Some of us do exactly that. Many of the exams I sat in grad school (Brown) were that way, and nearly all of the exams I have set are open-book, open-notes, open-internet, and take-home. I've always felt that's a better reflection of what I actually want to be testing anyway.
I'm not the only professor that does this, but the cost is that exams take a lot longer to grade, generally. So it's impractical at scale.
My evaluations went up a full point when I switched from writing my own open note/open book exam to using the department's standard "memorize all the things and do mechanical transformations" exam. Students complained a lot less also.
The result was that, after being challenged by difficult problems that require your complete focus, you are given some feedback on what you got wrong, at which point you go back to the book to work out what the real answer is. That revision step is key; the promise of some recovery points is mostly just motivation to take it seriously
I felt like those exams were huge learning experiences. The caveats are: it is more work for the professor; this was an upper division course, so students were serious and the class size was small; the best problems are hard and open ended.
Eventually it stops working.
I've had this especially happen with finals, like my Differential Equations final where I managed to get all the concepts of the entire semester onto a single page when studying. I had a lightbulb moment where I realized the important parts of the class were really simple, it's just all the twists and challenges about application made it seem more complicated.
Similarly I got mad at a grad teacher recently when he would not make our last lecture a review because according to him we shouldn't need "hand-holding." It ticked me off because a day to summarize what we've learned over several months seems like a smart idea to me. I guess I feel like tests can be similar, a way to filter out things that are taught that are good to learn, but not as important as other things. Kind of like when a teacher says, "If you leave this class and only remember a single thing I want it to be this."
On the other hand I see tests not working for some people. I have a close friend who has memory problems. She is so frustrated by college because due to her memory her application of the classes is completely different to how she is tested.
> Similarly I got mad at a grad teacher recently when he would not make our last lecture a review
Edit: I just realized I'm not sure if the phrase "grad teacher" means a teacher of a graduate course, if not, disregard my comment.
For example, if you were to have a open internet test in 2003, people who knew about wikipedia would have a significant advantage vs people who didn't. Or if the student is poor, he or she might not have access to fancy electronics or even laptops, which would make the open internet test difficult. Even if it was a open-book test, if the student were substantially poor to a point where he/she was sharing a book with a friend? And there is also an element of luck with it comes to open-notes tests. If the teacher only allow a single page of notes, what are the chances that the question might be on a subject that you omitted to put on your notes?
I've only listed tech-savvy, income, and luck as a potential way to make the test unfair, but I'm sure there are plenty more if you include any other element that is not the study material itself other than memory. I agree that in real life we don't have to memorize everything (matter of fact I'm all for critical thinking than memorization in schools), but there are certainly some benefit to the traditional test taking methods.
Normally if professors let you bring all your notes, they increase the complexity of the tasks and maybe even cut the time. So unless you wrote yourself a good summary or index to your notes, you will spent too much time looking through your stuff and won't be able to complete the test.
If you however wrote a good summary, chances are that you wont actually need it, since thats pretty much the best way to learn. But still the exam is harder than it would have been without books, so you are off worse.
So... they're the best way to learn, but you're worse off for getting them? Think about this argument a little more critically---I think what you're trying to say is that such exams are harder (which is true), but what is the purpose of the exam, and of the course itself? Surely an exam structure that is more effective at causing you to learn the material is better for you, not worse, not despite but because of the fact that it makes you synthesise a better understanding of the material.
FTA: "Why not make the problems harder and let students use every possible tool or resource to solve them? Even students singularly focused on learning for its own value would get so much more out of the experience."
From my own experience my open book exams in Physics were ridiculously difficult. We would use all sorts of tricks to cram as many equations onto the double-sided piece of paper we were allotted. I feel if you agree to an open book exam the difficulty of the exam can (and should) increase dramatically. Be careful what you wish for ;-)
Similarly, in a programming class, the exam should not be testing whether or not you've memorized the Java boilerplate code. Sure, if you use it enough you will memorize it, but that's not what makes a good programmer. Either provide the boilerplate or let the students look it up; the focus should be on solving the problem.
Most exams at Stanford CS are open book/open notes. I much preferred this to my undergrad experience of having to memorize stuff.
Doesn't sound like it was an open book exam if you were just allowed a cheat sheet.
Did your school push you nearly hard enough?
The truth is in the middle of the dichotomy you setup. Yes having notes, referencing materials, etc in the real world is being prepared. BUT, even in the real world, there's a reasonable expectation that you'll store and retrieve as much of that information as possible in and from your own memory. For example, I'm a pretty adept with python. I occasionally need to look at the standard library reference; yet, I try to commit as much as I can to memory. If I didn't, I would spend the majority of my time searching instead of doing. It goes without saying that a person who knows something off the top of his or her head is more efficient than someone who doesn't. You're correct that in the real world you'll rarely be in a situation where you don't have access to a reference of some kind. However to say at the same time that memorization is a skill that you'll seldom if ever use again is incorrect at best and reckless at worst.
I remember school courses in history and chemistry where requirements of memorization was the largest component of the course credit. What I suspect is the real reason is that measuring student understanding and engagement is a hard problem, and memorization is easily measured proxy for the above. The problem is that it is easily gamed, learning decays into this gaming process and then, students promptly forget material after the exams. In my experience, though, universities mostly do allow for notes in exams.
But if after pouring 40-50 hours a week into a class for a couple months didn't result in memorization of the important stuff as a byproduct, you probably weren't going to do well anyway.
I'd like to be optimistic and say that that this is how memorization began to be tested in schools. Instructors noticed that the best students seemed to have things memorizes, so they started testing this as it's an easy thing to test.
For some reason, the analogy of a doctor treating symptoms rather than the cause of the illness comes to mind.
In science, we call this a thesis or research project. I don't see the need for all exams to take the same format (although some do so successfully), as closed-book exams test something quite different - the depth and breadth of your internal, longer-term comprehension.
> An “education,” whether for its own value or to help you get a job, is–at least to me–about developing the skills to find the information you need, assess its value, integrate it into the context at hand, and make a better decision than you otherwise could have.
An education -at least to me- is about building up an inner edifice of knowledge, so you can work fast, and formulate original and hopefully brilliant ideas and insights, with the skills the author mentions being accessory to this (and something that should really be in place by high school). The author writes as if knowledge is something to be retained as fleetingly as possible, to make room for whatever the next task is. But information you have committed to long-term memory can cross-pollinate, become a greater structure, open up new horizons. Information that you merely load and discard cannot - at least not in the same way.
> In the “real world,” having a copy of your notes is called being prepared.
In my world, being (professionally) prepared means that you have authoritative mastery of a subject. Of course you often refer to notes, and have the skill to quickly and perhaps temporarily assess and assimilate new concepts. It does not follow that holding the detail of our degree subjects at arm's length is a virtue, and that having to rely on our own memories in examinations is somehow "bad education". Yes, the open book exam format has its place, but so does the traditional one.
If you want a better education, try regarding your knowledge as something to be made more enduring, not more ephemeral.
In the past two years, they decided to remove my major (Computer Science) completely from the curriculum for new students (so current sophomores are unable to join the department except to minor), they cut tens of professors from the faculty, and they cut down on several other costs.
In the same time period, they spend tens of thousands of dollars redesigning the main website, several more thousand redesigning the internal student-facing website (based on Blackboard and Moodle in a bizarre zombie formation), and upgraded several nonfree services they provided (Outlook Web Access, Blackboard, Datatel). They also bought and paid for the construction of a park just south of campus, which cannot be feasibly used by students but serves to essentially advertise the university. They also purchased additional radio ads, several front-page ads in the LA Times, and well-placed billboard advertisements.
Higher education in America has made its priorities clear, I think.
I do see the importance of this changing, with increasing weight being given to public work shared over a blog or Github vs. academic transcripts. Hopefully institutional education can evolve to help individuals learn how to search, triage and analyze in a given field.
There were very few exams where I wasn't allowed a limited amount of notes (usually a full notecard or sheet of paper). The ones that weren't were in classes like intro psychology where most of the class is just memorizing things anyway.
Given I am in the same province as this university, I actually had to look up which school he was talking about, because I wasn't sure. Everyone in Ontario, and most of Canada, already calls this school Western, rather than its (now former it seems) official name, The University of Western Ontario. Calling it Western University is missing the point of what the Western brand is, party school or not, that isn't as an adult among the first few things that I think of when it comes to Western. As opposed to when I was an undergrad driving to their campus for a weekend party.
While the naming issue is off-topic, and my apologies for that, I did find this helpful/humourous article on the re-branding effort.
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/01/26/thats-weste...
It's a trap for the unprepared. Poor students think that they can rely on the books in an exam, but there's just not enough time to read, parse and apply the source material. Either you learned ahead of time or you didn't. Students who learned the material use it as a reference, not a source.
It also, he said, allows him to give "proper exams".
I quit studying law, but it was still an eye-opener.
University is as much about learning coping skills as it is learning to get things done under the silliest circumstances. Strangely, this has a bearing to real life once entering the workforce.
Likewise for learning, as soon as we stop learning, we're no longer growing. Anything that no longer grows gets left behind.
What skills do universities teach startups? If we're lucky to have the instructors who can spark our minds, anything.
You're ability to apply your knowledge to the world hinges on your ability to remember what your knowledge is. Even now, when you just 'google it', that relies on your memory of broad concepts and ideas. Recognition IS memory (a specific kind of memory anyways).
So yeah, on one hand, over the top tests of memorization is ridiculous, since it just results in everyone cramming, and then forgetting 3 hours after the final, and then when the next course rolls around building on the knowledge, you lose 3 weeks doing review, you can't get away from memorization, or testing your memory in school.