From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Apr 19 10:45:34 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 l3JEjXkb001782 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.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 l3JEjTjL094904 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 19952 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2007 14:45:29 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Apr 2007 14:45:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 14792 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2007 14:45:28 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Apr 2007 14:45:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 21520 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2007 14:45:14 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Apr 2007 14:45:14 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4854380 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:45:14 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 4946 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2007 14:45:13 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Apr 2007 14:45:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 14949 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2007 14:45:13 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 19 Apr 2007 14:45:13 -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 l3JEjCdQ001771 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3JEjC5P001770 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:45:12 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704191445.l3JEjC5P001770@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:45:12 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER 5 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 1029; 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 0.88.6/3129/Thu Apr 19 09:56:12 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 4146 Here's a draft of the grading rubric for Position Paper #5. A couple of comments are in order: 1. You must turn in PP5 even if you think it won't affect your grade! (To put it another way, if you *don't* turn it in, it *will* affect your grade!) 2. Because you need to spell out Pro's and Con's arguments in premise-conclusion form and because this may use up space, it will not count against the word- and page-limits. But if your paper is > 1 page, please STAPLE the pages together (one staple, in upper left corner) AND please put your NAME on ALL pages. ======================================================================== Position Paper #5 Grading Rubric Version: 18 Apr 07 ======================================================================== a1) Improper heading (see http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/584/S07/pospaper5.html#header for the correct format): -1 pt per error! a2) Incorrect use of "true", "false", "valid", "invalid", "sound", "unsound", "argument", "premise", "conclusion", etc.: -1 pt per error! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ b1) List of premises & conclusion for Pro's argument: 3 = * clearly stated argument, * premises & conclusion clearly identified, * prems & conc clearly derived from dialogue 2 = neither clearly 3 nor 1 1 = arg not clearly presented or not clearly derived from dialogue 0 = missing b2) Evaluation of validity of Pro's argument: 0 = missing 1 = invalid, no explanation 2 = invalid, weak explanation 3 = valid XOR invalid + good explanation why (including addition of any missing premises) b3) Evaluation of truth-value of Pro's premises: 0 = missing 2 = for most premises: truth-value not stated OR no or weak reasons given 4 = for some premises: truth-value not stated OR no or weak reason given 6 = for each premises: truth-value clearly stated & good reasons given [Note: Because of my "quantum" scheme of grading, it is not possible to get 1,3, or 5 points!] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ b4) Evaluation of truth-value of Pro's conclusion: 0 = missing 1 = arg not sound, but no clear statement of truth-value of conc & no or weak reason given 2 = neither clearly 1 nor 3 3 = if arg sound, then say so; else say whether you believe conc & give clear reason why c1) List of premises & conclusion for Con's argument: 0,1,2,3 pts as above c2) Evaluation of validity of Con's argument: 0,1,2,3 pts as above c3) Evaluation of truth-value of Con's premises: 0,2,4,6 pts as above c4) Evaluation of truth-value of Con's conclusion: 0,1,2,3 pts as above ======================================================================== 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+ 26-27 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 "quantum-triage" 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 or in person.