For The Third Year In A Row, Professor Reuses Old Contracts Exam

There has been another law professor who has decided to take the easy route and reuse an earlier exam -- for the third year in a row.

Exam Stress LFNews flash: if you are a law school professor, you have to write an exam for the classes you teach. Every time. No, you cannot reuse an exam — even when you are teaching the same class. Yes, that is more work, but it is actually what you get paid to do. So, do it.

As you may have guessed by this point in the article, there has been another law professor who has decided to take the easy route and reuse an earlier exam. And, as a special bonus, it is the third consecutive time the same professor has been caught in the act.

The professor in question is Catherine Valcke from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. The student paper, Ultra Vires, has the details of the controversy:

The December 2015 exam problem for Professor Valcke’s first-year Contracts class was the same as the April 2007 joint Catherine Valcke-Stephen Waddams exam problem. The 2007 problem was not posted on the online “Past Exam Database,” but several students in the December 2015 class had access to it either via upper-year students or the bound copies. At least one student also had access to an answer previously prepared by an upper-year student as practice, annotated with class notes from when Professor Valcke took it up in class.

Last year, Valcke’s reusing of old exams was noted during the examination period, and the administration responded by offering students a choice:

Students could either (A) have their exam answer graded as is, or (B) write a new four-hour take-home exam during the week after the exam period. These two options were “treated as separate pools for grading purposes.” Take-up of Option B was low, though some students did opt to write the new exam.

This year, the reusing of exams wasn’t widely known until after exams were over and no similar option was provided.

Sponsored

Reaction from our tipster has been swift and harsh:

Valcke’s reuse is particularly galling because she did the exact same thing last year, leading to a huge outcry from students and eventually forcing the Faculty to re-offer the exam. So far, the Faculty’s response to this most recent recycling has been unhelpful. It is worth noting that Professor Valcke makes $190,000 per year, and that students at U of T pay $30,000 per year in tuition (the highest in Canada). Given these numbers, I think students are justified in expecting better from their law school.

And really, who can blame them? The practice of reusing old exam questions unfairly rewards those with existing connections to older students and turns studying into a game to seek out the right exam questions instead of actually endeavoring to learn the law.

It seems the controversy may not yet be over, as the Students’ Law Society has sent a letter to the Dean, asking the school to adopt an official policy discouraging professors from reusing exams:

Beyond the fairness issue, some question the pedagogical value of reusing exam problems. In a letter to Dean Iacobucci and Associate Dean Rittich, the Students’ Law Society (SLS) wrote that “the reuse of exams is not effective pedagogy.” The letter argues that the practice “encourages students to simply memorize past exams” instead of being able to focus on “apply[ing] their legal knowledge to novel fact patterns.” It also notes that “students are subject to stringent policies that govern their performance during exams and the reuse of their essays.”

Sponsored

Not that this helps any of the student who feel they’ve been unfairly graded as a result of Professor Valcke’s shortcut.

And to the good Professor, may I suggest writing a new exam in 2016? Seems it would save you a good deal of embarrassment.

Students Raise Concerns About Professors Reusing Exam Problems [Ultra Vires]

Earlier: Stop Reusing Your Old Exams, You LAZY Law School Professors!
Visiting Professor at NYU Makes a Mess of 1L Contracts Exam
At NYU Law, Using The Same Exam Three Times In A Row Is Apparently Not A Problem