Comment on Transcribed text of Samantha Fulnecky's assignment, paper, and professor's comments

• merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Well, the TA does a pretty good job explaning where it is lacking.

  Again though: Which aspects of the grading rubric do you think she failed at? The TA talks about things that aren’t on the grading rubric, or if they are they fall under “bad writing” which is only worth 5 points.

  source

  • 9bananas@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    you are confusing the assignment and the grading.

    they are two separate things.

    the assignment was:

    1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not)
    2. An application of the study or results to your own experiences

    the submission failed on both these points, and thus it is automatically disqualified, no grading is even applied.

    there was no discussion in the submission.

    “discussion” in an academic context is a technical term that means “examining a topic based on evidence from some point of view”. you may have encountered something similar in school as a pro/contra essay. in academia this gets expanded on by requiring evidence in the form of citations in order to support one’s positions and conclusions (or lack thereof).

    since the student did not provide sources, this point of the assignment is not fulfilled.

    the same goes for the second point, for the same reasons: insufficient evidence was provided.

    the teachers explain this in their response.

    since neither part of the assignment is fulfilled no grading is applied: it’s an automatic failure.

    this is also explained in the response.

    you may want to carefully read the responses again, and keep in mind that all of this is happening in an academic context. providing evidence is expected by default.

    “i believe”, “i feel”, 'the bible says", etc., are NOT evidence in a scientific context…

    source

    • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨40⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

      You can claim that there are requirements that are not mentioned anywhere in any of the instructions given to the students, but there’s no evidence for that in what they were actually given.

      source

      • 9bananas@feddit.org ⁨23⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

        the evidence is: this is a university course.

        this is normal for every university in the world. everyone that’s ever taken a university course knows this.

        it’s quite literally the scientific method.

        it’s almost never spelled out anywhere, because students generally have dedicated courses that teach this method and related things like researching, proper citations, writing structures and styles, etc.

        usually called something like “scientific working” or something (don’t know what it’s called in english, german is usually something like “wissenschaftliches arbeiten”).

        this isn’t kindergarten; there are prerequisites and they are expected by default.

        these aren’t children, they’re adults.

        and everyone involved knew this in advance.

        this is not “hidden” oder “secret”.

        it’s a standard.

        source
    • jacksilver@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Nice breakdown, I’ve seen a couple people commenting that are missing the fact that quoting a personal religious belief isn’t the same as empirical evidence to back up an arguement.

      Not to mention it feels more like the student was just trying to personally attack the TA.

      source

      • 9bananas@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        yes, exactly!

        what i think is rather important to point out:

        even in theology this shit wouldn’t fly!

        that’s how absurd this “controversy” is.

        because even in theology you need to provide sound argumentation and sources. even there you need more evidence than this “student” submitted.

        it’s just…so, so absurd.

        source