reflect and to think about how I would attack this, but, alas, because of the time constraint and the pressure involved with the situation I wasn't able to get down what was on my mind and truely flesh out the answer (I did get the general idea down, but it was sloppy).

What does that prove? Since when will rushing calculations in a pressured situation going to be useful to me? The quality of my delivery would have been much better had I had time to think more clearly, IMO. This is my problem with exams, I guess, its just a big rushfest with little room for original thought or intuition.

when your a doctor thinking the right dosage in an emergency? or a pilot? or a bond trader? or an engineer in a crisis?

Flamed Diving

blucey wrote: »

when your a doctor thinking the right dosage in an emergency?

Erm, memory recall?

blucey wrote: »

or a pilot?

Those bright flashing thingys in front of you?

blucey wrote: »

or a bond trader?

True, but it really wasn't in the context of what I was describing. This is the reason why I wish (jokingly) that boards.ie had a footnotes feature, just so you could make one for every single conceivable misinterpretation that invariably gets made on these forums. That said, if this feature was available the postcount on boards.ie would plummet.

blucey wrote: »

or an engineer in a crisis?

When his marriage is breaking down? 50/50 is a simple calculation, in fairness. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you took the time to allow the full context of my post to be considered in your brain before posting, thanks.

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Thought I would drop in and let you know it went well. However, I did find myself thinking the same thing today. During one question, we were asked for a proof, however, it was not one seen in the notes before but the trick was that it was sort of a version of one we had done. It took a little bit of intuitive thinking to realise this. However, just because I knew the answer, did not mean I knew how to get there! (i.e. I knew A and I knew Z, but I had to figure out the middle bit). This required a little time to reflect and to think about how I would attack this, but, alas, because of the time constraint and the pressure involved with the situation I wasn't able to get down what was on my mind and truely flesh out the answer (I did get the general idea down, but it was sloppy).

What does that prove? Since when will rushing proofs in a pressured situation going to be useful to me? The quality of my delivery would have been much better had I had time to think more clearly, IMO. This is my problem with exams, I guess, its just a big rushfest with little room for original thought or intuition.

Edited for future generations of quote-miners.

pisslips

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I knew A and I knew Z, but I had to figure out the middle bit

It actually doesn't exist, it's half-way between m and n.