First of all, the point isn't that the professor is a male private part because the exam is totally closed book (although I think that's lame enough) - the prof is a male private part becaue he told the students throughout the sememster what would be provided, and students rely on that. Then he changes his mind a week before the exam. That makes him a serious male private part. The professor cannot be trusted - so OP has to think about if the prof continues to discuss anything about the exam.Second of all, JoJo - have you even taken evidence? It's about applying the Rules of Evidence - not general policies. It's not Torts. You have to know the rules and how to apply them. If hearsay fits within an exception, you have to know the exception. I could go on about how inane your comment about "arguing against every rule in the book" is, but I don't think anyone will take it seriously anyway.Third, as to the supposed value of closed book exams. I think my securities professor put it best: I've been practicing securities law for 30 years, and I always read the law. Always. And no client ever calls me and asks: 'I've got a problem, can you help me - but don't read the rules!'