Realistically there has to be _some_ time limit. No one is going to sit in a room for 10 hours while you finish your test.

▲

clusterhacks an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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?

▲

throwaway314155 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Why?

Teachers have lives, including needing to eat and sleep.

	▲	clusterhacks 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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?

▲

dunk010 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure. I doubt that if some test at the moment takes an hour then you're getting much extra benefit at the five hour mark. The whole point of the time compression is to spread the grades out - along an axis different to "competence".