From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Mar 22 11:00:55 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 l2MF0tXe024453 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.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 l2MF0o5E021810 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:00:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8721 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2007 15:00:50 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Mar 2007 15:00:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 22052 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2007 15:00:50 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Mar 2007 15:00:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 3158 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2007 15:00:44 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Mar 2007 15:00:44 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4021639 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:00:44 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 14142 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2007 15:00:43 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Mar 2007 15:00:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 15923 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2007 15:00:42 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 22 Mar 2007 15:00:42 -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 l2MF0gkO024438 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2MF0gEf024437 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:00:42 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703221500.l2MF0gEf024437@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:00:42 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: PP3 GRADING RUBRIC 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 1335; 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 0.88.6/2904/Thu Mar 22 07:03:31 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 3476 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: PP3 GRADING RUBRIC ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To help you in your revision of PP3, here is a draft (we reserve the right to modify it slightly if needed) of the grading rubric for it. One terminological reminder: sentences can be true or false (or you can agree or disagree with them) arguments (which are sequences of sentences) can be valid or invalid (they can be sound or unsound, too) conclusions of arguments can *follow validly* or *not follow validly* from the premises of the argument Therefore: sentences cannot be valid or invalid, or sound or unsound arguments cannot be true or false ======================================================================== Position Paper #3 Grading Rubric Version: 8 Mar 07 ======================================================================== 1. Prem 1 (Knuth's "definition" of "algorithm") agree? why? 0 = no answer 1 = answer, no reason 2 = answer, unclear reason 3 = answer, clear reason ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Prem 2 (Prog langs implement algorithms) agree? why? 0,1,2,3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Prem 3 (Prog langs are equiv to TM prog lang) agree? why? 0,1,2,3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Prem 4 (Some real comp progs violate Knuth's def) agree? why? 0,1,2,3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Conc 5 (So, such progs don't implement TMs) valid? 0 = no answer 1 = invalid, no explanation 2 = invalid, weak explanation 3 = valid XOR invalid + good explanation why agree? why? 0,1,2,3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Conc 6 (So, such progs are not computable) valid? 0 = no answer 1 = invalid, no explanation 2 = invalid, weak explanation 3 = valid XOR invalid + good explanation why agree? why? 0,1,2,3 ======================================================================== 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On my grading scheme, "A" means "understood the material for all practical purposes", (here, that's 24 pts = 8 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 16 pts = 8 * 2 pts partial credit) "D" means "did not understand the material, (here, that's 8 pts = 8 * 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.