[Oops, we both posted a Friday Funny this week, from opposite ends of the earth! Enjoy!]

It’s been back to school or college for many young people all over the world – or soon will be.

One major concern no matter where you are is how academic achievement is going to be evaluated, what the expectations are, and how high the stakes are if you flunk. Just like all evaluation really.

And we all know that there’s nothing like a little challenge and pressure to really focus the mind.

This little gem, adapted from the Joke Buddha site (further suggested adaptations and additions most welcome!), explores what real stretch exam questions might look like, in some cases with some rather drastic consequences should you fail …

Sample Exam Questions

Computer Science: Write a fifth-generation computer language. Using this language, write a computer program to finish the rest of this exam for you.

History: Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating on its social, political, economic, religious, and philosophical impact on Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. Be brief and concise, yet specific.

Electrical Engineering: You will be placed in a nuclear reactor and given a partial copy of the electrical layout. The electrical system has been tampered with. You have seventeen minutes to find the problem and correct it before the reactor melts down.

Pre-Med: You will be provided with a rusty razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a full bottle of Scotch. Remove your appendix. Don’t suture until your work until it has been inspected. You have 15 minutes.

Public Speaking: Twenty-five hundred riot-crazed protestors are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin, Hebrew, or Greek.

Biology: Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this life form had developed 500,000 years earlier, with special attention to the probable effect, if any, on the English parliamentary system circa 1750. Prove your thesis.

Civil Engineering: This is a practical test of your design and building skills. With the boxes of toothpicks and glue present, build a platform that will support your weight when you and your platform are suspended over a vat of nitric acid.

Music: Write a full piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with a clarinet and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.

Psychology: Based on your knowledge of their early works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ramses II, and Gregory of Nicea. Support your evaluation with quotations from each man’s work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.

Chemistry: You must identify a poison sample which you will find at your lab table. All necessary equipment has been provided. There are two beakers at your desk, one of which holds the antidote. If the wrong substance is used, it causes instant death. You may begin as soon as the professor injects you with a sample of the poison. (We feel this will give you an incentive to find the correct answer.)

Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might be associated with the end of the world. Construct and carry out an experiment to test your theory.

Mechanical Engineering: The disassembled parts of a howitzer have been placed in a box on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Machine Language. In ten minutes a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel appropriate. Be prepared to justify your actions.

Economics: Describe in four hundred words or less what you would have done to prevent the recent economic recession.

Mathematics: Derive the Euler-Cauchy equations using only a straightedge and compass. Discuss in detail the role these equations had on mathematical analysis in Europe during the 1800s.

Political Science: There is a red telephone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at length on its socio-political effects, if any.

Religion: Perform a miracle. Creativity will be judged.

Art: Given one eight-count box of crayons and three sheets of notebook paper, recreate the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Skin tones should be true to life.

Physics: Explain the nature of matter. Include in your answer an in-depth evaluation of the impact of the development of mathematics on science.

Metaphysics: Describe in detail the probable nature of life after death. Test your hypothesis.

Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought and estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.

General Knowledge: Describe in detail. Be specific.

source: http://www.jokebuddha.com/joke/Sample_Exam_Questions#ixzz1lIHqHqsG

This week’s Friday Funny (thanks to businessballs.com) reminds us about the need to check what others might call a successful outcome.

An old lady had a hearing-aid fitted, hidden underneath her hair.

A week later she returned to the doctor for her check-up.

“It’s wonderful – I can hear everything now,” she reported very happily to the doctor.

“And is your family pleased too?” asked the doctor.

“Oh I haven’t told them yet,” said the old lady, “And I’ve changed my will twice already..”

In Genuine Evaluation we focus a lot on asking the right questions, bringing an evaluative frame, and basing answers on sound evidence.  But effective communication is also an important part of genuine evaluation, which is why this video caught our eye.  Hat tip to Stephanie Evergreen on twitter (@evalu8r) for sharing this.

Pic by JitterBuffer

Over the Antipodean summer Genuine Evaluation goes to the beach instead of blogging.  We’re back now, brushing off the sand, and planning more discussions about what it means to do genuine evaluation, plus sharing some insights from the African evaluation conference in Accra, Ghana.

To start the year, we wanted to highlight one of the more disturbing aspects of public policy discussions in recent years  -  the tendency to put forward opinions as if they were as compelling as solid evidence. We suspect that this will be the first in an ongoing series of examples.

Are working hours getting longer? Hopefully this example reflects someone being misquoted in the article in The Age in Melbourne, rather than how it appears – a researcher suggesting it’s too hard to get reasonable estimates of the extent of a problem and then pronouncing that the problem has diminished:

Some recent studies suggest this may now be a relic of history and that Australians work the longest hours in the developed world.

But Professor Mark Wooden, of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, disagrees … strongly.

“The idea we work the most hours in the world is absolute crap,” he says.

“Lots of people work long hours and lots of people work short hours. We have a mix.”

He argues that workers in Japan and Korea work longer than Australians and that comparing working hours between countries was an inexact science.

People tend to overestimate how long they work as a sort of “badge of courage” and find it difficult to estimate the hours they work accurately, Professor Wooden says.

“I don’t think we can count,” he says. “It’s impossible to know. The study would need to be so invasive.”

His research shows the number of Australians working 50 hours a week or more peaked in the mid-1990s.

“Over the last 10 years, the proportion of Australians working long hours has been dropping.”

Photo: Joe Armao (The Age)

What’s worse than no evaluation? An evaluation that is wrong but you think is right.

Organizations that provide authoratitive evaluations have an obligation to meet high standards of accuracy and consistency. It is therefore hard to believe the series of events that led to Victoria’s Environmental Protection Agency listing Melbourne’s bayside beaches as “good”, and suitable for swimming when the level of bacteria was 40 times the acceptable limit.

According to The Age report,

[EPA] staff were not working on the ChristmasDay and Boxing Day public holidays, and as a result old forecast information was fed automatically into the website from Saturday until yesterday. These forecasts were made on Friday afternoon, and did not take into account the ferociousness of the Christmas Day storms.

On Sunday (Christmas Day) a massive storm hit Melbourne, sending debris, rubbish, cigarette butts and dog droppings into storm water drains. But for two days the EPA was operating on autopilot, issuing reports on the web site and tweets based on the projected water quality not the actual water quality.

And what has the EPA learned from this? Nothing, apparently. According to The Age, no EPA staff will be working on the New Year’s Day public holiday, and once again reports will be based on the weather forecast not on actual testing. A spokesman said beachgoers “should use their own judgment” in deciding to go swimming after storms like those that hit on Christmas Day.

Which does raise the question – if beachgoers should use their own judgment, because it is more likely to be accurate than the official reports, what’s the point of having the official reports?

Here’s what SHOULD happen. Either roster someone to work on these public holidays and ensure the reports are actually based on data ( it’s summer here and people are going to the beaches) OR issue a clear statement on the website, tweets and to news media that an accurate report cannot be provided due to the public holidays. No report is better than an inaccurate report.