We (the professors) agree completely!
Nothing mentioned on the list in the last week is required to get a most
excellent A on the paper. All of it (at least all by us) is just meant to be
helpful clarifications for those who asked. Any "reasonable" interpretation of
the
exam as distributed will be readily excepted.
Now, go to sleep!
;-)
Dave
Anna Lorien Nelson writes:
Good morning, everybody.
Just wanted to offer a friendly heads-up to the professors...
there are many of us who have two papers due today (or very close to
today). Sadly, this means all of our time does not belong to
statistics. :-) Different people will budget their time different
ways, of course, but it is not realistic to expect students to
incorporate in their exams all of these excellent but very last-minute
suggestions (articles to read, new lattice commands every few hours)
that have been posted in the last two days.
Neither is it particularly reasonable to hold us to brand-newly announced
requirements, as with the limit of only two appendices, or the blanket
declaration -- since revised -- that it would be absolutely essential to
test several levels for defining "contested" elections.
Hope this will be kept in mind when evaluating our efforts.
Many thanks,
Anna
_______________________________________________
gov1000-list mailing list
gov1000-list(a)fas.harvard.edu
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov1000-list
--
David Kane
Lecturer In Government
617-563-0122
dkane(a)latte.harvard.edu
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html