From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Feb 28 17:30:26 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 l1SMUQK1029813 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:30:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1SMU9xB096071 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:30:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27671 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 22:30:09 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 22:30:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 8875 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 22:30:09 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 22:30:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 7331 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 22:30:01 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 22:30:01 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3555706 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:30:01 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 14920 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 22:30:01 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 22:30:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 14440 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 22:30:00 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 22:30:00 -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 l1SMU0a1029799 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:30:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l1SMU0I2029798 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:30:00 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200702282230.l1SMU0I2029798@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:30:00 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: DRAFT OF POS PAPER 2 GRADING SCHEME 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 1336; 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 0.88.6/2679/Wed Feb 28 06:58:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 3217 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: DRAFT OF POS PAPER 2 GRADING SCHEME ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here is a DRAFT of the grading scheme (or "rubric") for Position Paper #2. I reserve the right to modify it slightly if necessary after reading your papers, but following this as an outline for your revisions should be of help. Note that it closely follows the instructions on the Paper as well as the advice on Peer Editing. Let me mention one other thing that seems to have confused some of you. There is nothing magic or special about the phrase "position paper". If you prefer, you can think of these as "argument analyses" rather than position papers, but I think of them as short papers in which you take a position on the soundness of an argument. Consequently, the papers don't need to be formally written with introductory remarks. Just dive in and analyze the argument. Good grammar and spelling is necessary to ensure that the reader can understand your paper, but you won't be penalized directly for bad grammar or spelling unless it causes the reader to misunderstand you. ======================================================================== Position Paper #2 Grading Rubric Version: 26 Feb 07 ======================================================================== 1. Argument from 1,2,3 to 4: valid? 0,3 xor invalid? + MP?: 0,1,2,3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Argument from 1,2,5 to 6: valid? 0,3 xor invalid? + MP?: 0,1,2,3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Argument from 4,6 to 7: valid? 0,3 xor invalid? + MP?: 0,1,2,3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Prem 1: agree? + why? 0,1,2,3 5. Prem 2: agree? + why? 0,1,2,3 6. Prem 3: agree? + why? 0,1,2,3 7. Conc 4: agree? + why? 0,1,2,3 8. Prem 5: agree? + why? 0,1,2,3 9. Conc 6: agree? + why? 0,1,2,3 10. Conc 7: agree? + why? 0,1,2,3 ======================================================================== The total is 30 points, which, following my grading theory, maps into letter grades as follows: letter CSE484 both CSE/PHI584 A 29-30 A- 28 B+ 25-27 B 24-25 B- 23 C+ 21-22 C 18-20 11-20 C- 14-17 D+ 11-13 D 6-10 F 0-5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On my grading scheme, "A" means "understood the material for all practical purposes", (here, that's 30 pts = 10 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 20 pts = 10 * 2 pts partial credit) "D" means "did not understand the material, (here, that's 10 pts = 10 * 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 I'm happy to discuss on the Listserv.