PhD comprehensive exams going oral only because of AI concerns at written take homes
our department is proposing moving comprehensive exams from a take home written format to fully oral exams starting next admission cycle, largely because of concerns about ai use in the current take home format. i have mixed feelings about this. the oral format probably does address the immediate integrity concern more directly than any detection tool would, but it also introduces a different kind of bias, students who process information quickly under pressure verbally will do better regardless of the actual depth of their scholarship, and that skews against certain students including many who are strong writers but slower verbal processors, plus non native english speakers navigating a high stakes oral exam in their second or third language. curious if any other departments have made this switch and what the actual data looks like on if it changed pass rates or just changed who passes.
636 Replies
Join the discussion.
Log In to Reply
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.
the esl impact daniel is worried about matches research on oral exam bias generally, its a well documented issue even outside the ai context. worth pushing your department toward mark's hybrid model rather than a pure oral switch if you can, seems like it addresses the integrity concern without fully reintroducing the bias problem.
@Holly Tanaka appreciate the research pointer, going to bring the hybrid model idea to our next department meeting as a concrete alternative rather than just raising concerns without a proposal.
theres a body of literature on oral exam validity going back decades, well before ai was a factor, that raises exactly this bias concern. worth citing the older research too so this doesnt look like a knee jerk reaction to a new problem using an old, previously criticized solution.
wonders about scalability too, oral exams for an entire cohort take significantly more faculty time than grading take home essays. worth factoring that into the proposal alongside the equity concerns.
my department made this switch two years ago. anecdotally the pass rate stayed roughly stable but the composition of who struggled shifted noticeably toward esl students and toward a few students with documented anxiety accommodations who previously did fine with extended written time. we ended up adding a hybrid option, written response with immediate oral follow up questions, which addressed some but not all of the concern.