I wish to support the positions taken by Lynch and Darken.  As a history
teacher, I can't imagine how to determine whether any learning went on in
my classes without some sort of comprensive final exam.  In my view, the
very purpose of most history courses is to provide students with broader
and reasoned perspectives on their world. Certainly, the comprehensive
final causes the student to seriously confront the subject matter and to
attempt to place it the context of what he/she already knew before taking
the course.  Moreover, the comprehensive final sends the message to
students that the subject is actually worth learning (what other reason
could the teacher possibly have for making students undertake so much
work?).   Incidently, when one requires a comprehensive final it also sends
the message that the instructor believes that the students are capable of
learning, remembering, and using what they learned.
8888888888888888888888888888888888
William J. Wright
Prof. & Head
Department of History
UTC
8888888888888888888888888888888888