Return to Answer

• Any concerns on fairness must be judged by comparison with memorising. You cannot avoid slight unfairness to some students (see below for some examples), but as long as your process is more fair than relying on memory, you have won.

• Communicate your paradigm to the students. This way, you avoid that students use the cheat sheet in misguided way that is detrimental to them. Moreover, by teaching them the spirit of the rule, you reduce the chance and strengthen your position in case of any rule disputes and allow the students to answer certain questions about the rules themselves (do not rely on any of this though).

• Would it be better for me to simply give them a formula sheet that I’ve prepared?

  The most important part of memorising before a classical exam is structuring and reiterating the relevant knowledge as this strengthens the actual understanding of concepts (which is what your exam should be about). Making the cheat sheet handwritten replaces this.¹ Provided cheat sheets are not good for this. The same applies to machinally created cheat sheets, as they can simply be created by copying and pasting.

• In a perfect world, restricting the cheat sheet in size would not be necessary – you cannot prevent students from blindly learning the entire textbook either.

  However, it does prevent students from wasting their time – before and during the exam – with an overly extensive cheat sheet. Moreover, it may increase the perceived fairness of the process. Finally, there will always be some idiot who manages to blindly copy the solution to every exam task ever given for the subject.

  On the other hand, make sure that whatever size limit you give suffices for the content the students should need, so you do not inadvertently reward those with a smaller handwriting, better eyesight, finer pen, etc. Giving them slightly more space than they need is not a problem; giving them much more space is.

• You cannot avoid that some student just fills the cheat sheet with solutions to exercises or previous exam tasks. However, such a behaviour should not be rewarded: Make sure that the pool of possible tasks is sufficiently large. If you cannot do this (e.g., certain parts of theoretical physics have a notoriously low number of exam-suitable tasks), your exam may not be suited for handwritten cheat sheets – but then it is not suited for eliminating the advantages of memorising either.

• Handwritten cheat sheets will pose problems to some handicapped students. (Just like memorising is bad for people who have issues with memorising or anxiety.) Ensure beforehand that every student can voice such problems so that a reasonable alternative can be found for them.

• Should I require students to turn in their notes to me before the exam? After the exam? Is their anything to be gained by me reviewing their notes?

  This does not agree with the above paradigm: You cannot control what students memorised for the exam either. It may be helpful to verify and helpful to evaluate your approach to cheat sheeting by collecting the cheat sheets anonymously, but this deprives the students of re-using their cheat sheets².

• Memorising is your benchmark for fairness. You cannot avoid slight unfairness to some students (see below for some examples), but as long as your process is more fair than relying on memory, you have won.

• Communicate your paradigm to the students. This way, you avoid that students use the cheat sheet in misguided way that is detrimental to them. Moreover, by teaching them the spirit of the rule, you reduce the chance and strengthen your position in case of any rule disputes and allow the students to answer certain questions about the rules themselves (do not rely on any of this though).

• Would it be better for me to simply give them a formula sheet that I’ve prepared?

  The most important part of memorising before a classical exam is structuring and reiterating the relevant knowledge as this strengthens the actual understanding of concepts (which is what your exam should be about). Making the cheat sheet handwritten replaces this.¹ Provided cheat sheets are not good for this. The same applies to machinally created cheat sheets, as they can simply be created by copying and pasting.

• In a perfect world, restricting the cheat sheet in size would not be necessary – you cannot prevent students from blindly learning the entire textbook either.

  However, it does prevent students from wasting their time – before and during the exam – with an overly extensive cheat sheet. Moreover, it may increase the perceived fairness of the process. Finally, there will always be some idiot who manages to blindly copy the solution to every exam task ever given for the subject.

  On the other hand, make sure that whatever size limit you give suffices for the content the students should need, so you do not inadvertently reward those with a smaller handwriting, better eyesight, finer pen, etc. Giving them slightly more space than they need is not a problem; giving them much more space is.

• You cannot avoid that some student just fills the cheat sheet with solutions to exercises or previous exam tasks. However, such a behaviour should not be rewarded: Make sure that the pool of possible tasks is sufficiently large. If you cannot do this (e.g., certain parts of theoretical physics have a notoriously low number of exam-suitable tasks), your exam may not be suited for handwritten cheat sheets – but then it is not suited for eliminating the advantages of memorising either.

• Handwritten cheat sheets will pose problems to some handicapped students. (Just like memorising is bad for people who have issues with memorising or anxiety.) Ensure beforehand that every student can voice such problems so that a reasonable alternative can be found for them.

• Should I require students to turn in their notes to me before the exam? After the exam? Is their anything to be gained by me reviewing their notes?

  This does not agree with the above paradigm: You cannot control what students memorised for the exam either. It may be helpful to verify and helpful to evaluate your approach to cheat sheeting by collecting the cheat sheets anonymously, but this deprives the students of re-using their cheat sheets².

• Any concerns on fairness must be judged by comparison with memorising. You cannot avoid slight unfairness to some students (see below for some examples), but as long as your process is more fair than relying on memory, you have won.

• Communicate your paradigm to the students. This way, you avoid that students use the cheat sheet in misguided way that is detrimental to them. Moreover, by teaching them the spirit of the rule, you reduce the chance and strengthen your position in case of any rule disputes and allow the students to answer certain questions about the rules themselves (do not rely on any of this though).

• Would it be better for me to simply give them a formula sheet that I’ve prepared?

  The most important part of memorising before a classical exam is structuring and reiterating the relevant knowledge as this strengthens the actual understanding of concepts (which is what your exam should be about). Making the cheat sheet handwritten replaces this.¹ Provided cheat sheets are not good for this. The same applies to machinally created cheat sheets, as they can simply be created by copying and pasting.

• In a perfect world, restricting the cheat sheet in size would not be necessary – you cannot prevent students from blindly learning the entire textbook either.

  However, it does prevent students from wasting their time – before and during the exam – with an overly extensive cheat sheet. Moreover, it may increase the perceived fairness of the process. Finally, there will always be some idiot who manages to blindly copy the solution to every exam task ever given for the subject.

  On the other hand, make sure that whatever size limit you give suffices for the content the students should need, so you do not inadvertently reward those with a smaller handwriting, better eyesight, finer pen, etc. Giving them slightly more space than they need is not a problem; giving them much more space is.

• You cannot avoid that some student just fills the cheat sheet with solutions to exercises or previous exam tasks. However, such a behaviour should not be rewarded: Make sure that the pool of possible tasks is sufficiently large.

• Handwritten cheat sheets will pose problems to some handicapped students. (Just like memorising is bad for people who have issues with memorising or anxiety.) Ensure beforehand that every student can voice such problems so that a reasonable alternative can be found for them.

• Should I require students to turn in their notes to me before the exam? After the exam? Is their anything to be gained by me reviewing their notes?

  This does not agree with the above paradigm: You cannot control what students memorised for the exam either. It may be helpful to verify and helpful to evaluate your approach to cheat sheeting by collecting the cheat sheets anonymously, but this deprives the students of re-using their cheat sheets².

• Any concerns on fairness must be judged by comparison with memorising. You cannot avoid slight unfairness to some students (see below for some examples), but as long as your process is more fair than relying on memory, you have won.

• Communicate your paradigm to the students. This way, you avoid that students use the cheat sheet in misguided way that is detrimental to them. Moreover, by teaching them the spirit of the rule, you reduce the chance and strengthen your position in case of any rule disputes and allow the students to answer certain questions about the rules themselves (do not rely on any of this though).

• Would it be better for me to simply give them a formula sheet that I’ve prepared?

  The most important part of memorising before a classical exam is structuring and reiterating the relevant knowledge as this strengthens the actual understanding of concepts (which is what your exam should be about). Making the cheat sheet handwritten replaces this.¹ Provided cheat sheets are not good for this. The same applies to machinally created cheat sheets, as they can simply be created by copying and pasting.

• In a perfect world, restricting the cheat sheet in size would not be necessary – you cannot prevent students from blindly learning the entire textbook either.

  However, it does prevent students from wasting their time – before and during the exam – with an overly extensive cheat sheet. Moreover, it may increase the perceived fairness of the process. Finally, there will always be some idiot who manages to blindly copy the solution to every exam task ever given for the subject.

  On the other hand, make sure that whatever size limit you give suffices for the content the students should need, so you do not inadvertently reward those with a smaller handwriting, better eyesight, finer pen, etc. Giving them slightly more space than they need is not a problem; giving them much more space is.

• You cannot avoid that some student just fills the cheat sheet with solutions to exercises or previous exam tasks. However, such a behaviour should not be rewarded: Make sure that the pool of possible tasks is sufficiently large. If you cannot do this (e.g., certain parts of theoretical physics have a notoriously low number of exam-suitable tasks), your exam may not be suited for handwritten cheat sheets – but then it is not suited for eliminating the advantages of memorising either.

• Handwritten cheat sheets will pose problems to some handicapped students. (Just like memorising is bad for people who have issues with memorising or anxiety.) Ensure beforehand that every student can voice such problems so that a reasonable alternative can be found for them.

• Should I require students to turn in their notes to me before the exam? After the exam? Is their anything to be gained by me reviewing their notes?

  This does not agree with the above paradigm: You cannot control what students memorised for the exam either. It may be helpful to verify and helpful to evaluate your approach to cheat sheeting by collecting the cheat sheets anonymously, but this deprives the students of re-using their cheat sheets².

Applying this, I would add to your points and answer your questions:

• Communicate your paradigm to the students. This way, you avoid that students use the cheat sheet in misguided way that is detrimental to them. Moreover, by teaching them the spirit of the rule, you reduce the chance and strengthen your position in case of any rule disputes and allow the students to answer certain questions about the rules themselves (do not rely on any of this though).

• Would it be better for me to simply give them a formula sheet that I’ve prepared?

  The most important part of memorising before a classical exam is structuring and reiterating the relevant knowledge as this strengthens the actual understanding of concepts (which is what your exam should be about). Making the cheat sheet handwritten replaces this.¹ Provided cheat sheets are not good for this. The same applies to machinally created cheat sheets, as they can simply be created by copying and pasting.

• In a perfect world, restricting the cheat sheet in size would not be necessary – you cannot prevent students from blindly learning the entire textbook either.

  However, it does prevent students from wasting their time – before and during the exam – with an overly extensive cheat sheet. Moreover, it may increase the perceived fairness of the process. Finally, there will always be some idiot who manages to blindly copy the solution to every exam task ever given for the subject.

  On the other hand, make sure that whatever size limit you give suffices for the content the students should need, so you do not inadvertedly reward those with a smaller handwriting, better eyesight, finer pen, etc. Giving them slightly more space than they need is not a problem; giving them much more space is.

• You cannot avoid that some student just fills the cheat sheet with solutions to exercises or previous exam tasks. However, such a behaviour should not be rewarded: Make sure that the pool of possible tasks is sufficiently large.

• Handwritten cheat sheets will pose problems to some handicapped students. (Just like memorising is bad for people who have issues with memorising or anxiety.) Ensure beforehand that every student can voice such problems so that a reasonable alternative can be found for them.

• Should I require students to turn in their notes to me before the exam? After the exam? Is their anything to be gained by me reviewing their notes?

  This does not agree with the above paradigm: You cannot control what students memorised for the exam either. It may be helpful to verify and helpful to evaluate your approach to cheat sheeting by collecting the cheat sheets anonymously, but this deprives the students of re-using their cheat sheets².

Applying this, I would add to your points and answer your questions and concerns raised in the comments:

• Any concerns on fairness must be judged by comparison with memorising. You cannot avoid slight unfairness to some students (see below for some examples), but as long as your process is more fair than relying on memory, you have won.

• Communicate your paradigm to the students. This way, you avoid that students use the cheat sheet in misguided way that is detrimental to them. Moreover, by teaching them the spirit of the rule, you reduce the chance and strengthen your position in case of any rule disputes and allow the students to answer certain questions about the rules themselves (do not rely on any of this though).

• Would it be better for me to simply give them a formula sheet that I’ve prepared?

  The most important part of memorising before a classical exam is structuring and reiterating the relevant knowledge as this strengthens the actual understanding of concepts (which is what your exam should be about). Making the cheat sheet handwritten replaces this.¹ Provided cheat sheets are not good for this. The same applies to machinally created cheat sheets, as they can simply be created by copying and pasting.

• In a perfect world, restricting the cheat sheet in size would not be necessary – you cannot prevent students from blindly learning the entire textbook either.

  However, it does prevent students from wasting their time – before and during the exam – with an overly extensive cheat sheet. Moreover, it may increase the perceived fairness of the process. Finally, there will always be some idiot who manages to blindly copy the solution to every exam task ever given for the subject.

  On the other hand, make sure that whatever size limit you give suffices for the content the students should need, so you do not inadvertently reward those with a smaller handwriting, better eyesight, finer pen, etc. Giving them slightly more space than they need is not a problem; giving them much more space is.

• You cannot avoid that some student just fills the cheat sheet with solutions to exercises or previous exam tasks. However, such a behaviour should not be rewarded: Make sure that the pool of possible tasks is sufficiently large.

• Handwritten cheat sheets will pose problems to some handicapped students. (Just like memorising is bad for people who have issues with memorising or anxiety.) Ensure beforehand that every student can voice such problems so that a reasonable alternative can be found for them.

• Should I require students to turn in their notes to me before the exam? After the exam? Is their anything to be gained by me reviewing their notes?

  This does not agree with the above paradigm: You cannot control what students memorised for the exam either. It may be helpful to verify and helpful to evaluate your approach to cheat sheeting by collecting the cheat sheets anonymously, but this deprives the students of re-using their cheat sheets².