Assessment

• Extra credit is not a routine element of grading, and I do not entertain individual requests for extra credit assignments – not during the class and especially not after it is over. However…
  • If there happens to be a relevant UD event, it may be announced as an extra credit opportunity. (And if you notice a good event, please let me know!)
  • I often find myself inspired to give out extra credit in recognition of exemplary class citizenship.

• Main consideration: Did you help enrich the class experience for everyone?
  • Join the conversation, say what you think and (more importantly) why you think it.
• There are two main ways to contribute – the best students do both:
  • Join the discussion in class:
    • Ask ‘silly’ questions and speak up when you don’t understand.
    • Question and challenge class readings, your colleagues, and your professor.
    • Try out your own view.
  • Most class meetings have an online participation option using the class topics set up in Canvas@UD discussions:
    • Post a very brief summary of some aspect of a discussion you’ve had about the reading for the upcoming class.
      • Classmates, friends, family, and innocent bystanders are all fair game for discussion.
      • Discussion with AI is fine too.
      • Don’t book-report the whole exchange, just review a bit of the back and forth that stood out to you.
      • After you make your initial post, you will be able to read and respond to other people’s posts for additional participation credit. (Mere agreement or repetition do not count.)
      • Note:
        • Online discussions close the night before the corresponding class – plan ahead!
        • Check you are posting in the correct thread – misplaced posts will be deleted to avoid confusing the discussion.
• How to claim your participation credit.
  • In person:
    • Make a note when you say something during class, then email me a bulleted list after class. Give follow up questions and comments their own bullet – it all counts.
      • Use this email subject line:
        • ‘Participation’ + class code + section number.
          E.g. “Participation PHIL123010”.
          Do not omit section number!
      • Body of email:
        • The date(s) of the class(es) for which you are listing your participation.
        • A bulleted or numbered summary list of things you said in each class.
          E.g.
          • Reminded you to explain the upcoming assignment.
          • Suggested the paper was arguing by analogy.
          • Asked what you meant by something being a necessary but not sufficient condition.
          • Questioned your example of a necessary but insufficient condition.
        • Do not include anything other than your participation notification as it will probably be missed. If you have other questions, send a separate email.
    • To ensure full credit:
      • Send your email the day of class.
      • Use the exact format stated above.
      • Late or wrongly formatted notifications will probably be counted if the relevant information is clear – but no guarantees.
  • On Canvas:
    • No need to do anything other than post to the discussion. Your count will be tracked on Canvas.
    • Although pinned Canvas discussions will appear in your Canvas To-Do and Calendar, these are not formal assignments – formal assignments are all listed under Syllabus > Assessment.
• Scoring:
  • This is easy credit – don’t let it slip by!
  • Scoring is structured to handsomely reward consistent participation throughout the semester.
    • It is perfectly possible to max out participation with two or three contributions to each class. (And 100% on your participation score is a big help for your overall grade.)
    • A missed class here and there needn’t matter, but don’t expect to make up a lot of ground by frantic posting late in the semester.
    • There is no allowance or adjustment for absence, even excused absence.
  • The ‘quality’ of your contribution is not an issue – all that matters is having a go.
  • Mere attendance does not help your participation grade.

• You have two aims in writing an abstract: to help busy researchers browsing journal contents for relevant papers; and to make the paper sound worth reading. Therefore, a good abstract will state the main point of the paper and the author’s strategy for defending that point, and it will do so clearly, concisely, accurately, and engagingly.
  • Pretend you are the author(s), writing about your own work.
  • Do not waste space repeating the title, author’s name, or anything else abstract readers will already know.
  • An abstract is pure exegesis: there should be no commentary, critique, or evaluative language. If it ain’t in the paper, it don’t belong in the abstract – just the facts ma’am.
  • It is fine – standard practice even – to quote or adapt text from the body of the paper in the abstract.
  • Unlike writing papers, there’s no need to cite sources or page numbers in an abstract. But, if you do use language from the text, make sure you put it in quotes.
• !!! See ‘Timetable’ for word limits.
  • Word limits are strictly enforced (just as in real life) – a single word over will affect your grade.
• Grading:
  • A: An accurate, precise, and concise statement of the paper’s thesis and argumentative strategy. (Look them up if you are not clear on the ‘accuracy’ / ‘precision’ distinction.) Prioritizes core aspects of the paper within the constraints of word limits. The best abstracts will do their best to make the paper look worth reading. Readily comprehensible to a smart middle-schooler.
  • B: There may be some minor inaccuracy or imprecision. Wordy (even if under the word limit). Not clearly prioritizing the most significant aspects of the paper, or wandering off the purely exegetical task. Not readily comprehensible to someone not already familiar with the paper.
  • C: Though on the right lines, the abstract is significantly confusing or misleading due to inaccuracy, imprecision, obscurity, or irrelevance. Unclear, even to someone whose already read the paper.
• Submit via Canvas@UD.

• Groups:
  • Work in a self-assigned group of 5-ish people. (Must be at least 3 for class participation credit.)
  • You are welcome, though not required, to pre-arrange groups and lay some groundwork ahead of time. (But don’t be surprised if someone needs to add to your pre-arranged group at class time – make them welcome.)
• Before class:
  • Review the assignment instructions.
  • Do any background research that might help with the project.
  • Prepare any materials you will need to have ready for class.
  • Think about how to make an effective contribution to your group.
• During class:
  • Show up on time and join a group (if you haven’t pre-arranged a group).
  • Google docs are usually a good collaboration tool.
  • You are welcome to hail me if you have any questions during class.
• If you are late to class:
  • Don’t be!
  • If you are up to 5 minutes late, check in with me and you might be able to join a group in progress.
  • If you are more than 5 minutes late, do not interrupt an existing group. You will need to complete an individual assignment by the deadline.
• If you are not in class for any reason:
  • You are responsible for submitting your own, individual assignment before the deadline.
• Submission:
  • Submit in class via Canvas@UD.
    • Issues with Canvas@UD – submit via email or a Canvas@UD message.
  • !!! Make sure the submitted document lists…
    • Authors: FULL names of all and only those who made a good faith effort to make a substantive contribution to the project. (Merely showing up or purely administrative tasks, like typing what others say, does not count as a substantive contribution.)
    • Contributions: State, in a few words, the nature of each person’s preparation and substantive contribution, even if it didn’t end up in the final product. E.g. came with a rough draft, made editorial suggestions, caught an error, helped keep the group on task, etc. This info is crucial for getting credit for the assignment and for the day’s class participation credit. (If you are pushed for time, submit the assignment on time and email me the contributions list later.)
  • !!! It is the responsibility of every group member to ensure correct and on-time submission.
    • It is best if every group member makes an identical submission.
    • But you’ll still get full credit as long as at least one person makes an on-time submission with all authors listed.

• You know you can make them, but can you demolish them? Your mission is:
  • Find a truly terrible argument on the web.
  • Set out the essence of the argument.
  • State the main thing that is wrong with your target argument, and explain why the problem is fatal.
• General guidance:
  • Preparation:
    • Familiarize yourself with these instructions, the worksheet (see below), and review these examples of what to do and what not to do.
    • Find a candidate bad argument or two well ahead of time, and have at least a general sense for how you would complete the assignment for your target bad argument.
    • Feel free to ask about potential arguments ahead of time in class or in office hours.
  • Completing the assignment:
    • Start by having every group member give a very concise presentation of their candidate bad argument, so that the group can decide which one to pick.
    • Use this Bad Argument Assignment Worksheet. Read the worksheet carefully as you complete it – it contains lots of checks against common mistakes, so don’t ignore them.
    • Submit via Canvas@UD.
  • !!! DO NOT use a source that is presenting and discussing your target as an example of a bad argument. This is plagiarism and will result in an automatic zero.
  • Common mistakes include:
    • Picking a target that may be a silly opinion but does not make an argument. If there’s no argument, there can’t be a bad argument.
    • Picking a target that’s talking about an argument someone else is making.
    • Misrepresenting the target.
    • Quibbling about assumptions being unsupported or being opinions – assumptions are unsupported by their nature and opinions can be right – Say what’s clearly wrong!
• Grading:
  • A:
    • Exegesis: You correctly identify the specific conclusion of the target argument. You clearly and explicitly set out each step of the target argument. You justify each step, especially those not explicitly stated in the source.
    • Thesis: You clearly identify a specific problem with the stated argument, with no distraction from the core issue.
    • Argument: You make a strong case that the specific problem you have identified is fatal to the argument. (This may be easy if you have a clear target, and it really is gloriously bad.)
    • Style: You present everything in a way that will make both what the argument is and why it doesn’t work clear to a middle schooler.
  • B:
    • Exegesis: You state a reasonable interpretation of the conclusion of the target argument. You give a reasonable interpretation of the target argument with minimal irrelevance to distract from the key points. You give reasonable justifications for your interpretation, though maybe leaving some scope for your target
    • Thesis: You raise a reasonable potential issue for the argument, but may not be clearly focusing on one specific point.
    • Argument: You make a plausible case that the problem you have identified is a genuine issue for your target argument, but it may not be obvious that it is truly fatal.
    • Style: The essential substance is stated but may be hard for a middle schooler to follow.
  • C:
    • Exegesis: Your interpretation of the conclusion of the target argument is unclear or off-base. Your account of the essence of the target argument is missing key steps, listing claims without clear connections or justification, or throwing in things that aren’t there in the source.
    • Thesis: The issue you raise is unclear or does not look like a big problem for the target argument (e.g. attacking a claim your opponent is not making, quibbling about a side-issue, or focusing on a minor point that could easily be addressed without serious impact on the overall argument). You raise a bunch of points, but it’s not clear why they matter or difficult to see what you are really committing to.
    • Argument: Your defense of your thesis is unclear or unconvincing. You may be giving your opponent easy ways to counter your critique.
    • Style: Your writing is hard to understand even for someone familiar with critiquing arguments.

• Groups:
  • Work in a self-assigned group of 5-ish people. (Must be at least 3 for class participation credit.)
  • You are welcome, though not required, to pre-arrange groups and lay some groundwork ahead of time. (But don’t be surprised if someone needs to add to your pre-arranged group at class time – make them welcome.)
• Before class:
  • Review the assignment instructions.
  • Do any background research that might help with the project.
  • Prepare any materials you will need to have ready for class.
  • Think about how to make an effective contribution to your group.
• During class:
  • Show up on time and join a group (if you haven’t pre-arranged a group).
  • Google docs are usually a good collaboration tool.
  • You are welcome to hail me if you have any questions during class.
• If you are late to class:
  • Don’t be!
  • If you are up to 5 minutes late, check in with me and you might be able to join a group in progress.
  • If you are more than 5 minutes late, do not interrupt an existing group. You will need to complete an individual assignment by the deadline.
• If you are not in class for any reason:
  • You are responsible for submitting your own, individual assignment before the deadline.
• Submission:
  • Submit in class via Canvas@UD.
    • Issues with Canvas@UD – submit via email or a Canvas@UD message.
  • !!! Make sure the submitted document lists…
    • Authors: FULL names of all and only those who made a good faith effort to make a substantive contribution to the project. (Merely showing up or purely administrative tasks, like typing what others say, does not count as a substantive contribution.)
    • Contributions: State, in a few words, the nature of each person’s preparation and substantive contribution, even if it didn’t end up in the final product. E.g. came with a rough draft, made editorial suggestions, caught an error, helped keep the group on task, etc. This info is crucial for getting credit for the assignment and for the day’s class participation credit. (If you are pushed for time, submit the assignment on time and email me the contributions list later.)
  • !!! It is the responsibility of every group member to ensure correct and on-time submission.
    • It is best if every group member makes an identical submission.
    • But you’ll still get full credit as long as at least one person makes an on-time submission with all authors listed.

You have caught the eye of philosophical talent scouts who have invited you to propose a response paper for presentation at a philosophy conference and, ultimately, for publication in the conference proceedings. (If the thrill of philosophical glory isn’t enough, imagine that accepted proposals come with a large cash prize and a lifetime’s supply of really good chocolate.)

• For your final project you will develop an original, substantive, philosophical contribution to an ongoing conversation.
  • ‘Original’ does not have to mean taking a new position on a big question. More likely it will be a new argument for or interpretation of an existing position. Even more likely, it will be a new critique of someone else’s view.
  • ‘Substantive’ does not mean you must solve the problem, end the debate, or have the last word: it does mean you must advance the conversation and not just review it. You should be defending a point that is significant, not obvious, and/or something about which reasonable people might disagree.
  • ‘Philosophical’ could mean defending your view on a philosophical question, but I am just as happy if you want to apply a philosophical approach to other issues, such as public policy.
• The stages of development of your final project are the typical stages of development of professional philosophical projects:
  • Come up with and sell an idea. (The Proposal.)
  • Develop the idea, present it, and get feedback. (The Presentation.)
  • Draft your paper and get more feedback. (The First Version.)
  • Redraft in response to feedback. (The Final Version.)
• A note on grading standards:
  • You will be held to the same, high standard for both the first and final versions of your paper (though do check the ‘Guaranteed Grade’ note in the Assessment details for the Final Version).
  • However, this is a challenging project on a tight timeline, and you will not be expected to have everything worked out by the time of your proposal or presentation (especially for those presenting early), and grading standards will be appropriately forgiving at those stages. You can get a good grade in your proposal or presentation with a pellucid presentation of a plausible plan to deliver a promising project. However, it is vital not to allow a good grade at these early stages to lull you into complacency: you still have to deliver. A poor early grade is a clear warning, but a good grade does not mean you are nearly done, and even an A grade proposal or presentation can easily fizzle if you are not careful.
• See ‘Timetable’ for word guidance.
  • Word guidance is approximate: it is not a target you must reach, nor should you fret if you run a bit over. If you’ve said what you planned to say, stop. Please resist the urge to ramble on, even if you do find yourself well under the word guidance. Maybe your point wasn’t all that challenging, more likely you need to fill out your argument: either way neither waffle nor bolting on a second paper idea will help. (Think of it as multiplication rather than addition: two half-baked papers do not make one fully-baked paper, they make a quarter-baked paper.)

• Proposal
  • Your proposal is your first official step in the development of your final project.
  • Your immediate audience is the Conference Selection Committee: like you, they will be smart and interested in ideas but cannot be assumed to be specialists in your field or to have read the paper to which you are responding, therefore, you will need to bring them up to speed with clear, concise, relevant exegesis. No one expects you to have everything worked out at this stage, but you should be able to convey a clear understanding of the issue you are addressing and show that you have a credible plan to make and defend a substantive point.
• Grading
  
  • A: There is a focused, and challenging thesis. Concise and well-targeted exegesis explains the essentials of the conversation you are contributing to and the significance of your contribution. There is a credible plan for defending the thesis. The writing is clear and readily comprehensible for a non-specialist.
  • B: There is a promising idea, even if a precise thesis hasn’t yet come fully into focus. Exegesis is free of serious error but it may leave the conversational context or the significance of your contribution a little vague or unclear. The plan for defending the thesis may be unclear or not all that promising. The writing is readily comprehensible to readers with prior expertise but may not be readily accessible to new readers.
  • C: The thesis may be vague or unclear. Exegesis may be obscure, misleading, or erroneous in a significant way. The plan for defending the thesis may be obscure or mistaken. The writing may be difficult, even for readers with prior expertise.
• Submit via Canvas@UD.

• Default strategy (for your own protection):
  • Pick a paper we have covered in class and write a response to a specific argument within that paper.
  • It is easiest to respond to an argument that you:
    • Understand.
    • Find challenging.
    • Disagree with.
  • Another option is to give additional support on a specific point, but be careful that you don’t just repeat what someone else has already said.
  • It is very difficult to say anything substantive about an argument that does not challenge you
  • Be prepared to tighten your focus as your research progresses.
  • Be prepared to change your mind as your research progresses.
  • If you are in any doubt about whether you are on a good track, ask me!
• Departing from the default:
  • If you want to depart from the default, you should check with me first.
  • Email me a proposal at least a week before this deadline. Your proposal will:
    • Specify your target paper and attach a copy if it was not a class reading.
    • Give a 150 word abstract of your target.
    • State the specific argument that you will address within that paper and give some indication of how you plan to address it.
•  Remember!
  • You are making a focused contribution to an ongoing conversation: not trying to have the last word or to cover everything in your target paper.

• You are very welcome, though not required, to collaborate as coauthors (in groups of up to three) on any or all stages of your final project. Group members will be co-authors on joint submissions of written work and co-presenters for the presentation. All will get the same grade.
• Productive collaborations enhance the experience for everyone and promotes high quality work. But collaborations can also be a pain in the butt. So…
  • Make sure you are all clear on the expectations from the start. This includes substantive stuff like topic selection and also practical stuff like schedule matching, time commitments, and meeting mode and frequency.
• Groups may change at any stage of project development.
  • For example:
    • You might see that someone is working on a similar project to you when they give their presentation and decide to join forces for the paper writing.
    • You might be in a group for the proposal and presentation, but decide to develop the final paper in different directions.
    • As things turn out, you might not be able to find times you can all meet and need to continue independently for that reason.
    • Occasionally someone stops coming to group meetings, stops contributing, or becomes unreachable. Remaining group members should make a reasonable and timely effort to let that person know they will need to make subsequent submissions independently.
  • If a group parts ways, everyone gets to take the shared work thus far and develop it independently or in a sub-group.
• Submitting co-authored work:
  • All submitted work must list the names of all coauthors, along with a brief statement of each person’s contribution to the project.
    • Only those who made substantive contributions to the current submission should be listed as coauthors. For example, someone who contributed ideas and helped with the writing on the first version should be credited as a coauthor on the first version. However, if, for whatever reason, they are not fully involved seeing the revision process through to the final version, they should be acknowledged for their earlier work, but not credited as a coauthor on the final version.
  • Only one submission is needed for the group, but it is every group member’s responsibility to makes sure that happens – ‘Someone else was supposed to submit’ is not an excuse. Therefore, it is sensible practice for all coauthors to submit identical copies of written work.
• Even if you are working alone, it is a very good idea to team up with another person or group to read and give feedback on each others work.

• Your purpose:
  • To get feedback that will help you advance your progress towards a great final paper.
  • Think about what will be useful to you, given where you are at the time of your presentation:
    • Those presenting early in the schedule may still be thinking about what their exact topic should be. They should at least have narrowed things down to a short list of options and are likely to be seeking feedback on which is the more promising of one or two candidate thesis ideas.
    • Those presenting towards the end of the schedule (and some of those presenting early) will already have settled on a thesis and argument strategy. They should be seeking feedback on a more detailed exposition of their idea and the argument for it.
• Presentation format:
  • Briefly review relevant exegetical groundwork to help orient your audience. (No need to repeat was others have just said if you find yourself following someone working on a related topic.)
  • Explain where you are in your process and the kind of feedback you are looking for.
  • Lead and engage in a class discussion of your ideas. Part of your task is to keep discussion focused on your topic – for example, you might have occasion to say something along the lines of, ‘That’s an interesting question but it’s not the issue we’re focusing on.’
  • Keep your prepared remarks very concise (comfortably under 10 mins) to leave time for discussion.
• PowerPoint etc.
  • Use PowerPoint only if it will help you explain yourself more clearly and efficiently. (But bear in mind that it is seldom all that helpful for short presentations and can slow things down.)
• Grading:
  • A: Delivery is audible and engaging. There is a clear point to your presentation, such that it is clear where you are and the kind of feedback you are looking for even if your ideas are still evolving. You provide appropriate exegesis to clearly set the scene for your project and bring people less familiar with your issue up to speed. You lead a productive discussion, encouraging critical feedback, listening carefully and engaging in the conversation with thoughtful responses, while keeping things focused on your task.
  • B: Delivery may be rushed or lacking in focus. There may be a lack of clarity about what you most need feedback on. Discussion may drift or you may appear to be somewhat missing the point of audience comments.
  • C: Delivery is very unclear or lacking focus, and does not get much clearer in response to questions. You give the impression that you haven’t put much thought in or that you may be hoping someone else will suggest a good topic for you. Not actively engaging in discussion, for example noting questions or thanking people for comments without responding to the content of what they are saying.

Congratulations, your proposal was accepted. Now you have to write the dratted thing.

• Review the general info and advice for your final project under the ‘Proposal’ instructions, above.
• Grading – Remember the Four Key Philosophical Skills:
  • A: Precise, accurate, and relevant exegesis efficiently brings new readers up to speed on what they need to know about the existing conversation. An original, challenging, and well-focused thesis is supported by strong argument that  should persuade someone who doesn’t already agree with you that they should at least think again. Everything is presented clearly, with good a narrative structure. (Generally, your paper should be accessible to a smart middle schooler with no prior knowledge of the issue.) Most A-grade papers are further supported by independent research that goes beyond class readings.
  • B: Exegesis is free of serious errors and there is some credible independent evaluation of the issue. The thesis may not be all that challenging or significant, perhaps a bit on the obvious side. There may be problems with the argument (missing steps, irrelevant steps, or steps that just don’t work). Writing will at least be reasonably easy to follow for someone with prior expertise, but may not be accessible to new readers.
  • C: There may be significant exegetical errors or the paper may be pure exegesis, lacking independent analysis or critique. There may be basic argumentative errors. The writing may be vague or obscure such that it is not readily comprehensible even to someone with prior knowledge of the issue.
• See timetable for word guidance.
• Submit via Canvas@UD.

• !!! Abstract
  • At the start of the same document as your paper.
  • The abstract conveys the essential point of your paper at a glance.
  • Having read your abstract, your reader will know:
    • Thesis: the one focused point you are trying to get your audience to take seriously.
    • Argument: your basic strategy for defending your thesis.
• !!! Paper
  • This is not a rough draft, but your first attempt at a finished, polished paper.
  • The word limit is a maximum, not a target you must reach – shorter papers are fine, usually preferable.

• !!! Your submission should include:
  • A title.
  • The names of all authors and, for papers with more than one author, a brief statement of each author’s contribution.
  • An abstract.
  • The paper itself.
  • Proper citations (see below).
  • A list of acknowledgements (see below).
• Submit all parts of your assignment in a single file via Canvas@UD ‘Assignments’.
  • It is very easy to miss a crucial step in Canvas@UD – make absolutely sure your file has uploaded, saved, and submitted correctly.
  • If you are in any doubt, email me a backup copy.
• Use this MS Word or Google Docs template to help ensure that your submission is as it should be.
• !!! Don’t forget deadlines!!! See ‘Late Work’ in the ‘Policies’ page for an account of the disaster that will result if you do.

!!! Proper Citation

• Failure to cite properly will result in grade penalties.
• Whenever you quote, paraphrase, refer to or otherwise make use of any work, published or not, human or computer generated, you must ensure that you cite that work properly – including giving specific page numbers for specific passages that you refer to, paraphrase, or quote.
• Significant, non-obvious, factual claims should generally be supported with citations. There are judgment calls to be made concerning both significance and non-obviousness.
• Your citation format and whether you use footnotes or collect references together at the end of a paper does not matter.
• Give enough information so that anyone reading your paper can easily track down all the sources that you have used if they want to find out more or check your claims.
  • You must always give the author’s name, title of the piece and the year of publication.
  • For journal articles also give the journal name and the relevant volume and page numbers. E.g. van Inwagen, Peter (1975). ‘The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism’, Philosophical Studies, Vol. 27, pp.185-99.
  • For books, give the publisher and the relevant page numbers. E.g. John Perry (1978). A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis. p.15
  • For chapters in books, treat the chapter like a journal article and the book like a book. Remember that the chapter author may be different from the book author (editor) – both should be given.
  • For internet publications, give the name of the site, the author and title of the piece, the URL, and the date you accessed the information.
  • For other online tools, give the information needed for readers to know what you used and to have a decent idea of how you used it: this will include site name, URL, and date, but other information will depend on the context. E.g. you might give your inquiry text or search terms used.

NB: Use of sources without citation is plagiarism,
as is any attempt to pass-off the work of others as your own.
UD takes academic integrity very seriously.
Plagiarism may result in your failing the class and other sanctions.

!!! Acknowledgements

• You must acknowledge everyone who has made any effort to help with your project, including your colleagues in a class and your revered professor.
• You are required to have at least one acknowledgement: I.e. there should be at least one person who is not an author on the paper with whom you have discussed the ideas, or who has given feedback on early work, or who has at least tried to help in some way.
• Acknowledge general help either at at the end of the paper, near the beginning.
  • • E.g. “Thanks to David Hume and Mark Greene for comments on a early draft of this paper. Also to Martha Nussbaum and students in PHIL-??? for helpful discussion.”
• To acknowledge specific points that you owe to someone else, insert a footnote at the relevant place explaining the contribution.
  • E.g. “This question was raised by Harriet Taylor Mill (personal communication / in conversation / in a lecture on the 15th May…)”.
• Acknowledge anyone who so much as attempts to help, even if it didn’t change the final paper.
• If in doubt, acknowledge.

• !!! Check compliance with class policies:
  • Especially paper submission requirements:
    • Especially citation and acknowledgement requirements.
• If you are working in a group:
  • !!! List all authors in the submission.
  • All authors should submit an identical copy of the final document. (This pre-empts the usual “someone else was supposed to submit it” excuses.)
• Submit both abstract and paper in a single document.
• Submit via Canvas@UD. (If in any doubt as to whether that worked, you can always email me a copy to make sure.)

The final version builds on the first version using feedback on earlier versions and your own further thought. Substantial revisions are almost always called for – this is not just a minor editing and typo correction task – so give yourself plenty of time.

• !!! Thoughtful revisions are required.
  • You must make a good faith effort to improve your paper for your final version, even if you were happy with your first version grade.
  • Resubmitting your first version, or an update with only trivial changes counts as non-submission = zero points for your final paper = risk of failing the class.
• Grading
  • Standards are the same as for the first version.
  • Guaranteed grade: As long as you meet the requirement of making a good faith effort to respond to feedback and improve your final version, you are guaranteed that your final paper will not get a lower grade than your first version, even in the very unlikely event that your revisions make the paper worse. The reason for this policy is that even pretty good papers often need major rethinking to push them up to the next level, and you should feel free to make bold changes without worrying about hurting your grade if things don’t work out.
• !!! Submission requirements, etc., are the same as for the first version (see above).
• Submit on Canvas@UD.