Subject: Position Paper #2 From: "William J. Rapaport" Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:24:43 -0500 (EST) 1. Please don't forget to staple your peer-edited first drafts of PP2 to your revision, and include somewhere the names of your peer editors. 2. If you did not hand in a copy of your first draft in class today, please email it to me, or give it to me on Wednesday. Any emailed document should be named "YOURLASTNAME-IDENTIFIER.FORMAT", e.g., rapaport-positionpaper2.pdf 3. Attached as a plain-text document 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. PhilCS 4/584, Spring 2010 Position Paper #2 Grading Rubric Version: 20 Feb 10 ======================================================================== 1. Prem 1 (Knuth's characterization of "algorithm") agree? why? 0 = no answer 1 = answer, no reason 2 = answer, unclear reason 3 = answer, clear reason ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Prem 2 (Prog langs express/implement algorithms) agree? why? 0,1,2,3, as above ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Prem 3 (Prog langs are equiv to TM prog lang) agree? why? 0,1,2,3, as above ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Prem 4 (Some real comp progs violate Knuth's def) agree? why? 0,1,2,3, as above ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Conc 5 (So, such progs don't implement TMs) 1..4/.'.5 valid? Why? 0 = no answer 1 = answer, no explanation 2 = answer, weak explanation 3 = answer, good explanation agree w/ 5? why? 0,1,2,3, as for 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Conc 6 (So, such progs are not computable) 5/.'.6 valid? Why? 0 = no answer 1 = answer, no explanation 2 = answer, weak explanation 3 = answer, good explanation agree w/6? why? 0,1,2,3, as for 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Citation style: used sources w/o citing -3 used sources w/ incomp & incorrect citation -2 used sources w/ incomp XOR incorrect citation -1 not applicable 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Attached draft 1 & list of peer editors to demo that draft 2 <> draft 1? 0 Didn't -1 ======================================================================== The total is 24 points, which, following my grading theory, maps into letter grades as follows: letter CSE484 both CSE/PHI584 A 23-24 A- 22 B+ 21 B 19-20 B- 18 C+ 17 C 14-16 9-16 C- 11-13 D+ 9-10 D 5-8 F 0-4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------