From 8c0ea463bfa5de89fce9becb21002be88ffadd17 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joel Ostblom Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:03:47 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/6] Draft regrade requests steps and examples --- policies.md | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/policies.md b/policies.md index fb508905bf81..df06f1c4a30e 100644 --- a/policies.md +++ b/policies.md @@ -96,7 +96,29 @@ Grades are not perfect; some randomness in grading is normal, meaning that you'l Sometimes serious grading errors are made, for example when a grader did not see your answer to a question or completely deviated from standard grading practices for some unknown reason. Such situations can be quite frustrating for students, and we want you to feel that the courses are fair. In these cases, it makes sense for the student to bring the error to our attention. -Balancing these two sides is difficult. In MDS the policy is as follows: if a grade is challenged in a way that is deemed unreasonable, the student will receive a warning. This decision will be made by the instructor (not TA). If a student receives three warnings, the student will lose the privilege to challenge grades for the remainder of the program. Examples of unreasonable requests include extremely minor complaints (e.g. half a mark on an assignment) or repeatedly contesting the same issue once a decision has been reached. This policy applies to both labs and quizzes. +Balancing these two sides is difficult. In MDS the policy is as follows: if a grade is challenged in a way that is deemed unreasonable, the student will receive a warning. This decision will be made by the instructor (not TA). If a student receives three warnings, the student will lose the privilege to challenge grades for the remainder of the program. This policy applies to both labs and quizzes. + +To submit an effective regrade request, you only need to follow two steps: + +1. Read the solution and the feedback from the grader. Often, this will be sufficient to understand why you lost points. +2. Include a rationale explaining why you think the marking of your submission is unreasonable and should be regraded. + - This needs to be specific, either include references to the correct solution of how your answer is equivalent or explain why submission is correct although it is not equivalent to what is in the solution. + +Examples of **reasonable** regrading requests: + +- "The solution wrote that the number of bins in a histogram impacts its appearance. I wrote "binwidth" instead of "number of bins", but these are effectively the same since the wider each bin, the fewer bins there are along the axis." +- "I think my code generates the same output as the correct answer. The only difference in code is `specify(response = y explanatory = x)` and `specify(y ~ x)`." + +Examples of **unreasonable** regrading requests: + +- Demands, such as "I want 80%", "Please give full credit", or "This question should have partial marks". +- Submitting regrading requests without any specifics, particularly multiple ones on the same assignment. + - "I think my solution deserves more marks, can you regrade?" (no rationale as to why additional marks should be given) + - "I wrote XYZ, could you please check again?" (no specifics for how XYZ compares to the solution) +- Suggesting that a vague term you wrote meant the same as the solution. We can only give points for what you write, so you need to be explicit in your writing. + - "When I wrote 'a smooth line' in my answer, I really meant 'kernel density estimate' as in the solution" +- Minor complaints (e.g. half a mark on an assignment). +- Repeatedly contesting the same issue once a decision has been reached. ## Quiz Policies From c01fa2e0abd011f1d07bb78b410dcfcba323972b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joel Ostblom Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:22:29 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/6] Move regrading policy last and rephrase similar items --- policies.md | 19 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/policies.md b/policies.md index df06f1c4a30e..1b14b30f40cb 100644 --- a/policies.md +++ b/policies.md @@ -92,17 +92,14 @@ When we receive a regrade request we may re-grade the entire submission; thus, y If you perceive a problem with a grade, you have **one week** to raise a concern from the time that your grade was released. After that, your grade is final. #### Reasonable grading concerns -Grades are not perfect; some randomness in grading is normal, meaning that you'll generally get more than you deserve in some cases and less than you deserve in other cases. Thus, it is possible to cheat the system by consistently complaining when your grade is too low but not when it is too high. Unfortunately, this takes time away from the course staff which could have been spent on making the course better for everyone. Thus, in our view, students who overzealously contest grades are penalizing their classmates for personal gain. - -Sometimes serious grading errors are made, for example when a grader did not see your answer to a question or completely deviated from standard grading practices for some unknown reason. Such situations can be quite frustrating for students, and we want you to feel that the courses are fair. In these cases, it makes sense for the student to bring the error to our attention. -Balancing these two sides is difficult. In MDS the policy is as follows: if a grade is challenged in a way that is deemed unreasonable, the student will receive a warning. This decision will be made by the instructor (not TA). If a student receives three warnings, the student will lose the privilege to challenge grades for the remainder of the program. This policy applies to both labs and quizzes. +If a grade is challenged in a way that is deemed unreasonable, the student will receive a warning. This decision will be made by the instructor (not TA). If a student receives three warnings, the student will lose the privilege to challenge grades for the remainder of the program. This policy applies to both labs and quizzes. To submit an effective regrade request, you only need to follow two steps: 1. Read the solution and the feedback from the grader. Often, this will be sufficient to understand why you lost points. 2. Include a rationale explaining why you think the marking of your submission is unreasonable and should be regraded. - - This needs to be specific, either include references to the correct solution of how your answer is equivalent or explain why submission is correct although it is not equivalent to what is in the solution. + - This needs to be specific, either include references to the correct solution and explain how your answer is equivalent, or explain why your submission is correct although it is not equivalent to what is in the solution. Examples of **reasonable** regrading requests: @@ -113,13 +110,21 @@ Examples of **unreasonable** regrading requests: - Demands, such as "I want 80%", "Please give full credit", or "This question should have partial marks". - Submitting regrading requests without any specifics, particularly multiple ones on the same assignment. - - "I think my solution deserves more marks, can you regrade?" (no rationale as to why additional marks should be given) - - "I wrote XYZ, could you please check again?" (no specifics for how XYZ compares to the solution) + - "I think my solution might deserve more marks" (no rationale as to why additional marks should be given) + - "I wrote 'X' which is the same as 'Y' in the solution" (no explanation for how 'X' is the same as 'Y') - Suggesting that a vague term you wrote meant the same as the solution. We can only give points for what you write, so you need to be explicit in your writing. - "When I wrote 'a smooth line' in my answer, I really meant 'kernel density estimate' as in the solution" - Minor complaints (e.g. half a mark on an assignment). - Repeatedly contesting the same issue once a decision has been reached. +##### Rationale for regrading policy + +Grades are not perfect; some randomness in grading is normal, meaning that you'll generally get more than you deserve in some cases and less than you deserve in other cases. Thus, it is possible to cheat the system by consistently complaining when your grade is too low but not when it is too high. Unfortunately, this takes time away from the course staff which could have been spent on making the course better for everyone. Thus, in our view, students who overzealously contest grades are penalizing their classmates for personal gain. + +Sometimes serious grading errors are made, for example when a grader did not see your answer to a question or completely deviated from standard grading practices for some unknown reason. Such situations can be quite frustrating for students, and we want you to feel that the courses are fair. In these cases, it makes sense for the student to bring the error to our attention. + +Balancing these two sides is difficult and we have tried to make our regrading policy as explicit as possible to distinguish reasonable and unreasonable grading concerns. + ## Quiz Policies Unless otherwise specified, MDS quizzes are **closed** book, with the allowance of a **single-sided**, **one-page**, **letter-sized** cheatsheet that is uploaded as a PNG to PrairieLearn before the quiz. Ensure that your cheatsheet complies with all [stated requirements](../resources_pages/quiz/#digital-cheatsheets). From 8bdcbe0bcd0766b260e313288cf9f8707f7e8941 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joel Ostblom Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:26:17 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] Elaborate further --- policies.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/policies.md b/policies.md index 1b14b30f40cb..c6127ddfe06e 100644 --- a/policies.md +++ b/policies.md @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Examples of **unreasonable** regrading requests: - Demands, such as "I want 80%", "Please give full credit", or "This question should have partial marks". - Submitting regrading requests without any specifics, particularly multiple ones on the same assignment. - "I think my solution might deserve more marks" (no rationale as to why additional marks should be given) - - "I wrote 'X' which is the same as 'Y' in the solution" (no explanation for how 'X' is the same as 'Y') + - "I wrote 'X' which is the same as 'Y' in the solution" (no explanation for how 'X' is the same as 'Y'; although this might seem obvious to you, the grader will not know what you were thinking when writing it.) - Suggesting that a vague term you wrote meant the same as the solution. We can only give points for what you write, so you need to be explicit in your writing. - "When I wrote 'a smooth line' in my answer, I really meant 'kernel density estimate' as in the solution" - Minor complaints (e.g. half a mark on an assignment). From 8a89f0a89626948102fd23ea0da75890e7f8a775 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joel Ostblom Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:26:56 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 4/6] Fix typo --- policies.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/policies.md b/policies.md index c6127ddfe06e..92dda531c26a 100644 --- a/policies.md +++ b/policies.md @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Examples of **unreasonable** regrading requests: - Demands, such as "I want 80%", "Please give full credit", or "This question should have partial marks". - Submitting regrading requests without any specifics, particularly multiple ones on the same assignment. - "I think my solution might deserve more marks" (no rationale as to why additional marks should be given) - - "I wrote 'X' which is the same as 'Y' in the solution" (no explanation for how 'X' is the same as 'Y'; although this might seem obvious to you, the grader will not know what you were thinking when writing it.) + - "I wrote 'X' which is the same as 'Y' in the solution" (no explanation for how 'X' is the same as 'Y'; although this might seem obvious to you, the grader will not know what you were thinking when you wrote it.) - Suggesting that a vague term you wrote meant the same as the solution. We can only give points for what you write, so you need to be explicit in your writing. - "When I wrote 'a smooth line' in my answer, I really meant 'kernel density estimate' as in the solution" - Minor complaints (e.g. half a mark on an assignment). From db152585a9bb035eb953ff46b318398ee2d82bc4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joel Ostblom Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:48:22 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 5/6] Fix header since the spacing in our template for this level is hard to read --- policies.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/policies.md b/policies.md index 92dda531c26a..975272d0d63f 100644 --- a/policies.md +++ b/policies.md @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ To submit an effective regrade request, you only need to follow two steps: Examples of **reasonable** regrading requests: -- "The solution wrote that the number of bins in a histogram impacts its appearance. I wrote "binwidth" instead of "number of bins", but these are effectively the same since the wider each bin, the fewer bins there are along the axis." +- "The solution wrote that the number of bins in a histogram impacts its appearance. I wrote 'binwidth' instead of 'number of bins', but these are effectively the same since the wider each bin, the fewer bins there are along the axis." - "I think my code generates the same output as the correct answer. The only difference in code is `specify(response = y explanatory = x)` and `specify(y ~ x)`." Examples of **unreasonable** regrading requests: @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ Examples of **unreasonable** regrading requests: - Minor complaints (e.g. half a mark on an assignment). - Repeatedly contesting the same issue once a decision has been reached. -##### Rationale for regrading policy +**Rationale for regrading policy** Grades are not perfect; some randomness in grading is normal, meaning that you'll generally get more than you deserve in some cases and less than you deserve in other cases. Thus, it is possible to cheat the system by consistently complaining when your grade is too low but not when it is too high. Unfortunately, this takes time away from the course staff which could have been spent on making the course better for everyone. Thus, in our view, students who overzealously contest grades are penalizing their classmates for personal gain. From 9abf32a83566595e9a67c44dbe9cc2931c11794e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ZacWarham Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 13:18:30 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 6/6] Update application advice for Milad --- resources_pages/applicationAdvice.md | 24 +++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/resources_pages/applicationAdvice.md b/resources_pages/applicationAdvice.md index 9964fb1ddad0..72d741aae818 100644 --- a/resources_pages/applicationAdvice.md +++ b/resources_pages/applicationAdvice.md @@ -16,19 +16,17 @@ If your ultimate goal is to pursue a PhD in statistics or computer science, MDS #### 2. Personal Statement -Starting the applications for September 2024, we have provided three guiding questions in place of the personal statement. This means that you will answer the three specific questions in the application form and do **not** need to submit a separate personal statement. - -Your answers should be... - -- **specific to you.** Your answers should be as specific to you as possible, and should explain how the MDS program fits into you career trajectory. Try to avoid sentences that could work for any MDS applicant. For example, avoid talking about how data science is changing the world, or about how UBC is a fantastic institution - both are true, but they don't tell us about _you_. -- **specific to UBC MDS.** Your answers should be specific to the UBC MDS program, and should demonstrate that you understand what data science is and what the MDS program is. Reusing (part of) a letter you wrote to apply for Master's programs in Statistics or Computer Science, for example, is unlikely to yield good results. -- **polished.** Your answers should be well-written, not contain typos or grammatical errors, and adhere to the maximum length guidelines. - -Other advice for your answers: - -- While it is useful to explain why MDS is a good fit for you, praising UBC in general is not particularly helpful. Including the names of various MDS faculty members, unless you have something specific to say, is also generally not helpful. -- If you have been out of school for a long time, and/or studied something very different from data science, it is a good opportunity to discuss your technical readiness for MDS. Often from your resume and reference letters we cannot tell what aspects of your work experience were technical in nature. Since your work experience is generally an important part of your application, we suggest taking a few sentences to describe in detail what your job(s) entailed. For example, were you mainly in management? Were you programming on a daily/weekly/monthly basis? Etc. -- It is generally not helpful to enumerate long lists of statistical and/or machine learning methods you have used, e.g. random forests, support vectors machines, convolutional neural networks, multiple linear regression, etc. Instead, focus on the big picture. +A strong personal statement should be... + - Specific to you. The personal statement should be as specific to you as possible, and should explain how the MDS program fits into your career trajectory. Try to avoid sentences that could work for any MDS applicant. For example, avoid talking about how data science is changing the world, or about how UBC is a fantastic institution - both are true, but they don't tell us about you. + - Do not use generative AI (e.g. ChatGPT) for the same reasons as above. Being genuine and using your own voice makes for a much better personal statement and avoids generalities. + - Specific to UBC MDS. The personal statement should be specific to the UBC MDS program, and should demonstrate that you understand what data science is and what the MDS program is. Reusing a letter you wrote to apply for Master's programs in Statistics or Computer Science, for example, is unlikely to yield good results. + - Polished. The personal statement should be well-written, not contain typos or grammatical errors. + +Other advice for your personal statement: + - While it is useful to explain why MDS is a good fit for you, praising UBC in general is not particularly helpful. Including the names of various MDS faculty members, unless you have something specific to say, is also generally not helpful. + - If you have been out of school for a long time, and/or studied something very different from data science, the personal statement is a good opportunity to discuss your technical readiness for MDS. Often from your resume and reference letters we cannot tell what aspects of your work experience were technical in nature. Since your work experience is generally an important part of your application, we suggest taking a few sentences to describe in detail what your job(s) entailed. For example, were you mainly in management? Were you programming on a daily/weekly/monthly basis? Etc. + - It is generally not helpful to enumerate long lists of statistical and/or machine learning methods you have used, e.g. random forests, support vectors machines, convolutional neural networks, multiple linear regression, etc. Instead, focus on the big picture. + - Part of the personal statement can also be used to explain any exceptional or unusual circumstances that pertain to your application; see below for more information. #### 3. References