Photo: Morgan Sackett / NBC.

Following several leading philosophy professors, I will be using specifications, or specs, grading for this course. For many of you, this may be something new. So to ease any potential anxiety and confusion, I would like to explain what this is, why I am using it, and how it will work for this class.

What is Specs Grading?

In specs grading, each submitted item of coursework is evaluated as Accepted or Incomplete. This is similar to pass/fail grading, though my standards may be higher for what I will “Accept”. Even so, if your work is marked as Incomplete, you may revise and resubmit it.

A submission is marked as Accepted when it satisfies everything on a detailed list of criteria, or specifications. The criteria for each submission are provided to you in advance so that you may check your own work against them before submitting.

A submission is marked as Incomplete when it does not satisfy each and every one of its specifications. In such cases, I will provide you with the list of criteria not met. That list will guide you if you decide to revise and resubmit your work.

All in all, specifications set up the standards that help me assess the quality of your work. And after I have finished grading your submissions, you will know exactly the extent to which you have met those standards.

Here’s Why I’m Using It

My primary goal with specs grading is to encourage you to focus on what really matters: your learning and mastery of fundamental philosophical skills.

That is, in a traditional letter-grading scheme, students are often anxious about whether their assignments earned enough points for an A, A−, B+, B, B−, etc., etc. In this Quest for More Points, the achievement of the course’s learning outcomes is often forgotten. Sad!

However, with specs grading, students are now more concerned about meeting all the criteria and specifications for each assignment. When you satisfy those expectations, great! I can comfortably say that you are achieving the learning outcomes for this course and beginning to master those important philosophical skills.

But if you don’t meet those expectations, there’s no need to panic. Simply consult the list of specifications you missed, meet with me to discuss your work, and then revise and resubmit it.

Through hard work, and by heeding my guidance, I firmly believe it is possible for everyone here to achieve my learning outcomes for this course!

Understood this way, specs grading is further supported by adult-based learning theory. This theory maintains that students learn best in a challenging yet supportive environment. Philosophy is definitely challenging, but I will support you in overcoming them. For instance, there are no letter grades on your work to distract you, the requirements for Accepted submissions are made clear, and free passes give you the opportunity to perform at your very best.

Finally, it’s worth noting that specs grading models how things are often done in the “real” world. When you submit a project to your boss or for a client, you are expected to meet their criteria. If your work is not “up to spec”, your boss will not accept it, saying, “Okay, that’s 78% there, that’s good enough”. On the contrary, your work is not complete and must be revised or abandoned. (By the way, this is essentially how licensing works for nurses, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals.)

Your professors all know this process very well, since they also go through it whenever they submit their own work for publication. Indeed, this course embraces that idea, where Incomplete work may be revised and resubmitted.

Here’s What You’ll Need to Do

Each foundation assignment in this class has a detailed list of criteria, or specs, that I expected it to satisfy. So when a foundation assignment is first posted, you need to make sure that you understand those criteria, letting me know if anything is not clear. Then, when working, you should continually consult the specifications, making sure that you are on track. Finally, before submitting anything, do one last check to make sure that your have attempted to meet all those specifications.

Upon receipt of your submission, I will do my utmost to get it back to you quickly with my written feedback along with a checklist indicating which specifications were or were not satisfied. In most cases this will take about a week, though I will try to get them back sooner whenever possible.

If your submission is Accepted, then you are all set. However, keep in mind that this class has a “scaffolded” structure where the skills developed in your earlier work are further expanded upon later in the course.

However, if I mark your submission Incomplete, then please consider revising and resubmitting it. You will have the checklist of all unsatisfied specifications, so you should know what sort of changes are needed. Feel free to also schedule an appointment with me to get further details about what you may need to do. Unless I tell you otherwise, you will have one week after I return your work to revise and resubmit it.

Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that a resubmission will be Accepted. Even so, past experience shows that most second attempts—when done diligently and seriously—are up to spec.

Here’s How Your Final Course Grade Will Be Calculated

Figure 1: Determination of Your Final Course Grade.

Just as each foundation assignment has specifications that determine whether it is Accepted or Incomplete, there are also specifications for determining your final course grade:

S1:No more than 6 absences.

S2:At least 2 foundation assignments are Accepted.

S3:At least 4 foundation assignments are Accepted.

S4:At least 6 foundation assignments are Accepted.

S5:At least 8 foundation assignments are Accepted.

You will notice that satisfying certain specifications implies the satisfaction of others. For instance, if you satisfy S4, then you also satisfy S3 and S2. More generally, the progression of these specifications denotes greater progress towards the satisfaction of the course’s learning outcomes. As a result, the more of these specifications that you satisfy, the higher your final course grade.

In addition to the five specifications for letter grades, your participation on Twitter will determine whether your final course grade also has a + (plus) or a − (minus).

The way in which all these specifications come together to determine your final course grade is presented in Figure 1 above. When looking this over, keep in mind that to earn a particular grade, you must also satisfy the specifications of all the grades below it. So, for example, to earn a B, you must satisfy S4—and also S1, S2, and S3.

This means that you will earn a grade based on the specifications you choose to complete:

• You earn an A if you satisfy specifications S1 through S5,
• A B if you satisfy S1 through S4,
• A C if you satisfy S1 through S3,
• A D if you satisfy S1 and S2, and
• An F if you do not satisfy S1 and/or S2.

Furthermore, your total number of Accepted tweets (capped at 5 between each class meeting) will then determine whether your final course grade has a + (plus), a − (minus), or neither:

• Your final course grade earns a + (plus) if at least 113 of your tweets are Accepted,
• It earns a − (minus) if fewer than 100 of your tweets are Accepted, and
• It earns neither otherwise.

Keep in mind that UB does not allow final course grades to be either an A+ or a D−. Therefore a final course grade of an A+ will be assigned an A and a final grade of a D− will be assigned a D.

For example, meeting specifications S1 through S3 (but not S4) while having 100 Accepted tweets earns a final course grade of a C. Meanwhile, satisfying S1 through S4 (but not S5) while having 113 tweets is a B+. Or meeting all five specifications with 98 tweets is an A−.

So look over this grading scheme carefully, think about what grade makes sense for you, and put together a plan for completing the necessary specifications. Do not hesitate to chat with me further about any of this!