MOLB 7950 — Problem Sets

Problem Set Overview

Problem sets

We reinforce concepts with problem sets assigned at the end of each class. During the main blocks, problem sets on Mon and Wed should take ~60 minutes to complete. Problems sets assigned on Friday will be more substantial, requiring ~1-2 hours to complete. Together the problem sets constitute 60% of your grade.

Submission

Problem sets are distributed as Posit Cloud assignments. You will work on problem sets in an Rmarkdown document in the assignment. When complete, complete your assignment by submitting the URL from your Posit Cloud assignment into the assignment submission on Canvas. We will grade your problem directly in the Posit Cloud assignment.

Assigned	Due	Grades By	Who grades	Time to complete (approx)
Mon @ 12pm	Tues @ 5pm	Wed @ 5pm	Instructors / TAs	60 min
Tue @ 12pm	Wed @ 5pm	Thurs @ 5pm	Instructors / TAs	60 min
Wed @ 12pm	Thurs @ 5pm	Fri @ 5pm	Instructors / TAs	60 min
Thurs @ 12pm	Fri @ 5pm	Tues @ 5pm	Instructors / TAs	60 min
Fri @ 12pm	Mon @ 5pm	Wed @ 5pm	Instructors / TAs	1-2 hr

Problem Set Grading Rubric

Problem sets are worth 60% of your grade. Values in parentheses represent point values for each level from 20 points total. This rubric will be assessed at the end of the semester.

Criteria	Expert	Competent	Needs Improvement
Coding style	Student has gone beyond what was expected and required, coding manual is followed, code is well commented	Coding style lacks refinement and has some errors, but code is readable and has some comments	Many errors in coding style, little attention paid to making the code human readable
Coding strategy	Complicated problem broken down into sub-problems that are individually much simpler. Code is efficient, correct, and minimal. Code uses appropriate data structure (list, data frame, vector/matrix/array). Code checks for common errors	Code is correct, but could be edited down to leaner code. Some “hacking” instead of using suitable data structure. Some checks for errors.	Code tackles complicated problem in one big chunk. Code is repetitive and could easily be functionalized. No anticipation of errors.
Presentation: graphs	Graph(s) carefully tuned for desired purpose. One graph illustrates one point	Graph(s) well chosen, but with a few minor problems: inappropriate aspect ratios, poor labels.	Graph(s) poorly chosen to support questions.
Presentation: tables	Table(s) carefully constructed to make it easy to perform important comparisons. Careful styling highlights important features.	Table(s) generally appropriate but possibly some minor formatting deficiencies.	Table(s) with too many, or inconsistent, decimal places. Table(s) not appropriate for questions and findings. Major display problems.
Achievement, mastery, cleverness, creativity	Student has gone beyond what was expected and required, e.g., extraordinary effort, additional tools not addressed by this course, unusually sophisticated application of tools from course.	Tools and techniques from the course are applied very competently and, perhaps,somewhat creatively. Chosen task was acceptable, but fairly conservative in ambition.	Student does not display the expected level of mastery of the tools and techniques in this course. Chosen task was too limited in scope.
Ease of access for instructor, compliance with course conventions for submitted work	Access as easy as possible, code runs!	Satisfactory	Not an earnest effort to reduce friction and comply with conventions and/or code does not run