<p>My university has them and it has been <em>extremely</em> frustrating. All the undergrad graded courses have the most elaborate rubrics and the silliest rules about how the homework must be submitted to them. They take off points for every little thing and even the smallest leaps of logic. Undergraduate grading compared to grad student grading is like middle school grading compared to high school grading.</p>
<p>Remember when in middle school if your 'a' looked a bit like an 'o' or your 'e' looked a bit like a 'u' the teachers would rather jump to the conclusion that you can't spell rather than give you the benefit of the doubt? That's what it feels like to have undergraduates grade your work.</p>
<p>Do you have undergraduate graders at your university or are you, perhaps, one? Do you perceive it as different from grad student grading? </p>
<p>What, in general do you think of these kinds of grading guidelines:
-Name/data/session in a specific order, or points taken off
-Show every single step of your work--always. If you demonstrated that you understand a principle in 2b. and the same principle is also used in part 2c. you have to show the work all over again.
-Data must be presented in a particular way. Your graph can't have any numbers with too many decimal places even if you mention that you're only keeping the appropriate number of places. You can't even print it out landscape instead of portrait. Points off for using different style of graph (say diamonds instead of squares).
-Points off for using a different coordinate system to solve a physics problem in more efficient way, even if you show all your work and there is no requirement to use a particular coordinate system in the question.
-Prefer to write your answers in radians instead of degrees? Not in an engineering course buddy! -10 points for pi/6 instead of 30 degrees.
-Found a difficult integral by hand instead of machine? Full credit loss, no explanation (yes, I did find the correct one... I checked).</p>
<p>And I said guidelines--not rules--for a specific reason. A lot of these things were never stated. When you lose points for having diamonds instead of boxes marking the data points, it just comes out of the blue. Nobody ever says there is a rule about something like that, points just get taken off.</p>
<p>I was an undergraduate teaching assistant for a mass media survey course, and was responsible for grading some of the final projects. The rubric I was given was very loose.</p>
<p>Looking back, I think I may have been a little harsh on the freshmen - but it was shocking to see how many people couldn’t pay attention to the assignment, or couldn’t even write a sentence. And these were journalism majors, so I kind of feel justified in harshness. If you can’t write, you have no business in that field.</p>
<p>A few of those guidelines don’t seem too ridiculous, but you are right that some are absurd. The only class I’ve taken with undergrad graders (I go to a LAC, so we are all undergrads) is deductive logic, and the graders seldom made a mistake in grading our derivations.</p>
<p>I’m a undergrad grader (for math classes), and haven been for the past three semesters. I actually have only gotten rubrics once, and that was because of the way the grading set up, and even then the rubrics were pretty loose. Otherwise, I just get solutions. I think most graders at my school are undergraduates, except for maybe really upper-level graduates, so I don’t know what differences there might be, but it’s required to have gotten an A in the class to be a grader so, I don’t see what the problem is in terms of qualifications.</p>
<p>Those rules do look pretty ridiculous though, I don’t think I would be able to remember all them. It’s definitely a lot easier to just check for correctness. The only rules that I’ve dealt with that might have been misunderstood are the fact that for some classes, we have students turn in each problem on a separate page, and this is only because it makes the logistics a lot easier since in these cases, each grader grades a separate problem. Also, if the class is proof-based, I will definitely check your work and reasoning to make sure each statement follows from the next, even if your answer at the end is correct. For non-proof based classes though, I’m a lot more lenient.</p>
<p>I’m an undergraduate grader for two separate departments. I’ve taken off points for not showing any work (I don’t care if you show you know how to row-reduce matrices in part a - the point of the problem is to demonstrate that you know how to row-reduce, not that you can plug numbers into a calculator), but I’ve tended to just give warnings. For leaps of logic, the deduction varies based on how large it is. It also depends on how integral the leap is to the proof - if it’s minor, I’ll comment on it and not take off points. If it’s crippling, I’ll take off most of the points. I believe that the grading should depend on the course, though. I’m grading an honors linear algebra course that serves as an introduction to proofs, so I focus my energy on the proofs and am less lenient than on numerical problems. If I were grading calculus, the numerical problems and associated work would be much more important.</p>
<p>I’ve only had undergrad graders for math/science based courses or classes where the things to be graded a monkey could do (ie multiple choice and fill in the blank questions).</p>
<p>In fact, one of the two graders for one of my classes is a friend of mine. She’s pretty lenient, but totally legit.</p>
<p>Most of the rules you listed are annoying, but I don’t think you can really complain (if they’ve told you this ahead of time).</p>
<p>Also… radians vs degrees? Say what? I’ve had several engineering classes where it was a hard cut rule that you report in radians. Not degrees.</p>