Sender: EPR (Gu Dā | JOKER | Pingtian Dasheng | The homebody who wants to become the Pirate King), Board: KXTS
Title: The third assignment is basically finished~ posting the grade sheet 1.0 version~
Posted at: Peking University Weiming Station (Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 11:26:34), internal mail
Except for the ones handed in to the teaching assistants for cross-grading, everything I had on hand is done.
Each point item is scored from 0 to 5, then the weighted sums are added up and raised to the 0.67 power, then the baseline score of 70 is added… the result is guaranteed to average 84 points; except for a few provocateurs, basically everyone is above 78. Highest is 95, 4 people above 90, 17 people above 85.
In fact, as long as the citations and references are standardized, that already guarantees at least 79 points. Unfortunately, most of the citations are truly appalling…
The entire form is attached below
The formula is (C*3+D*2+E*2+F+G*2+H+I*2+J+K*3+L+M+N-O+P*5+Q*4+R*4)^0.67+S
This formula means — with 70 as the base, it is basically impossible to get lower than 70; as long as the citations are standardized, you at least have 79; if you also read a few good books, no matter how the paper is written, you will at least get into the low 80s. When all items are perfect, the total score is exactly 101, but even with quite a few items missing, one can still get a good score of around 95.
Student ID C=relationship between cosmology and astronomy D=two-tier heaven and earth / geocentric and geostatic… E=heterogeneity; finite/closed F=the heavens are sacred, perfect, and unchanging G=the celestial sphere / uniform circular motion H=geometry I=intelligibility / reason / nature J=holism teleology organicism, etc. K=planetary astronomy L=non-utilitarian M=salvation of the phenomena N=sociological characteristics O=superfluous embellishment P=standard citation format Q=quality of references R=impression score S=baseline score (1 point deducted for each page over the page limit) T=weighted total score U=snark
00823014 4 0 0 4 3 5 4 3 5 5 5 0 0 5 4 4 70 95 Most of it is concentrated on its mathematical characteristics; this part is written well, but many features other than the mathematical ones are omitted
00720618 3 1 0 4 4 3 2 0 3 3 3 2 0 1 3 2 70 88 Direct quotations were not put in quotation marks, and that key passage quotes Wu teacher’s words very well; if quotation marks were added, this paper could go up another three or four points
00620635 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 3 2 70 81 This is not supposed to be a philosophy history paper
00648248 1 0 4 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 2 1 1 1 4 -13 69 69 There is a passage that very obviously copied from Wu teacher’s article without any indication at all (do you think this teaching assistant can’t tell when it’s Wu teacher’s article? hmm?). Given that the word count is under 200 and this article was listed in the bibliography, I’ll be lenient this once.
00616037 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 70 80 Direct quotations were not put in quotation marks; the article has no ideas and the structure is chaotic
00810046 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 1 70 82 If “heaven layers” were changed to “celestial sphere,” you could still get one more point
00628042 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 70 78 It only referred to one book, A History of Chinese Astronomy…
00746106 1 2 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 2 2 70 82 The illustrations are nice, and it gets the superfluous embellishment award
00723021 2 2 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 3 3 70 88 Too much was said about the historical process, but fortunately the characteristics were still written out
00623016 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 70 82 Come audit the class…
00701109 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 70 78 It only cited one chapter from Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, and even that was accompanied by a completely messed-up URL; the key thing is that this teaching assistant actually went to check it… Citing that book by Russell is not impossible, but why not take the opportunity to look a little earlier at the cosmology section?
00604094 0 1 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 70 79 Changing the topic is fine, but changing “cosmology and astronomy” to “astronomy” — what kind of thing is that? The cosmos is in tears… What is that reference from the Sohu community…
00604708 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 4 1 1 0 2 3 3 70 84 Endnotes like this are okay, but what about the page numbers?
00748111 0 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 2 3 69 82 Why write four pages…
00822004 0 0 0 4 5 0 3 0 1 0 3 2 0 4 4 3 70 88 Even one page can be written well (of course, relatively speaking)
00930025 2 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 3 2 1 0 1 3 3 3 70 88 Too many figures… citations of figures without indicating the source get the superfluous embellishment points
00713094 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 2 1 70 81 What difference does it make to change “brief discussion” to “a short talk”…
00811030 2 2 0 4 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 70 86 An abstract cannot be written as an introduction; the superfluous embellishment award is hereby granted.
00623033 5 4 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 4 70 91 Although it was written along historical lines, the several characteristic points were all made very clearly at the right moments; it’s a pity that many other features, including the ones discussed in class, were not mentioned. I believe that if the writer had thought of them, they could have been made clear too.
00628090 4 0 0 4 4 0 5 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 3 3 70 88 What on earth is that “Error! Bookmark not defined” in note 2, and direct quotations were not put in quotation marks, especially that passage of Wu teacher’s…
00846142 0 4 0 3 0 5 4 0 0 4 3 3 0 3 3 3 70 88 In notes, it is fine to write the page number as Chinese “page X”; in English, it should be p. X or pp. X-Y, not pp:X
00828157 0 1 0 3 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 70 85 For indirect quotation, it is best to add one more “see” in the note
00628142 2 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 -5 70 73 No bibliographic information was listed at all. Although reading Cosmology is not bad, please indicate the information of the translation edition. The method of piling up quotations also looks very bad. Moreover, since you explicitly said you do not agree with the logic of the question and want to “share this responsibility with the person who set the question,” then why bother choosing this topic? Since you chose it, if you were very conscientious in doing it and conscientiously read the literature, then your rebellious spirit would be admirable; but since you were so careless and didn’t read any books, it can only be understood as deliberate provocation of the teaching assistant. In that case, you must have been prepared for the consequences, right? Impression score deducted!
00823001 4 0 0 3 3 0 4 4 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 70 93 The method of writing the paper is good, and the language is also very good; unfortunately, it is just missing many key points.
00823011 4 0 0 4 2 0 4 1 1 4 2 0 0 1 2 2 70 85 The subtitle is a bit redundant..
00704008 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 2 2 70 81 Relying on Baidu Baike to prop up the appearance won’t do… at the very least, take a look at Wikipedia too
00911084 4 4 0 3 4 0 2 2 0 2 4 0 4 2 2 3 69 86 The main title, “Viewing its unity from the Hundred Schools of Thought,” is superfluous embellishment, making the paper’s content seem very off-topic.
90901511 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 2 70 79 If you really can’t find any decent reference books, at least search online for some articles to look at
00928042 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 4 0 3 1 2 2 70 81 What kind of book is The Pinnacle of Classical Astronomy?
00748008 0 2 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 2 2 70 82 “Salvation of the phenomena” means only saving the planets and not saving comets
00610025 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 70 80 Anaximander is “the indefinite,” not “earth.” If you were looking for references online, why not check Wu teacher’s blog…
00824078 0 2 0 2 3 4 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 3 70 86 It’s admirable that you were able to find so many foreign-language references, but citing Dampier was a misstep
90905101 0 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 2 70 82 Quotations should be put in quotation marks, not underlined, and there are no page numbers either. Too much nonsense about historical limitations
00648032 1 4 0 3 3 3 2 0 3 1 1 0 4 2 1 2 70 85 Cosmology of course refers both to the discipline that studies the cosmos and to philosophical cosmology; ancient Greek science is philosophy;
00823019 3 3 2 2 4 0 2 2 4 4 4 2 0 3 3 4 70 92 The sentence quoted from my blog was not quoted properly; the context is wrong.
00823034 2 0 0 3 2 1 4 0 0 3 2 3 0 2 3 3 70 86 Aside from reason, all the other characteristics were presented very fragmentarily
00648006 1 0 0 2 4 4 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 4 3 3 70 88 The structure of the article is very clear
00623003 3 3 3 4 4 0 3 0 4 4 2 0 0
0; 1 1 3 70 89 The key points were answered very well; it’s a pity that the citations and reference books were so poor, otherwise this would have been a good article, what a pity.
Average 1.47 1.18 0.24 1.95 2.39 1.39 1.95 0.39 0.82 1.76 1.55 0.47 0.92 2.32 2.45 1.86 69.92 84
Latest Comments
- Gu Dā
2009-10-28 13:18:50 [Reply]
Sociological characteristics are one of the bonus items, and they do not account for a large proportion either. Roughly speaking, it means that in addition to treating “astronomy” as something internal to thought, one also noticed that “astronomy” is a human activity, and that this activity has sociological characteristics. Simply put, it is about what kinds of people are doing it, what kinds of people need it, what kinds of people accept it, and so on.
【 In LeahLee (leah) ’s post, it said: 】
: N=sociological characteristics What is that…
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply