> the instructor should create whatever conditions they want to so that they can exercise the students as they see fit
I don't disagree, as long as the instructor is able to defend the pedagogical purpose of the limitations he demands. The OP is essentially contending that few situations warrant such limitations, and I agree with him about that.
as long as the instructor is able to defend the pedagogical purpose of the limitations he demands
I just had a thought over my morning coffee: I would agree that the instructor should be able to defend such choices to the head of the department. The instructor may choose to defend the choice to the student, but the instructor should only be required to defend the choice to the student if the student is also required to be able to defend why they should be allowed to be there. I fear the most precious thing we've lost in our modern society is a student's willingness to bring themselves to the process, and so if I (as an instructor) must defend why I've set boundaries on an exercise then then you (as the student) must be able to defend that you really want to learn what I have to teach.
Alas, higher education has been reduced to a transaction for a service, and "the customer is always right".
few situations warrant such limitations, and I agree with him about that.
I have the opposite view. Most of the homework that I've ever seen (as a Math & Comp Sci double major) was about the benefit of the exercise, and very rarely about strengthening research abilities. But, then, I was in school when Tim Berners-Lee was gestating the world wide web concept at CERN.
I don't disagree, as long as the instructor is able to defend the pedagogical purpose of the limitations he demands. The OP is essentially contending that few situations warrant such limitations, and I agree with him about that.