I had an exam yesterday in micro theory. I had studied hard and knew the material that I, and everybody else in the class, understood was going to be on the test. What I got, however, was something totally different. I bombed, as did most of the class I suspect. I was unhappy with the exam, as was much of the rest of the class.

To me, there is a distinction between a hard exam and an unfair one. On a hard exam, you may specify generally what is going to be on it, but within those bounds make modifications that make the problem more difficult, but something that is still within the range of the test takers ability. This is not what happened here. This was just an unfair exam pure and simple.

What made it unfair was this: the professor said explicitly that the exam was going to cover A, B, and C. What ultimately happened, however, was that it covered D, E, and F. In general, I have no problems with professors testing a wide range of knowledge, but don't say you are going to test on one thing then do something else entirely. THAT is unfair. It would have been much better had he not said anything at all about what was going to be on it.