CE2JD wrote:How did I draw all of the professors who don't have word limits?
If you know the material better than your classmates, the word limit is a curse. It really limits how much you can differentiate yourself, in my opinion, because it limits the depth of your analysis and the number of issues you can talk about.
I like telling this story:
I had an exam with a word limit. The instructions and prof indicated that if you went over the word limit, you would be penalized, BUT everything after the word limit would still be considered full credit. In other words, going over the word limit resulted in a straight deduction for your grade, say from an A- to a B+.
So, I decided to take the "over the word limit" penalty to give myself the room I needed to discuss all the issues I saw and analyze them thoroughly. I went 2,000 words over the word limit on that exam, got a B+.
When I went to talk about the exam with the prof, I asked him what I should have cut out in order to get under the word limit without losing points from substance. (I struggle with word limited exams in general, so I was trying to figure out what I do wrong in them.) After reading through my answer, he said, and I quote, "anything you would have cut would have resulted in losing points on substance."
That is just idiotic, and it demonstrates the major weakness of word-limited exams.
The fact that exams without word limits have a "typing exam" element to them is true. That said, I MIGHT type 70 WPM if I'm typing words that I have significant muscle memory with. That said, I still only use a few fingers when I'm typing, I often get my hands tangled up, and I have to look down at the keyboard every third word or so or I'll get off by a set of keys. I do not win the fast typing aspect of things.
They are "apply the various policy arguments/issues we have discussed in class to this particular problem I'm giving you, and maybe draw your own conclusions in the last sentence or two." 
