All grades are reported on a percentage scale.
Grades ranged from .70 to .95; means were .85 (651.1) and .87 (651.2)
A check mark in the margin denotes a comment or argument in the writing which is particularly insightful or which demonstrates movement beyond the bounds of the assignment--which is not a bad thing.
A question mark in the margin means the point is unclear.
Poor editing affects assignment grades. In some cases sentence constructions were so unclear that the thread of the argument was altogether lost. In such extreme instances no grade above .70 is justified.For future papers (I know I'm sounding a bit `anal' here, but...with over 130 students, accounting for paper/grades can be a nightmare):
* each paper shall include, at the top of the first page, the following:So much for the technical information. On to content.-correct student ID#* grades will be reported only for students officially enrolled in the class
-correct MAILBOX#
-a BLANK LINE for the grade
* one technical error (grammar, punctuation, or spelling) is permitted; more than one technical error will result in a grade of .80 or less. There is no excuse for lack of professionalism. I hereby exempt grammar, punctuation, and spelling from the conditions of the Honor Code; avail yourself of whatever help you need as far as technical presentation is concerned.
* each paper is to include the Rice Honor Code statement, signed with the student's ID#. Don't make up a new statement.With respect to Mindwalk and the Honor Code, I would have liked to have seen parallels drawn between the two--both emphasize interconnectedness, for example--as well as meaningful distinctions drawn--the Honor Code emphasizes individual effort, while Mindwalk stresses the gestalt. Many of you focused on the parallels, ignoring completely the text of the Honor Code statement you wrote on the assignment--a text which belies the collective nature of the pursuit of knowledge. And many drew worthwhile distinctions between the collaborative nature of Honor Code enforcement and the individual nature of the wording of the signed statement.
As far as Lux's criticism of Smith...many of you focused on Lux's claim that self-interestedness and selfishness are the same, and took exception with Lux. This was one weakness with Lux's argument. Several of you overlooked Lux's main point, which was that Smith's `butcher, baker' statement was inconsistent with his prior work due to the omission of the word `only.' This point should have been covered.
Keep in mind that I did not ask for a summary of Lux, Mindwalk, or the Honor Code. Nor did I ask for what you believed, felt, or supposed. I want you to take a strong position in these papers, and more importantly to provide a rational defense for your position.
If you received a .95 on the first paper, I would ask that you forward me an electronic version (an e-mail attachment, text-only file) so that I can post these (anonymously, of course) to the course website. These exemplars will be useful to the rest of the class.
Return to Professor Dunn's home page.