> find the mistakes in the available note sets and write the tests accordingly
Really great... instead of focusing on enabling students and focusing on teaching them the really important fundamentals and making sure they understood those through exams, let's just frakk with them in a really petty way (likely by musing over petty small technicalities) and put them in their place, helpless little pups that they are!
Exams are about testing what the students have learned, not about teaching them. This sounds like a great way to sort the students who actually decided to learn something from the students you preferred to memorise some notes they bought rather than learning the subject matter.
The vast majority of my educational career could be summarized as memorizing some notes written by myself, given by the teacher, or inscribed in hardback textbook. Getting them from another student is hardly a crime.
Not a crime, not even something I'd suggest students get punished for - but definitely something that should be actively discouraged.
Yeah, you can make notes yourself and memorise them, and even that will probably teach you more than getting notes from someone else and memorising those. But it doesn't change the fact that it would be better if exams could only be passed by learning and understanding the subject material, not by memorising facts.
Tests that challenge a student's deep understanding of the material rather than rote memorization is of course preferable. No has argued that.
I place zero value in the transcription of notes. The act of writing is a useful tool for memorization and even deeper understanding, but it's just that - a tool. Everyone learns differently. The test is meant to grade one's understanding of the material. How you obtained that understanding isn't relevant.
> Exams are about testing what the students have learned, not about teaching them
Your job as a prof should be teaching them and exams are a part of that - at the same time exams are typically focused on the 2 or 3 major subjects or points that were taught. And they should be, because ultimately as a benevolent and good prof, you want your students to learn the matter and get a good understanding but you cannot or should not expect them to memorize every little detail you ever taught just because your subject is clearly oh-so-important! A good prof has such a concept that spans from his classes, textbooks to the exams.
Putting in questions just to frakk with students because you don't like them sharing notes for whatever reason doesn't fit there - because I strongly doubt good notes would miss major points but rather twist a few tiny facts.
> This sounds like a great way to sort the students..
I knew this sentiment would come up and I cannot tell you how deeply I loathe it. Yes, in elementary school this approach is probably a good idea... force students to sit through each class, make them take notes, then check their homework and give them little shiny golden stars to make them happy and then make them write an exam on it. But we are talking university here, this isn't kindergarten - you should be educating and empowering growing adults, you want them to become individuals and that can only mean dropping the retarded elementary-school gold-star mentality because those aren't the people who will accomplish great things later on if you never taught them or gave them any chance to become independent.
The exam should check if I have a good understanding of the subject, it should definitely NOT check how I obtained that knowledge. But if I am a lazy and bad prof, I just dish out multi-choice tests and probably you can pass those easier by just regurgitating some facts you learned by heart from copied notes the night before. But this laziness shouldn't be encouraged by trying to limit notes to counter "learning by heart without understanding" because it is just a consequence of being a bad and lazy prof who writes horrible exams that can be passed like that, brute-force style.
Stop patronizing students, your job is to prepare them for a career and the gold-star mentality won't get you very far in the real world... whoever your customers are, they care about you getting the job done and not much else.
If exams are just testing, then they're basically busywork. Exams can and should be a learning aid. The assumption is that every student should get 100% if they're doing a good job. But 50% should be okay. Then when you go back and see the mistakes you've made, you learn.
Setting people up to fail can be a valuable learning experience. The problem is not the teacher, it's our society's attitude towards failure.
The professor in question is a law professor, specifically he deals with securities law.
Nitpicky detail are what that area of law is all about! A newly minted securities lawyer will spend his first few years proofing corporate filings (e.g. an offering document) for the tiniest of mistakes, some of which could cost the client millions of dollars if not found.
While it might not be the greatest tactic for professors in general, it is a great idea for this particular professor.
Really great... instead of focusing on enabling students and focusing on teaching them the really important fundamentals and making sure they understood those through exams, let's just frakk with them in a really petty way (likely by musing over petty small technicalities) and put them in their place, helpless little pups that they are!