| There were no tests. Comments? | |
| I was pretty much indifferent to this. I thought that it was convenient however I would have been prepared anyway. Yeager's book is very easy to read and even easier to understand. | |
| I like this format a lot better than some of my more regimented classes. Nice change of pace and I think I learned more material this way. | Learning is the key. Good to hear that you feel like you learned more. |
| I liked it, I felt like the paper and the presentations were the most beneficial for me to learning economics. | |
| I liked having no tests and not having to memorize. I still actually learned a lot of useful facts that I will be able to use in my everyday life. | Again, GREAT to hear. |
| I am a little split on this. Honestly, after I found out that we were not going to have tests, I slacked off a little bit in terms of the reading. I used to print out notes from every chapter and take the online quizzes for each chapter, but I lost a little bit of incentive to do so. The good side- I really enjoyed the Manikew game we played in part as a substitution for the tests, and I think because we did not have the tests I put more effort into my paper than I otherwise would have. | Putting the effort into the paper was key, and I am glad you put more effort into it than if you had had tests. |
| Its a great idea | |
| NA | |
| I thought that having no tests was okay, as long as there are other gradable assignments. | OK, good point, no tests, but some graded assignments. |
| Tests are not fun. But I feel like we needed more stuff to be evaluated on. | Same as above |
| I would have crammed for each test and lost the information after each one. For what? | My point exactly. |
| NA | |