Timeline for Is it okay to ask and discuss about questions which come in exams which come in German univerisities?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18 at 15:45 | comment | added | cbeleites | The health care scenarios IMHO are not good examples here, since privacy requirements there are nothing one signs like an NDA (which is a contract), they are legal requirements and thus at a thoroughly different level. I guess one has to sign that one is aware of them like one signs that one is aware of the anti-corruption laws - but they need to be kept anyways, signature or not. | |
| Jan 18 at 15:41 | comment | added | cbeleites | @Wrzlprmft: I can see how restricting speech about a passed exam may be considered an undue burden to the student. And how restricting to find out what exactly to expect in an exam can also be considered an undue burden. Undue also in the sense that the German academic system has found exam procedures that are not hampered by knowledge of old exams. (And maybe also keeping in mind that for official exams such as the driver's license theory the pool of questions is publicly available and meant to be used for learning). | |
| Jan 18 at 15:36 | comment | added | cbeleites | I'd like to add to the reasons against, that OP may talk to the professor about this and chances are that they find them quite open to this. At least my experience as student was that professors even encouraged exam question collections. Oh, and I once had an interview weekend for a scholarship, where one interviewer specifically checked (with a weird question where the answer would be easily known for those who had been talking about the interview but not to anyone who didn't expect that question) whether we were talking about what questions they asked. (If anyone wonders: talking was good) | |
| Jan 14 at 13:12 | comment | added | Jochen Glueck | @Wrzlprmft: "Not exactly. Violating any rule that concerns cheating can lead to fine; so it’s not only cheating per se." Fair enough. This leaves the question whether the discussion of exam questions after the exam can be considered relevant for cheating (in future exams). I tried again to search online for such a case that was treated in court, but I could not find anything. | |
| Jan 14 at 10:54 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @JochenGlueck: cheating (more precisely: "Täuschung über Prüfungsleistungen") counts as "Ordnungswidrigkeit", but other types of interfering with exams are not listed there. – Not exactly. Violating any rule that concerns cheating can lead to fine; so it’s not only cheating per se. A typical example would be an outsider who helps a student to cheat or who interrupts an exam, forcing a repetition. As the only reason to keep exams secret is as an anti-cheating measure (no matter how that actually works out), it would be captured by this. | |
| Jan 14 at 10:54 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @JochenGlueck: I'm having difficulties to follow your examples – I guess, my main point regarding constitutionality is this: Universities can impose all sorts of rules regarding studies and exams as long as complying with them is not a burden, restricts who can study, etc. I don’t see how a non-disclosure clause does this. Also, I think you can probably argue against students not being allowed to discuss the exam at all, since it would preclude them from taking legal actions against bad questions, but revealing the questions online is a different thing. | |
| Jan 14 at 10:09 | comment | added | Maarten Buis | Regardless of what the law says, it is generally a bad idea to anger a person who has power over you. | |
| Jan 13 at 22:38 | comment | added | Jochen Glueck | Regarding "Ordnungswidrigkeiten": it seems to be more complictated than that: according to § 3 OWiG "Ordnungswidrigkeiten" have to be defined by law. I checked for the federal state NRW: according to § 63(5) of the Hochschulgesetz NRW, cheating (more precisely: "Täuschung über Prüfungsleistungen") counts as "Ordnungswidrigkeit", but other types of interfering with exams are not listed there. | |
| Jan 13 at 22:28 | comment | added | Jochen Glueck | @Wrzlprmft: Hmm, I spent quite a while searching but couldn't find a court judgement for a case close to the one we're discussing. There seems to be a general concensus that article 12 of the German constitution affects exam regulations, but the details seem non-trivial (at least for me). I'm having difficulties to follow your examples, though: these are cases where the restrictions have their rationale in the subject being tested (and the first example also involves conflicting basic rights of other people). That's not the case for a rule not to discuss the exam questions with anyone. | |
| Jan 13 at 22:26 | vote | accept | Brian | ||
| Jan 13 at 20:01 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @JochenGlueck: Another question is how such a rule could actually be enforced - what if a student simply breaks the rule after the exam? – You would probably somehow tie this to the examination rules. Examination rules in turn are public regulations and thus interfering with the regular operation of exams is as an administrative offence (Ordnungswidrigkeit) which can lead to a fine. On top, interfering with exams can usually be punished like cheating for students in the programme. (Mind, however, that I do consider such a rule bad, but not due to unconstitutionality or unenforceability.) | |
| Jan 13 at 19:51 | comment | added | Anyon | @Wrzlprmft In the sense of "off-center", yes. The meaning of strange and unusual, when applied to a person, is only listed under 'eccentric' in the English dictionaries I've consulted. Of course, the etymology involves the prefix 'ex', and this is preserved in many other European languages. | |
| Jan 13 at 19:38 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @JochenGlueck: This seems to intervene with the students' constitutional right to freely choose their profession. – I don’t think see how being “forced” to agree to a non-disclosure clause would qualify as a restriction of this freedom. Essentially any job that fundamentally is about working with humans (educator, nurse, therapist) will involve some sort of training with humans, which in turn will probably come with some non-disclosure agreement. Similar, you have to accept lab rules in many experimental fields. | |
| Jan 13 at 19:12 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @Anyon: AFAICT, excentric is just an excentric spelling of eccentric. | |
| Jan 13 at 18:45 | comment | added | Jochen Glueck | "It could be that you agree not to share the contents of the exam by any means by enrolling or writing the exam." It would be interesting whether such a rule (beyond the very harmless three hours example you mentioned) would have any chance to stand in court. This seems to intervene with the students' constitutional right to freely choose their profession. I wouldn't bet a dime on the university winning such a case. Another question is how such a rule could actually be enforced - what if a student simply breaks the rule after the exam? | |
| Jan 13 at 18:12 | comment | added | Anyon | You probably mean 'eccentric', not 'excentric'. | |
| Jan 13 at 18:06 | history | answered | Wrzlprmft♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |