Fall examination period marred by disruptive switch online and dispute over digital access to study materials
While students are settling into the new semester, many still feel the effects of the disruptive December 2021 examination period. In addition to the normal anxieties and stresses related to exams, the recent fall examination period was complicated by the last-minute switch to online exams.
The change occurred after U of T announced on December 15 that in-person exams would no longer proceed and that there would be no in-person learning until at least January 31. The University cited “recent government announcements” as guiding its decision: the Ontario government had announced earlier that day that capacity limits would be reintroduced to limit the spread of the Omicron variant. In a statement for UV, a U of T spokesperson stated that, “The decision to delay or defer in-person exams and delay in-person learning was not made lightly. It was a necessary step to safeguard the health of our community in light of the latest variant of concern. The decision was made in consultation with public health authorities and our own experts.”
Many students were heavily impacted by the shift. There were three exams scheduled on December 16, including two at 9:30 am, and students were left scrambling for information on how the printing of exam materials, accommodations, and closed-book exams would proceed in an online environment. Echoing the concerns of many students, Yiwei Jin (2L) stated that, “The message to students was to just deal with it, and if they don’t like it, too bad.”
In a comment to UV, Students’ Law Society (SLS) President Willem Crispin-Frei (3L) confirmed that the SLS had sought clear and additional information on the night of December 15, and that this information was not provided. He further stated that the SLS will “be making it very clear that the switch strongly and negatively affected students” and “failed to recognize [that] business could not continue as normal.”
The 1L class in particular saw their examination period disrupted, as the majority of 1Ls had exams scheduled for December 17. Students shared that it was “a very difficult situation for everyone overall with the abrupt changes.” Flexibility was a frustration for those writing at home, as students had to sacrifice time printing exams instead of receiving additional time to do so. While one 1L student valued the option to write the exam in-person at the law school, communication was a challenge. Proctors were not aware of which version of the exam to use, as multiple versions had been created because of the shift to online. There was also confusion regarding whether students writing in-person could access materials on their computers.
On top of this, many students reported experiencing issues with ExamSoft, the software used to write exams. Though it is unclear what the source of these issues were—either ExamSoft itself or the Faculty’s implementation of it—students expressed concerns over the lack of clear guidance and policies on what to do in these situations. One of the students impacted by software problems noted that he was unable to login to ExamSoft after multiple attempts: “After a very stressful time, I was sent a PDF of the exam and was told to start immediately. But at that point the damage was done; I was way too stressed to be able to write a proper exam!”
Crispin-Frei noted that while the SLS cannot guarantee such occurrences will not repeat, they will “continue to press for additional supports to ensure equitable exam-taking situations and adequate provision of information.”
In addition to these concerns, students were dismayed by the Faculty’s longstanding policy of only allowing hard copy notes during exams. Last year, when all examinations were administered online, students were allowed digital access to their notes and other files during exams. With the (limited) return to in-person examinations this semester, the Faculty was committed to returning to the “normal” way of conducting them. This resulted in students being forced to print hundreds of pages to bring into their in-person examinations. Students shared that “having to sift through paper notes” is a significant challenge during the examination, as it takes up valuable time and is distracting for others nearby.
Motivated by students’ concerns, Jin spearheaded a petition to change the examination policy in late November. The petition amassed 148 signatures in four days and highlighted concerns related to finances, environmental waste, and the arbitrariness of the policy, especially considering last year’s examinations were successfully conducted without this rule.
“Over the past year, many students have been very frustrated with the school administration over a variety of issues, including accommodation, mental health support, and the ham-fisted return to in-person instructions. In each issue, we saw a school administration that is rather stubborn and unwilling to listen. Students end up having to spend a lot of time and effort advocating for themselves, even though they are already busy and stressed out. The same thing happened with the exam policy. Nobody likes it, nobody can see any reason for it, and yet we were supposed to just put up with it. I don’t think that’s right,” stated Jin.
Jin sent the petition to Associate Dean Christopher Essert and other administration members on November 21. He received a response on November 24, acknowledging students’ concerns but ultimately determining that the policy is necessary to “ensure that exams are conducted fairly and to minimize the possibility of cheating,” among other reasons.
Discussions about potential changes to the Faculty’s policy will continue in the new year. Associate Dean Essert acknowledged that though there are a “wide variety of considerations” related to modifying the policy, including accommodating different faculty members’ preferences for note access, “technological developments may change [the administration’s] thinking.” While the ultimate decision lies with the administration, Associate Dean Essert stated that the administration hopes “to have a discussion with Faculty early in the semester” about this issue. Crispin-Frei confirmed that the SLS will continue to emphasize “students’ strong preference for digital note access” and will push for a change “at the earliest possible exam period.”
As the Faculty announced plans to return to in-person learning starting February 7, in-person examinations are currently planned to be held in April. It remains unknown whether there will be any changes to the exam policies or what sort of contingency plans will be in place by then.
