Subject: MIDSEMESTER COURSE EVALUATIONS From: "William J. Rapaport" Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:54:02 -0400 (EDT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: MIDSEMESTER COURSE EVALUATION SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you for your comments on the midsemester course evaluation. I have received 9 (so far), out of a possible 32, so I'm not sure how statistically valid any of the summaries are. Without a doubt, the biggest change you'd like to see is..."nothing", and the main thing you like is..."everything" (those are quotes :-). Thanks! But that's not to say there's no room for improvement. Reading: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Several of you wanted fewer readings, some wanted easier readings. But others of you seemed quite happy with the readings, both in terms of quantity and quality. I think I'm probably steering a middle course. Previous versions of this course had many more readings, which I've tried to cut down. (This is why I triaged them into "required", "strongly recommended", and "recommended".) I'll try to keep the future reading lists shorter. But there's just so much good stuff that I think you'd like to read! Peer Editing: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I got the most positive feedback on the peer editing; I'm glad that many of you find it useful. It's something I've done before, and it's one of the few ways to guarantee that almost everyone participates in some way. I also think it's useful (and fun) to listen to what others have to say. I hope you also come to find it fun to *analyze* and *evaluate* what they have to say (and to make sure that what *you* have to say can stand up to *their* analysis and evaluation :-) Most people who write for a living try to get colleagues to read their papers and suggest improvements. When you give a paper at a conference or present your work to your co-workers or bosses, it's good to have had a "dry run" to get rid of the bugs. That's the idea behind peer editing. Position-Paper Grading: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ But, as long as we're on the topic, let's talk about the grading of the position papers, which is another main area for improvement that you suggested. Some of you felt that I downgrade papers that disagree with my positions. If I did, that was a coincidence. I only downgrade papers that don't analyze arguments well. Note from the rubric that I give equal points for agreeing *or* disagreeing with a premise; I only give lower points if you neglect to state or defend your position. When grading the position papers, I try for as much objectivity as I can in an admittedly subjective enterprise. Accordingly, I try to grade on whether you're adequately analyzing the arguments rather than on whether you're "right" or "wrong". This may seem "formulaic", as a couple of students suggested: not allowing for expression of new ideas. That's right: You should think of argument analyses more like logic exercises than creative writing; you can be more creative in a term paper or on the final exam. (And if you think it's hard to grade "formulaic" papers, I can guarantee you that it's much harder to grade more creative ones--and harder to be fair, too.) Another complaint (not a common one) along these lines was that you put a lot of hard work into your position papers and should get an accordingly high grade. As fair as that might seem, that doesn't work in practice. Suppose there are two programmers who both get paid by the hour, one of whom writes useful code quickly and one of whom writes buggy code slowly. Should the second one get paid as highly as the first? My grades are given on the basis of whether or not you analyzed the argument using the proper tools, not on whether or not you agreed with it and not on how long it took you. Some of you would like more feedback on your papers. With 32 papers to read every couple of weeks, that's a bit hard to do, though I'll try harder. But, as some of you already know, I'm perfectly willing to re-read your paper and give you more detailed feedback if you think I've been unfair or misunderstood something, and you can always come talk to me in my office. (I don't bite.) There will be an opportunity to revise at least one paper, and, if you opt for the term paper (there's still time, but not much!) or the final exam, that gives you more opportunity to improve your grade. Discussion: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some of you would like to see more class discussion; others are happy with the amount there is, including the discussions during peer-editing sessions. If you want more discussion in class, the ball's in your court: Speak up! Topics and organization: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You seem happy with the topics (yes, some of you would like to see other topics, but there's only so much that can be covered, and there's a lot to be covered). I hope that the topics we do cover will give you a good foundation for further reading in topics that we don't get to. You seem to like the general organization, and you're one of the first classes with no complaints about my frequent emails :-) In general, many (if not most) of you seem happy with the way the course is going in general, with the topics, the readings, the assignments... and with me :-) So, thanks again. I will try to take your ideas into account to improve the second half of the course. If any of you would like to discuss any of these issues further, either privately or via email, please feel free. And if I get more evaluations this week that contain other observations, I'll try to address them.