Question #1. Briefly and in your own words, describe the universe.
Question #1a. Give three examples.
probably the only woman who would remember such a thing is Adrianna Huffington over there at that thing she calls HuffPo
Q. Why?
A. Because.
That's a new one on me.
The best joke question I ever saw was on the Basic Science final in Med School. One 4 hour exam on 2 years of material. It read: "Given 1 liter of water, 10 moles of ATP and an Oreo cookie, create life. Show all formulas."
One of the questions from my Medieval Philosophy exam:
Q. Create a dialogue on the topic of Justification between Augustine, Gregory the Great, Aquinas, John Scotus Erigena, Calvin, Erasmus, and Luther.
The hardest exam questions I have ever had were in Animal Physiology. History exams seem like grade school exams in comparison.
They would be something like(and this one is easy):
Shows EKG chart
List five diagnosis steps, why it occurs and why this patients EKG shows a sinus arrhythmia and if it can be potentially fatal.
The Professor was brutal in his grading, but thankfully he curved because his tests average was 45% but as he states if he didn’t ask them hard he wasn’t teaching us anything at all and if students expect to continue on past a bachelors classes like this were infinitely more useful then a canned multiple choice test or essay that simply depends on recall.
Have you ever had a fatal accident, please explain.
mark
Dynamics final exam.
My contracts class had 3 hypotheticals all about 10 pages apiece. Nothing quite as disheartening as when your test makes an audible thud when it lands on your desk.
I was in college when new math began. To complete my degree, my adviser enrolled me in “Algebraic Principles of New Math”. I could easily relate to the concept of “sets” as that used to be expressed as adding “apples and oranges”, but what gave me a lot of trouble were the 21 steps (as I recall) in proving that 1 is greater than 0. That should have been a clue that civilization was heading into the dumper.
and for extra credit
For an electron (m= 9.1 x 10-34 kg) in a box with L1= 10 nm, L2= 20 nm, and L3 = 30 nm: What is the energy of the lowest energy state? What is the energy difference between the (1, 2, 3) state and the (3, 2, 1) state? Which state is higher in energy? What are the frequency and wavelength of the photon absorbed or emitted in exciting the electron between the two states? What state is degenerate with the (4, 2, 3) state?
That was a brain-buster of a test. "What have you learned in your Engineering classes over the past four years? Discuss it, and please be detailed and specific."
Ohhhh, lots of brutal exams come to mind. The idea seemed to be that, in physics and mathematics, performance near and below epsilon+2*sigma is inconsequential, so most of the effort goes into characterizing the performance attributes of the top 5% of the incoming freshman class (the attrition rate remained at 50% even up to 4th year). In contrast, most grading schemes look at roughly uniform resolution across the performance spectrum, resulting in no differentiation between students at the top 5% level, for example.
For undergraduate field theory, the last section of the class was quantum field theory. Now, the math covered up until that point in other classes was nowhere near the level necessary to completely understand this material, so the professor, a real communist who joked that to be respectable he said in mixed company he was merely a socialist (great guy otherwise, very quirky), had to quickly cover some new math concepts in addition to the physics. Because of two false fire alarms, there was not enough time to cover the material from the final two lectures, so he assigned reading and included some handouts containing part of the material with the final exam. Those exam questions were at least possible to complete individually, but nobody finished on time because of the math grindwork involved. The original class of 18 had dropped to 10 by the end of term, and all 10 of us in that final room stayed for 5 hours, punctuated with a 30 minute emergency lesson on some arcane aspect of tensor calculus (basically to share an important trick for simplifying calculations that would otherwise require the use of a computer algebra system) at the 3 hour official exam end mark (9 PM).
Even in sophomore year, I had one professor who announced on the first day that he was aiming to fail 1/2 of the class as a weeding exercise out of compassion, so they could pick a major better suited to their talents sooner rather than later. Near the end of the course, he said anyone not receiving an A would not complete senior year - and he was correct.
For undergraduate high energy physics (the highest level senior course offered, with entry requiring the passing of a qualifying examination administered by the professor one week before classes started), we covered a unit on quantum chromodynamics that surpassed in difficulty any graduate material I later took. The professor was convinced of some (dubious) property of Twistor theory as related to quantum gravity. I remember especially one of the four questions on our final dealing with Yang-Mills instantons and what would later be understood as some element of the AdS/CFT correspondence. None of us (4) students then understood what was going on with that question, but I am certain the professor was hoping the next Witten would emerge from that exam. The other three questions were difficult as well. I did OK (all 4 of us passed), but the experience turned me off HEP forever.
Even after undergrad, there was a need to weed. I had an open-book exam in one graduate math class that was deadly. The professor permitted any material to be brought in - any book, any notes, anything on cassette, any food or drink, even toys and pets - and he stated that the time limit was as long as we remained in the room, save bathroom breaks. The only rule was no communication between students. But there was nothing on this planet that one could have brought in which would have helped on that test (for the record, I brought a large coffee, cookies, my notes and a textbook - the latter two items were useless). The class material directly covered 50% of the exam, and the rest of the exam consisted of open research in the field for which correct answers would have resulted in publications. The professor was busy happily giggling away at the front of the room most of the time. No belling of marks occurred, but I got enough part marks on the impossible-to-complete questions to score well (i.e. impose a crude approximation to “solve” one problem, repose another problem in a more compact form from which the existence, as well as other important properties, of the solution can be directly inferred, etc).
I still have nightmares, lol.
I distinctly remember hearing profanity when that one was passed out...
Thermal Properties of Hell
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington engineering mid term. The answer was so profound that the Professor shared it with colleagues, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. "K. S." during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you.", and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am quite sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.
The student received the only "A" given.
