From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 3 10:55:37 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 l33EtaTM019389 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l33EtRTA056049 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:55:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 25770 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 14:55:27 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 14:55:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 11705 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 14:55:27 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 14:55:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 14952 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 14:55:17 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 14:55:17 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4339931 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:55:17 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 23616 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 14:55:16 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 14:55:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 3708 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 14:55:16 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 14:55:16 -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 l33EtFbK019362 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l33EtF6I019361 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:55:15 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704031455.l33EtF6I019361@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:55:15 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: FIRST VS. SECOND DRAFTS OF PAPERS 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 0.88.6/3007/Tue Apr 3 08:26:03 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1169 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: FIRST VS. SECOND DRAFTS OF PAPERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As I've been stapling your first drafts and second drafts of Position Paper 3 together, in preparation for handing them back to you, I've noticed something very curious. Many of the second drafts are virtually identical with your first drafts! If the grades on those apparantly unrevised second drafts were all A's, or even A-'s, I wouldn't be concerned. But they're not. Your revisions should be almost entirely different from your originals. A second draft should be almost a complete rewrite of the first draft, not merely a change or two in a sentence here and there. The whole point of peer editing and revision is to change your papers for the better. If you feel that you're not getting useful feedback during peer editing, then have someone else give you feedback on your paper. Double check to make sure that you're following all the guidelines. Re-read your own paper critically to make sure that you've done everything and that everything you've done is clear.