Letters
To the Editor:
I refer to the article in your last issue about professors leaving McGill. While it is true that two senior political theorists have recently left McGill for other universities, it is far from true that none remain, as stated in the article. Professor Charles Taylor, a leading philosopher in this field, is still a full-time member of the Department of Philosophy, and though the recipient of a Killam Fellowship, he is still actively guiding graduate students working in political theory.
In addition, sessional appointments have been made in both Philosophy and Political Science, thus ensuring that both undergraduates and graduates with an interest in political theory have been able to complete their programs in these fields.
Finally, I am happy to be able to report that the Department of Political Science has been authorized to make, for 1997-98, a tenure-track appointment in political theory.
David Norton
Chair, Department of Philosophy
To the Editor:
As a group of engineering students who love McGill, we would like to offer input for its betterment. Our main concern is the use of multiple choice tests, midterms and examinations within the Faculty of Engineering. We feel that such examination methods are outdated, especially in engineering, and often poorly test a student's ability, knowledge and aptitude in a course or his/her ability to logically solve problems as an engineer should be trained to do.
We feel that engineers should be taught to use given information and effective reasoning skills to follow steps that lead to the solution of problems. Marks should be given for correctly implemented steps, as the final answer is trivial in comparison to the thought processes used to obtain it.
We realize it may be easier for professors to mark and write multiple choice examinations. This is done at the expense of the student, however, as these tests teach students merely to memorize and regurgitate information rather than to think logically. While this type of testing may be useful in rote-learning oriented courses such as history, it does not belong in engineering. It is an inaccurate method of testing, as a student may correctly guess the answer to a problem without having any idea how to solve it. Conversely, a student who knows exactly how to solve the problem may make one minor error and get it wrong.
Problem-based tests show the professor exactly what the student knows and the direction he/she takes to solve a problem. It is the way these problems can be solved using many different, and sometimes ingenious, methods that makes engineering unique from other areas of academics. Problem-based tests correspond to what students will be doing in the future, since "the central purpose of engineering is to pursue solutions to technical problems" (according to McGill's Undergraduate Calendar).
Professional engineers do not choose from a list or regurgitate knowledge, they apply knowledge to problems. For these reasons, universities across Canada have policies restricting the use of multiple choice examinations in their engineering faculties. The University of Toronto's Undergraduate Engineering Calendar states, "Normally, multiple choice questions are not used in final examinations conducted in the Faculty. In any event the Committee on Examinations must give its prior approval if the value of multiple choice questions exceeds 25% of the total marks for any examination."
This policy has been adopted by all of Canada's finest engineering institutions except McGill. We feel it is time McGill implemented a similar policy, since continuing multiple choice testing will only make us poorer engineers. Reducing or eliminating it will give us the analytical abilities expected of a great McGill engineer.
The students here deserve the best education for their money. We have expressed our concerns to professors, but felt compelled to write when nothing was done. Please listen to students as we are the future of McGill. We are innovative and independent thinkers who would rather share our ideas than passively accept something that we think can be improved.
A group of McGill engineers
