So, I have this required class, called Research Methods, which is supposed to instruct one in the ways of evaluating research and designing research proposals. All from a Social Science perspective.
This is fine; I come from Humanities where research involves reading until it is the night before the due date and spewing whatever logical commentary you can get out onto a page. This class is necessary for me, not only because it is a required course but because I need to get at least an A- to do a research project or optional thesis.
However, for some reason the instructor has decided that it is perfectly alright to teach an entire statistics class in 5 weeks, for only 45 minutes each week. So, after talking for 2 and 1/2 hours about research in general, there is a break and then we learn stats for the rest of the extended class.
The problem is now I have an exam on Monday where I have to know 74–yes, seven-four–terms and concepts. And not just definitions: an A level answer will deliver 6-8 sentences on each concept, describing what each is, its context and some problems. An A level answer will go beyond the textbooks assigned to 2-3 other sources. And there is no recommended reading list.
Seventy-four. For all those counting, that is a minimum of 444 sentences I have to come up with. The beauty part is that each test will be a randomized selection of 20 concepts. The test actually consists of a slip of paper with 20 numbers which correspond to the questions you are to do.
The funny thing is, there are no formulas on the test. So, I am really learning 74 concepts which I would still have to go back to a textbook to learn again if I were to ever use them in research design. Pointless. I dislike memorization, my brain does not work that way, and a test which requires the cramming of concepts is a poor indicator of learning. I guarantee you that 20 minutes after I leave the test I will have forgotten every single one of those terms.
What I don’t understand is that my professor seems like a really intelligent guy. I don’t know if I am learning anything from the lectures, but as an individual he is alright. Why he insists on this format and not some short essays which would draw upon more than one of each of these is beyond me.