Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!ut-sally!brian
From: brian@ut-sally.UUCP (Brian H. Powell)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: students editing output (more)
Message-ID: <2889@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 23:54:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2889
Posted: Fri Sep 13 23:54:43 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 12:27:05 EDT
References: <433@uvm-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 28


     I thought of a little more to say about this.  We also take the time to
look at the people's code.  We look it over for style and documentation (and
collusion.)  Everybody should have various subroutines that do the same thing.
You can look at those crucial sections to see if they did them right.
     It's the people who have peculiar (i.e. poor; wrong) solutions to these
problem sections AND have correct output that warrant further investigation.
(i.e. run the program to grade it.)

     Perhaps I, and the rest of UT's graders, are just mean.  I feel, however,
that the student shouldn't be shortchanged.  I just can't let a shell script
do all my grading.  AI hasn't progressed to the point that a program can
judge program style as well as I can.  To me, that's an important part of
teaching CS.  You don't just teach them how to program; you teach them how
to program well.  They can learn the former out of a book.  UT is here for
the latter.
     Unfortunately, some weeks I spent more than my 20 hours grading/debugging
programs.  Oh, well.  It's all part of being committed to teaching.

Brian H. Powell
 		UUCP:	ihnp4!ut-sally!brian
 		ARPA:	brian@sally.UTEXAS.EDU
 
 		 U.S. Mail:		 Southwestern Bell
 		P.O. Box 5899		345-0932
 		Austin, TX 78763-5899
 					 AT&T
 					(512) 345-0932


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com