From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Mar 19 19:49:32 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 l2JNnW6j022143 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.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 l2JNnSwQ060388 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 9101 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:49:28 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:49:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 24971 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:49:28 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:49:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 1302 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:49:15 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:49:15 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3934482 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:49:15 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 17547 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:49:14 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:49:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 18602 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:49:14 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:49:14 -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 l2JNnEwU022130 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2JNnE8G022129 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:49:14 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703192349.l2JNnE8G022129@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:49:14 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER 2 GRADING STATISTICS 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, UPPERCASE_25_50 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 0.88.6/2875/Mon Mar 19 15:51:01 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 770 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: POSITION PAPER 2 GRADING STATISTICS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here are the statistics on Position Paper #2: 484 584 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A 7 12 A- 2 2 B+ 3 3 B 4 1 B- 0 0 C+ 2 0 C 2 3 C- 1 n/a D+ 1 n/a D 0 0 F 1 0 avg 25 pts 26 pts B B+ Thus, most of you did very much better than on PP1. I will have more to say about both PP1 and PP2 in later postings. From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Mar 19 19:58:53 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 l2JNwr09022446 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.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 l2JNwl8j061465 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:58:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 1096 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:58:47 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:58:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 22001 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:58:47 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:58:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 10658 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:58:36 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:58:36 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3934596 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:58:36 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 22598 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:58:35 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:58:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 20022 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2007 23:58:34 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Mar 2007 23:58:34 -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 l2JNwYJh022423 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:58:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2JNwYR7022422 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:58:34 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703192358.l2JNwYR7022422@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:58:34 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: QUESTION ABOUT POSITION-PAPER GRADING 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 0.88.6/2876/Mon Mar 19 19:22:08 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 3607 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: QUESTION ABOUT POSITION-PAPER GRADING ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A student writes: > I thought I did a pretty good revising position paper two but the grade > I had on it was not too impressive. I am just wondering what do you expect > on the papers. In all my papers I always try and > make sure that my paper show independency of thought and opinion because > those are really what I think of the assignment. It seems like the grade I > get are below my expectations I don't really know what is wanted and > expected in those assignment. Some of the papers I have read so far in the > peer editing session does not seem that much more impressive, except for one. There are several kinds of papers a student can write; each kind has its appropriate place: You can write a paper that simply repeats what the instructor has told you or what you have read on your own. Or you can write a paper that gives your own opinions on some topic. Or you can write a paper that analyzes someone else's opinions on some topic. (And there are several variations within each of these 3 kinds.) In a course such as this, it is important to be able to express in your own words the opinions of others about various topics. It is also important to have your own opinions. But it is far more important to be able to justify your own opinions and to analyze the opinions of others. It's the last of these that I'm chiefly looking for in the position papers (and that I will look for on the term paper and final exam if you are thinking of writing either one of them). On each position paper, I present an argument. What I am looking for is your analysis of it. That is, for each premise, you must tell me whether you agree with it (i.e., whether you think it is true) and why you agree or disagree. It is actually a bit more important for you to tell me why you disagree if in fact you do disagree than it is for you to tell me why you agree if in fact you do agree. Then you must tell me whether the argument is valid, that is, whether the conclusion has to be true if all the premises are true. If you think that one or more of the premises is false, that's irrelevant to the question of validity. To determine validity, you have to make believe that all the premises are true, and then determine whether the conclusion also has to be true. Sometimes, you might need to add a missing premise in order to make an argument valid. In that case, you also need to say whether you agree with that premise. If you think that all the premises are true (i.e., that the argument is factual), and if you think that the argument is valid, then you must logically believe that the conclusion is true. (If you don't think it's true, then you must have been wrong either about one or more of the premises or about the validity of the argument.) However, if you think that one or more of the premises is false, or that the argument is invalid, then it is still an open question whether the conclusion is true. In this case, you must say whether you believe the conclusion, and why (i.e., you must give your own argument in favor of the conclusion). Notice that in supporting the premises and the conclusion, you will have your chance to express your own opinions. These are the things I look for in grading your papers. As for how I assign the letter grades, see my "How I Grade" webpage at http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/howigrade.html If you have questions, please let me know.