I hope to be a professor some day, so I was thinking up of what kind of exam questions should be asked. I hope I've got a good idea; here are some examples:

Bad question:
Draw the structures of any five of the twenty amino acids.

Better question:
Discuss the differences in function of amino acids, and how they are determined by structure. Focus on five.

Good question:
Glycine has the simplest structure of the twenty amino acids. What advantages does this particular feature confer on glycine in comparison to the other amino acids?

Even better question:
Alanine replacement mutations are often used in determining the function of amino acids in biomolecular models. What particular aspects of alanine's structure make it the best choice for this out of all twenty amino acids?

I had to answer the inane memorization questions like the first one when I took biochemistry. I think most biology tests should be take-home, with a heavy emphasis on research and critical thinking rather than on memorization (of course, this wouldn't work for med school). I'd give the last question to my students as a take-home. They'd have to pore over the structure of alanine, as well as compare it to the structures of the other amino acids. Thus, by indirectly studying the structures, the students would memorize them as well as finding out each amino acid's advantages/disadvantages. Exams should stimulate interest and intellectual depth rather than be a superficial testing of one's ability to memorize. Also, questions should relate to practical research situations.  ¶ 7:28 PM

  Man is a morbid creature. Death defines our limitations; what we cannot achieve, it is because death denies us infinte trials. But there, man has a second path, for possible trials are extended through the propagation of generations. What death obstructs, we surmount with procreation and the undeniable quality of communication.  ¶ 7:29 PM

  On Happiness:

A common argument in support of the television medium John Edwards (whose show Crossing Over airs on the Sci-Fi channel) is that, even were his fraudulence proven, his gift of happiness to others is more beneficial than harmful. However, I find it hard to believe that happiness is the ultimate goal. Ignorance is bliss, so they say, but what about the affects of ignorance on others? The popular movie The Matrix raised questions about the moral ambiguity of ignorance and bliss. The character of Cypher chose ignorance in the constructed world of The Matrix over the harsher reality, and many argued that his decision was justified: if his mind can't tell the difference, he might as well pick the happier life. Others expressed a deep-seated moral repugnancy against the implicit slavery.

Ignorance is its own type of slavery. The stronger the numbers that remain ignorant on important issues like Edward's necromancy, the stronger that issue will hold the public in a thraldom of irrationality. Each person that sacrifices knowledge for happiness is placing the public more firmly in the grasp of those that wish to decieve either for personal benefit or for a misplaced belief in pseudoscience. Thus, it is not harmless for even a few people to believe that their dead grandmother is truly speaking platitudes through Edwards: every choice for happiness is also a condemnation of society.  ¶ 8:36 PM

  On Scientific Versus Parapsychological Experimentation:

Replicability of experiments is inherently tied to proper protocols obtained from refinement of the techniques involved. In scientific experiments, this is achieved through an examination and improvement of the controls, results, and possible loopholes. In parapsychological experiments, however, there is no optimal protocol because of the self-described fickle nature of paranormal and psychic phenomena. Identical conditions may give wildly differing results, but the qualitative rather than quantitative nature of such experiments circumscribes such a wide network of possibilities that any results can be accounted for by supernatural fluctuations.  ¶ 8:13 PM

  On Complex Proteins

One fundamentalist claim is that the evolution of hemoglobin exists as evidence for an intelligent and divine design. The basis is statistical: the total number of combinations of amino acids are beyond a billion billion, and so chance is unable to account for such a highly complex protein as hemoglobin. However, this hypothesis ignores the basic tenet of evolution as a dynamic selection process. Consider the following illustration.

One hundred years ago, people could not fathom the concept of a computer, a microchip, or even an integrated circuit; yet even so, they possessed the technologies upon and through which the computer was to arise. The progress of man's technology is much like that of the process of the organismal evolution of proteins. Both represent a gradual refinement, where more primitive creations become the tool of the formation of more complex ones.

I agree with the statement that complex proteins were not the product of pure chance. But that does not necessarily point to a divine design; rather, the accumulation of functional proteins allowed for a the organismal machinery to produce proteins more conducive to survival. While evolution may not necessarily lead to greater complexity, nevertheless the very act of survival is bound to force an organism to create more useful -- and often more complex -- proteins.  ¶ 7:21 PM