Lawprof Richard Seamon has a really interesting article/essay in the latest edition of the Journal of Legal Education, wherein he discusses his preferred method of conducting post-exam conferences with students. Along the way, Seamon talks about the apparently common dread that both professors and students feel regarding going over a disappointing exam: the law prof is likely to be defensive about the grading, and the student is likely to view the experience as dredging up bad feelings of inadequate performance. Nonetheless, Seamon feels that, done properly, post-exam conferences can be worthwhile in terms of helping students *and* profs learn why the student’s exam was not good.
This is something I’ve struggled with during my four years of teaching. On the one hand, I think it’s important to provide the opportunity for students to look at their exam, possibly learn something about test-taking, if not substantively, and perhaps be satisfied that they were graded accurately. On the other hand, like the general mass of professors described in the aggregate in Seamon’s paper, it’s not exactly the sort of thing that I look forward to.
I will say that on a few occasions, my post-exam review in preparation for a meeting with a student has led me to be able to say something in more detail in a letter of recommendation about why I thought the exam grade might not accurately reflect the student’s abilities. (Of course, I don’t do that for every student, for it would become a meaningless observation.)
Anyway, Seamon’s article contains a useful description of the mechanism that he uses to defuse potentially confrontational meetings, to help students avoid feeling embarrassed, and most of all to make the conference worthwhile for both student and professor.
With that, I’m going to sign off from Prawfsblawg, for this post about post-exams makes me realize that the time to write final exams is starting to run . . . . Thanks to Dan and the rest of the crew for the repeat invitation, and readers are always welcome to check in on my solo blog for assorted general ruminations on law and pop culture or on National Security Advisors (with Bobby Chesney and Steve Vladeck) for national security law-related blogging.
Posted by Tung Yin on November 2, 2006 at 03:02 PM