I finished grading papers for Project #1 a few minutes ago. I'll hand them back on Monday, and we'll probably spend 10-15 minutes talking about some of the ideas that emerged in the papers.
I'll explain the numerical scheme I use for grading again tomorrow, but for reference purposes, here it is:
95-100: Almost perfect. Strongly argued paper that identifies a single key issue and analyzes it. Brings appropriate evidence to bear. Acknowledges limitations/tradeoffs as appropriate. My draw on specific biological examples.
90-94: Excellent. Well argued paper. Falls short of being “almost perfect” in one or two ways, typically by not recognizing some important limitations/tradeoffs, not being quite as clear in issue identification, or getting a minor point wrong.
85-89: Very good. A well argued paper. Falls short of being “excellent” (a) by falling short three or four ways, (b) falling short in one or two ways more seriously, or (c) being wrong or mistaken about a point that is important, but not central.
80-84: Good. A paper whose argument is weaker than it could be. Either relevant evidence is not brought forward as effectively, the paper diverges from the assigned topic to areas that are related but less relevant, or significant mistakes about key points are made.
75-79: Competent. A paper whose argument is weak, combining two of the faults that would make a paper “good” or having one fault in a more serious form.
70-74: Acceptable. A paper that combines three or more faults that would make a paper “good” or having two in a more serious form.
<70: Fortunately, students in this course have (so far) always performed acceptably or better. I haven't had to woory about scores in this range.
End of semester averages will be translated to letter grades as follows:
95-100: A+
90-94: A
85-89: A-
80-84: B+
75-79: B
70-74: B-
<70: I do not expect to have to assign letter grades for scores in this range.