…or not.
I am, of course, talking about that most delightful of subjects, Measure Theory. The examination in question was held this morning, and it is fairly safe to say that, barring moderation, I will be failing that course quite badly.
My major problem with the exam was the style in which it was set. Frankly, it was clear to me that he simply couldn’t be bothered coming up with some decent questions. Pretty much everything on the paper was a 10-mark question, and two questions were split into 5/20 mark parts each.
I did the majority of the first question fairly well, I think. But unfortunately that’s where the limit of my knowledge reached. The second question was basically a lovely “state and prove the Dominated Convergence theorem” – 20 marks. Right, okay. Maybe that’s a reasonable question. But to just say “prove it”, and not break it into any sort of parts or guide you in any way is just lazy and completely unacceptable. Especially when you give the ultimately useless advice of “don’t try to learn large proofs, learn the ideas!!” on your website.
The third question was split into 15/10 mark parts. Yet again – absolutely no guidance at all, so I basically had no clue whatsoever. Question 4 was another lovely 20/5 part. The 20 mark question? “Prove f is in L1(0,1)”. Great. Thanks so much. Not even so much as “using theorem x”, or “Hint: try this…”. Just prove it. Finally, another lovely question on Lp spaces, and another lovely 15/10 mark split. Just amazing.
I don’t usually go off on people and examinations like this, because I do believe that if I do badly in an exam, 99 times out of 100 it’s going to be because I didn’t bother revising something. But giving advice on the website and then setting the exam on stuff that you told us not to revise fully is just a complete waste of my time. I spent a lot of hours sitting and finishing off the assignment questions, and to what end? I could have just sat there twiddling my fingers and I would’ve come out of that exam feeling exactly the same.
I left after about an hour. Quite a few people left after me, and maybe the fact that so many left in an exam that’s supposed to last three hours will give him a gentle hint. Some people came out saying that they didn’t think it was that bad, but to be honest, those guys are going to be very good at every exam they take or just got lucky. If you sit down and take the time to memorize the proof of the Dominated Convergence theorem, then that’s 20 marks, no sweat. If, like me, you didn’t think it was going to come up because everything pointed towards it not coming up then you’re in a lot more trouble.
Sure, I’m not the best student in the world. But I can do some of Measure Theory. The reason that I screwed this up so badly is that unless you knew how to do all of Measure Theory or were lucky enough to know the right bits, then the exam was a disaster.
So, what advice would I give coming out of this exam? (Not that anybody will listen, but hey).
To Dr. Valeriy Slastikov: This exam was unfair, period. I’m not unintelligent, but as a result, the hard work and effort that I put into revision counted towards precisely nothing. That is the most utterly frustrating feeling that one can get out of mathematics. Please take five more minutes to put together questions that aren’t completely impossible for those people who aren’t absolutely brilliant.
To second year students: Don’t take Measure Theory unless the lecture course is altered or the lecturer is changed. Simple as that.
PS: Please don’t bother writing comments if you’re going to say “hah, you deserved it you idiot!!!!oneoneone” because I can’t be bothered dealing with that sort of nonsense. These are my opinions, and if you disagree that’s fine, but please be constructive.
2:14 pm | Posted in Exams, Maths, Warwick Blogs
|
3 Comments » | Show comments »
| Hide comments »
|