## May the grading for discrete math be discrete.

**There is no such concept as points in this class.**

Measuring your success with points implies items with the same “point value” equally represent your success and are ultimately interchangeable in the “final equation”. In the context of this class, we do not believe two half-correct math proofs are worth the same as one completely correct math proof. Many of our learning goals, such as mathematical communication, are not quantifiable by points.

Instead, the grading mechanism in this class is **discrete **at a micro-level and **milestone-like **at a macro-level. **We did not invent this grading mechanism**. Similar grading mechanisms are regularly used at U of Washington CS, UCSD CSE, UNC Charlotte Software and Information Systems, and many other disciplines. It is also used at a smaller scale (only for exams) in CS216: Everything Data in our own department. Those students all thrived, and you will, too.

Here is a summary of our grading mechanism; finer-grained details are provided in Canvas for each module.

### Discrete (ESNU) at Micro-level

- For every item (e.g., a question in an assignment that requires you to write a proof), you receive an
(along with concrete technical*outcome**feedback*) that looks like one of the following:: your work satisfies everything that we ask for and displays full mastery. There is no place where we feel an improvement is necessary. As the name suggests, your work can be directly shown to others. (We might actually do so with your consent.)*E (Excellent or Exemplary)*: your work displays mastery and meets the learning goals, but*S (Satisfactory but can use minor revisions)**there is room for improvement*. For example:- there is one logical step in your proof that is technically correct but needs further elaboration
- there is a minor arithmetic error in your work that does not impact your showcase of mastery
- the concision in your mathematical writing needs some improvement
- your proof is technically correct but contains bad practice

: your work does not display full mastery or does not satisfy the minimal requirement. For example:*N (Not yet and need major revisions)*- your proof is technically incorrect
- your proof relies on more assumptions than warranted
- you gave a correct proof for a slightly different question due to misinterpretation

: your work is incomplete or does not provide enough information for the course staff to give concrete feedback. This is often rare, mostly only given to completely blank work.*U (Unassessable)*- For those who have taken CS216 and experienced the ESNU system in that class, note that our levels stay discrete and never map to points.

- There are also some questions in our prepare quizzes/PrairieLearn autograded assignments that are multiple choice or only require a numeric answer. The only two
for these questions, obviously, are*outcomes*and*Satisfactory/Correct**Not yet/Incorrect.*

### Milestone-like at Macro-level

- Your performance of the entire assignment/exam is then an aggregate of the individual items.
- For example, for an exam with ten graded parts:
*Exceptional*: got an S or above in at least 9 parts*Satisfactory*: got an S or above in at least 6 parts*Not Yet*: got an S or above in less than 6 parts

- For the typical CM assignment:
*Satisfactory*: got an S or above in all questions after all rounds of feedback*Not Yet*: some questions received N or U after all rounds of feedback

- For a prepare quiz in Canvas with nine questions, this can be as simple as:
*Mastered*: all 9 questions are correct*Satisfactory*: 7-8 of the questions are correct*Not Yet*: fewer than 7 of the questions are correct- Here we accept that all nine questions in that quiz are equally important, and quiz questions (multiple choices, select all that apply, etc.) are graded as either correct or incorrect without partials to further complicate things

- For example, for an exam with ten graded parts:

- Your
**completion/performance of a module**is then determined by your completion/performance of the components of the module. For a typical CM, this can be as simple as:*Completed*: Earned a*Satisfactory*or above in every component of the module;*Incomplete*: At least one component is a*Not Yet/Unsatisfactory.*

and finally…

**Letter grades in this class are earned by meeting a set of predefined requirements.**Below are the full specifications:

Letter Grade # Core Modules completed (out of 8) # Elective Modules completed (out of 6) # Exceptional Exams (out of 3) # Satisfactory or above Exams (out of 3) – note that Exceptional Exams also count here All surveys completed A+ 8 5 2 3 X A 8 4 1 3 X A- 8 3 1 3 X A- 8 4 0 3 X B+ 8 3 0 3 X B+ 8 2 1 3 X B 8 2 0 3 X B 8 2 1 2 X B- 8 1 0 3 X B- 8 1 1 2 X C+ 8 2 0 1 X C 8 1 0 1 X C- 8 0 0 1 X D+ 7 1 0 1 X D 7 0 0 1 X D- 7 0 0 0 X In this table, each row specifies the minimum requirement for each letter grade. Therefore, as an example, to earn an

**A**in the class:- All exams need to be
*Satisfactory*or above, with at least 1 being*Exceptional* - All 8 CMs need to be
*Completed* - Complete at least 4 of the 6 EMs
- Complete all 3 surveys (start-of-semester, mid-semester, and end-of-semester)

- All exams need to be

**Note that everything including the exams has more than one attempts (see the exams section below), and the highest scale of completion/performance is counted for each item.**

## The most important bits of information about this grading mechanism is:

Everyone starts with an F. From there, as you complete/attempt more things, your final letter grade can never decrease.

You know, in advance, what you need to accomplish for each letter grade. This is a contract between you and us.

Your success does not come in expense of others’ success, and vice versa.

**We will NEVER “curve the class” on any individual item or the final letter grade based on how the class performs as a whole**.

# Regrades

**Regrade requests are different than revision of your work.** They are **for circumstances where you believe the teaching staff did not give you correct/sufficient feedback. **

- There is no point asking for a regrade between a
*Not Yet*and a*Satisfactory*if you already plan to revise the work to an*Exemplary*level. - There is
*usually*no point asking for a regrade between a*Satisfactory and a Excellent*because that often has no impact at all on module completion.

When asking for a regrade, you are asking for a blanket re-evaluation of the entire item, most of the time by a more experienced member in the teaching team, which *may result in your grade going up or down*.

If your regrade request reveals that the teaching team indeed did not give you correct/sufficient feedback, you will get an automatic extended revision window of one full week starting the day we respond to the regrade request.