Hacker News Reader

My experience as a professor and a student is that this doesn't make any difference.

Exactly the point of his test methodology.

What he asked of students on a test was to *apply* knowledge and information to *unique* problems and create a solution that did not exist in any book.

I only brought 4 things to his tests --- textbook, pencil, calculator and a capable, motivated and determined brain. And his tests revealed the limits of what you could achieve with these items.

Isn't this an argument for why you should allow open book tests rather than why you shouldn't? It certainly removes some pressure to remember some obscure detail or formula.

Isn't that just an argument for always doing open book tests, then? Seems like there's no downside, and as already mentioned, it's closer to how one works in the real world.