From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Mar 20 21:15:12 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 l2L1FCCG014939 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2L1BBwR089791 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15540 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 01:11:11 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 01:11:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 8616 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 01:11:11 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 01:11:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 18850 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 01:10:59 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 01:10:59 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3976948 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:10:59 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 12110 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 01:10:59 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 01:10:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 15810 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 01:10:58 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 01:10:58 -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 l2L1Aw7E014851 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2L1AwXd014850 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:10:58 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: X: 10% Message-ID: <200703210110.l2L1AwXd014850@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:10:58 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER #1 REGRADED 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 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2883/Tue Mar 20 18:49:34 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 4914 As I hinted, I have re-graded Position Paper 1. I did this, because I realized that my grading rubric for Position Paper 2 was better and that it could be adapted for PP1. Here's how I did this: A. There were 4 things I was looking for: evaluation of premise 1 evaluation of premise 2 evaluation of validity evaluation of conclusion B. Therefore, each should have been worth the same number of points, namely 6. But he first grading rubric I devised gave 9 points to the evaluation of validity (which involved identifying the missing premise). C. So I revised the grading scheme as follows: ======================================================================== Position Paper #1 Grading Rubric REVISED Version: 5 Mar 07 ======================================================================== 1. Premise 1: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or disagreed with it? 3 pts = clearly stated whether you agreed 2 pts = stated, but incorrect terminology 0 pts = did not clearly state whether you agreed (doesn't matter whether you agreed or didn't agree, only with whether you said so) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? 3 = reasons given, clearly stated & pertinent 2 = partial credit: I couldn't decide between 1 & 3 1 = reasons given, but not clearly stated or not pertinent 0 = no reasons ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Premise 2: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or disagreed with it? 0, 2, or 3, as for Premise 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? 0,1,2, or 3, as for Premise 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW 5. Valid? no answer: 0 yes; XOR no, but no MP: 1 no, with wrong MP: 2 no, with right MP: 3 (MP [Missing Premise] = computers are not natural phenomena) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW 6. Evaluation of MP (agree? why?): 0,1,2,3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Conclusion: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or disagreed with it? 3 = clearly stated whether you agreed 2 = stated whether you agreed, but did NOT state whether it follows validly from premises 0 = did not clearly state whether you agreed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? 0,1,2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW The total is 24 points, which, following my grading theory, maps into letter grades as follows: letter CSE484 both CSE/PHI584 A 24 A- 22-23 B+ 21 B 20 B- 18-19 C+ 17 C 14-16 9-16 C- 12-13 D+ 9-11 D 5-8 F 0-4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ D. The only thing that changed was items 6 and 7. Before, there were three parts, worth 3 points each; now there are only 2 parts, worth 3 points each, so that the total of 6 points matches the other items. This way of doing things allows me to regrade your papers without re-reading them, because identifying the MP is equivalent to realizing that the argument is invalid. So, I was able to convert 3 scores to 2 scores as follows, where "xyz" means that, before, you had x points on identifying the MP, y points on stating whether you agreed with it, and z points for giving your reasons; and "ab" means that, after, you had "a" points for determining validity (#5 above) and "b" points for evaluating the MP (#6 above). The conversion table goes as follows: "before" "after" xyz ab 000 00 100 10 201 21 222 22 233 23 300 30 312 32 323 32 330 32 331 32 333 33 E. The new total possible score is 24, which compresses the letter grades, moving some up, keeping some the same, but also moving some down! To be fair, I will give you the higher of the two grades. F. I can't publicize grades (it's illegal), so I'll email you iff your grade *increased*. If you don't get an email from me about this, it will mean that your new grade was either the same or lower :-) If you're really curious, you can email me and I'll tell you what your grades are.