In reply...

I received a reply a short while ago:

Dear XXX,

Thank you for your message (below). These administrative mixups are very unfortunate and I sympathise with your frustration. I shall check on Monday to try and determine where these confusions (with times and admissible materials) crept in. As far as the lecturer's absence is concerned there would have been a second examiner appointed to the course and a contact number provided for them so that, if you had questions about the exam, these would have been answered.

I must say, however, that I am not so sympathetic to your concerns about the nature of the exam. When you are taught a game theoretic example involving two players, for example, the idea is not simply to convey to you how to solve a 2-person game. Rather, the idea is to teach the principles behind solving a strategic problem and, if those problems are learned, then the student should be able to apply them to situations that have not necessarily been explicitly studied e.g. a 3-person game. This is an approach that is common across many economics courses (and certainly it is one that I follow myself in setting my own exams) and I do not accept that such a practice is properly described as an "unfair assessment method" that "punishes" students, as you put it.

I am a little unclear as to what will constitute the "favourable reply" that you seek, given that you state that you are not after higher marks. I am sorry about the administrative glitches and on Monday will look at what happened in an effort to ensure they do not recur.

Best wishes and thank you once again for letting me know your concerns.

XXX

Couldn't he have gotten my subtle hints for higher marks? Ish. Maybe I shouldn't have stated it so subtly. Sheesh.