As I'm sitting here going over the grading rubric for position
paper #2 I seem to have come up with one or two grievances regarding the
grading schema. First, I'm missing the purpose of explicitly stating ones
agreement with each premise and conclusion. The task at hand is to evaluate the
If one finds the argument problematic,
one ideally need not state each premise they agree with and
Rather, they only need exemplify the problems with the argument.
If the thesis of said paper is "Argument X is problematic",
stating the truth/validity of the agreeable premises seems
at best to be a waste of space and time,
and at worst a detraction from the argument/thesis.
The second, albeit much less important grievance,
regards the difference in grade assignment between 484/584.
According to the points to letter function,
I'd be better off taking the course for graduate credit
and receive a safety net converting a D+/C- into a straight C.
Granted, there may be harsher points loss system imposed on those
taking it for graduate credit.
If this is the case, then my argument would seem to fizzle.
Now granted, I don't take my grade in a given to course to be the
end all be all of that class.
On the contrary in fact.
However, as I see it, the grading schema is inherently much like
the syllabus(if not part of).
It guides the course, direction, and manner of study.
Given that I suffer from the finite time problem,
what guides this path of study is of significant importance.
In some sense I have the disposition to say that the rubric is all
syntax and no semantics.
(Say what you want about Syntax comprising Semantics)
If this were a math course, I might grant more leeway in my
However, I find this course to be on a fundamentally different
plane of existence
than what is typically considered a math course.
Namely, it appears I'm being tested on my ability to follow a
and not my mastery of conceptual material.
The latter I find to be of much greater importance,
and dare I say, the functional maxim of an educational