From ag33@cse.Buffalo.EDU Sun Feb 25 20:41:17 2007 Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (root@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q1fHJK022122 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (ag33@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q1fGjS012046; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ag33@localhost) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l1Q1fGKm012045; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:41:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:41:16 -0500 (EST) From: Albert Goldfain To: "William J. Rapaport" cc: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: POSITION PAPER #1 GRADING In-Reply-To: <200702260110.l1Q1Aaus021517@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Message-ID: References: <200702260110.l1Q1Aaus021517@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 Status: R Content-Length: 5604 Also, please note that the grading rubric was built *DIRECTLY* from what the assignment asked for: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Say whether you agree with premise (1), and why you do or don't. 2. Say whether you agree with premise (2), and why you do or don't. 3. Say whether you agree that conclusion (3) logically follows from premises (1) and (2) (whether or not you agree with (1) and (2)), and why you think it follows or doesn't. * If you think that it doesn't follow, is there some (interesting, non-trivial) missing premise (i.e., a "missing link" between the premises and conclusion) that would make it follow? (If so, do you agree with that missing premise? Why (not)?) 4. If you think that the argument is logically invalid, you might still agree or disagree with statement (3) independently of the reasons given for it by premises (1) and (2) (and any missing premises). If so, state whether you agree with (3), and why. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The grading rubric for Position Paper 2 will assuredly be built from what is written in the assignment, so please read it carefully and keep it in mind when peer-reviewing: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/584/S07/pospaper2.html Albert On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, William J. Rapaport wrote: > Here's how we evaluated your position papers. In line with my comments > in the previous Listserv posting, we looked for the following things and > assigned them points as follows: > > ======================================================================== > Position Paper #1 Grading Rubric Version: 22 Feb 07 > ======================================================================== > > 1. Premise 1: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or > disagreed with it? > > 3 pts = clearly stated whether you agreed > 2 pts = stated, but incorrect terminology > 0 pts = did not clearly state whether you agreed > > (doesn't matter whether you agreed or didn't agree, > only with whether you said so) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 2. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? > > 3 = reasons given, clearly stated & pertinent > 2 = partial credit: I couldn't decide between 1 & 3 > 1 = reasons given, > but not clearly stated or not pertinent > 0 = no reasons > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 3. Premise 2: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or > disagreed with it? > > 0, 2, or 3, as for Premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 4. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? > > 0,1,2, or 3, as for Premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 5. Missing premise > ("Computers and related phenomena are *not* natural phenomena"): > > Did you clearly identify it? > > 3 = clearly identified it > 2 = only seemed to be dimly aware of it > 1 = misidentified it > 0 = failed to identify any missing premise > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 6. Did you state clearly whether you agreed or disagreed with the > missing premise? > > 0, 2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 7. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? > > 0,1,2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 8. Conclusion: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or > disagreed with it? > > 3 = clearly stated whether you agreed > 2 = stated whether you agreed, but did NOT state > whether it follows validly from premises > 0 = did not clearly state whether you agreed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 9. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? > > 0,1,2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The total is 27 points, which, following my grading theory, maps into > letter grades as follows: > > letter CSE484 both CSE/PHI584 > > A 26-27 > A- 25 > B+ 23-24 > B 22 > B- 20-21 > C+ 19 > C 16-18 10-18 > C- 13-15 > D+ 10-12 > D 6-9 > F 0-5 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On my grading scheme, > > "A" means "understood the material for all practical purposes", > (here, that's 27 pts = 9 questions * 3 pts full credit) > > "B" has no direct interpretation, > but comes about when averaging A's and C's, > > "C" means "average", > (here, that's 18 pts = 9 * 2 pts partial credit) > > "D" means "did not understand the material, > (here, that's 9 pts = 9 * 1 pt minimum credit) > > "F" usually means "did not do the work" (i.e., 0 pts), > but can also come about when averaging D's and F's. > > Please see my grading website, > > http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/howigrade.html > > for the theory behind all of this, which, by the way, I'm happy to > discuss on the Listserv. > > I don't yet have cumulative statistics on the distribution of grades > for Position Paper #1; when I do, I'll post them. > From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Feb 25 20:47:35 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q1lY9D022315 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:47:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1Q1lT1D060782 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 15275 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:47:29 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:47:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 8307 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:47:29 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:47:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 7779 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:47:25 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:47:25 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3551941 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:47:25 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 24995 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:45:32 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:45:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 9804 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:45:31 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:45:31 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q1jU1M022258 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l1Q1jUMS022257 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:45:30 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200702260145.l1Q1jUMS022257@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:45:30 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENT ANALYSIS To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2653/Sun Feb 25 16:24:16 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1238 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENT ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This week in recitation, you will be doing peer editing of Position Paper #2. Keep in mind that your critique is designed to help the author revise his or her first draft. Consequently, your critique should be based primarily on the author's paper and *not* on your own personal opinion. That is, your critique should be primarily "objective": Did the author do everything that was required in terms of evaluating the argument for validity and soundness (including the truth or falsity of the premises)? You can then also give the author the benefit of your own "subjective" (but justified!) opinion, in case that will help to clarify the author's thoughts. Note that this is exactly what *you* should do in writing your own position paper: You first need to "objectively" critique the validity and soundness of the arguments. You can then offer your "subjective"--but justified!--opinion about the conclusion of the argument. (And there will be some "subjectivity" in your analysis of the truth-value of the premises, of course!)