zlacker

Why?

How strong is the argument that a student completing a test in 1 hour with the same score as a student who took 10 hours that the first student performed "better" or had a greater understanding of the material?

>>cluste+(OP)
> Why?

Teachers have lives, including needing to eat and sleep.

>>throwa+q2
Sure, but that answer doesn't address the questions of the value of time limits on assessment.

What if instead we are talking about a paper or project? Why isn't time-to-complete part of the grading rubric?

Do we penalize a student who takes 10 hours on a project vs the student who took 1 hour if the rubric gives a better grade to the student who took 10 hours?

Or assume teacher time isn't a factor - put two kids in a room with no devices to take an SAT test on paper. Both kids make perfect scores. You have no information on which student took longer. How are the two test takers different?

>>cluste+W7
Not arguing with any of that, just stating plainly that there are practical reasons for time limits and one of the many reasons is that tests are done supervised and thus must have _some_ sort of time limit. Everything else is you projecting an argument onto me that I didn't make.