#21: 15/5/17
In-Lab Programming Exam #2 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for In-Lab Exam #2 and the grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. You can find your solutions, my solution, and the bsc.txt file I used to compute grades for this assignment in the EEE dropbox for this class (see the name ile2studentsubmissions). If you scored better on In-Lab Exam #2 than on In-Lab Exam #1, your score for this exam will be highlighted in yellow, and the sum of these two scores (column W in the grades spreadsheet) will be 2 * (your score for In-Lab Exam #2): many students scored better on In-Lab #2: 61% scored the same or higher; 39% scored lower.

The class average was about 85% and the median was about 93%. The skew between these statistics shows that although the majority of students did very well, there were some students who did very poorly, dragging down the average but not the median. At the extremes, 44% of the students scored 100% or more (because of the extra credit points; all methods passed all batch self-check tests).

The approximate distribution of grades on this In-Lab exam is 56% As, 16% Bs, 8% Cs, 10% Ds, and 10% Fs (last Fall the distribution was 38% As, 15% Bs, 15% Cs, 11% Ds, and 22% Fs).

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • If there is a comment in column B (the one with the X) saying that you submitted an empty folder, contact me (Rich).

  • If you submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • If you submitted code that didn't finish executing in at least one of their functions and therefore failed all its tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop).
Finally, the batch self-check tests for grading were identical to the tests in the script of the exam, except I changed 'Alice' to 'Alyce'. There were 48 students (16%) who solved the first extra credit problem fully, and only 1 student who solved both extra credit problems.

#20: 6/5/17
Quiz #7 Graded
The TAs have graded the paper submissions for Quiz #7. The grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. The class average was about 80% and the median was 84%, meaning that some students correctly solved most problems, but less than half (31%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Overall there were 31% As, 30% Bs, 14% Cs, and 25% Ds and Fs.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order) and Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time. Row 1 in Columns D-I shows how many points the problems were worth; Column C shows a 2 point deduction for students submitting later or not using a single sheet of paper.

Rows 3 and beyond show the number of points earned by each student. Columns J-L show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 25).

The TAs graded the following problems.

  Problem 1-2: Nicholas
  Problem 3  : Shivani
  Problem 4  : Vikki Pang (an ICS-46 Reader; see your TA first for this problem)
  Problem 5  : Te-Yu
  Problem 6  : Harha
These papers will be returned in lab on Thursday. Students should talk to the appropriate TA first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did. The best time to talk with any TA about grades is during one of their Labs.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

This assignment was designed to provide you with an introduction to solving problems related to analyzing algorithms and code. All these topics may be tested again on the Final exam. As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.


#19: 5/31/17
Program #4 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Program #4 and the grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. The class average was about 99% and the median was 102%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems, and over half (93%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Note that this problem had an extra credit part, as well as extra credit for an early submission. Overall there were 93% As, 2% Bs, 3% Cs, and 3% Ds and Fs. About 26% of the students submitted early, and these early submitters scored better (average 103%) than students submitting on the due day (average 97%); I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later program.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order); Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time (for pairs, only the submitting student will show an X, not their partner); Column C shows the extra credit points for early submissions (students submitting a few minutes late show -2; students submitting more than a few minutes late were not graded).

Row 2 shows the worth (in number of points) for each problem. Row 3 shows the number of tests performed for each problem: all were batch-self check tests. Rows 4-5 shows further information about the tests performed in each column.

Rows 6 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each student (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student missed 1 of 4 tests on a 4 point problem, he/she would receive 3/4*4 = 3 points. Column P shows each student's cumulative score, for all the tests in the single problem in this assignment. Columns Q-S show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 50). Note that these columns are filled in both for submitters and their partners (these are the only columns filled in for partners): a partner should see his/her submitter's line for details.

To get the extra credit point for processing string annotations (Column O), your code must pass all 6 tests.

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • A few students submitted code that didn't finish executing in some part and therefore failed all that part's tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop).

  • A few students submitted code that (a) incorrectly named partners -wrong format or wrong UCInetID, or (b) had students listed a partners of multiple submitters, or (c) had both students submitting and listed as partners of submitters. The TAs are authorized to try to understand these problems and help me correct them (but, I will deduct some points for dealing with these problems).

This assignment was designed to illustrate the mutual recursion used for checking annotations (parameter and return) for functions, by overloading the __call__ method in a class, creating a function decorator. As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.


#18: 11/27/17
Quiz #6 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Quiz #6 and the TAs have graded the paper submissions. The grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. The class average was about 82% and the median was 88%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems, and almost half (49%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Overall, there were 49% As, 23% Bs, 8% Cs, and 20% Ds and Fs. About 28% of the students submitted early (to Checkmate), and these early submitters scored better (average of 92%) than students submitting on the due day (average of 78%); I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later quizzes.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order) and Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work. Row 1 for Columns C-H shows how many points the problems were worth. Row 2 shows the number of tests performed for each problem.

Rows 4 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each student (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student missed 5 of 20 tests on a 4 point problem, he/she would receive 15/20*4 = 3 points. Columns I-M show the cumulative score for each Problem. Columns N-P show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 25).

TAs graded the paper submissions for their Labs. The TAs will return the written quizzes in their lab on Tuesday. The written problems were graded as follows:

  • For the list problem, fully correct references and cross-outs in l, t1, and t2 were worth 1 point each (.5 pts if some but not all were correc); fully correct references and cross-outs for the LN's next fields (between the linked list nodes) were worth 1 point total (.5 pts if links were correct but not crossouts).

    For the binary search tree, getting the 3 nodes at depths 0-1 correct was worth .5 pts; getting all other 3 nodes correct was worth 1 pt (no partial credit here); gettting th Size/Height both correct in the box was worth .5pts total (almost everyone got Size correct, but some specified Height as 6, which does not use the defintion of Height from the notes).

Students should talk to their TA, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did. The best time to talk with any TA about grades is during one of their Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • A few students submitted code that didn't finish executing in at least one of their functions and therefore failed all its tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop).

This assignment was designed to provide you with a chance to demonstrate you understand the execution of linked-list and binary search tree algorithms. Also, it served as an introduction to coding linked-list and tree functions, involving iteration and recursion. Finallly, it also allowed you to experiment with a derived class. All these topics may be tested again on the Final exam. As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.

#17: 11/20/17
Quiz #5 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Quiz #5 and the TAs have checked most of the solutions for appropriateness: really using appropriate recursion to solve each problem. The grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. The class average was about 94% and the median was 100%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems, and over half (88%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Overall there were 88% As, 6% Bs, 1% Cs, and 4% Ds and Fs. About 45% of the students submitted early, and these early submitters scored a bit better (average of 97%) than students submitting on the due day (average of 91%); I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later quizzes.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order) and Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time. Row 1 for Columns C-L shows how many points the problems were worth. Note that problems 1-5 each had 4 points for correctness and 1 point for appropriateness. Row 2 shows the number of tests performed for each problem: appropriateness is binary: appropriate (blank) or not appropriate (-1).

Rows 4 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each student (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student missed 5 of 20 tests on a 4 point problem, he/she would receive 15/20*4 = 3 points. Columns P-U show the cumulative score for each Problem. Columns V-X show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 25).

The TAs for each lab graded the appropriateness of all functions for all students. Appropriateness was either right or wrong. Appropriate recursive code contains

  • no for/while loops or comprehensions,
  • no rebinding of parameters/local variables (including no use of = nor +=
  • no mutation of data: e.g., no calls to pop, remove, del, append, add, insert, extend, etc.)
  • no comparison of string longer than 1 character in compare
  • no calls to sort (the Python builtin) or sorted
The purpose of the assignment was to improve your ability to write recursive functions correctly, according to the constraints of functional programming.

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did; if they dispute any of the appropriateness marks they, should talk to TA Razavi, graded that problem. The best time to talk with any TA about grades is during one of their Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • A few students submitted code that didn't finish executing in at least one of their functions and therefore failed all its tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop).

This assignment was designed to provide you with an introduction to the use of recursive functions. All these topics may appear on the Final exam. As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.

#16: 11/19/17
Program #3 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Program #3 and the grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. I used a different bsc test file for grading: one that defined a pnamedtuple('Quad1', 'x y z f'), having a different number of fields with different names not in alphabetical order. The class average was about 96% and the median was 102%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems, and over half (90%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Note that this problem had an extra credit part, as well as the standard extra credit for an early submission. Overall there were 90% As, 2% Bs, 2% Cs, and 7% Ds and Fs. About 27% of the students submitted early, and these early submitters scored better (average of 103%) than students submitting on the due day (average of 93%); I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later program.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order); Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time (for pairs, only the submitting student will show an X, not their partner); Column C shows the extra credit points for early submissions (students submitting a few minutes late show -2; students submitting more than a few minutes late were not graded).

Row 2 shows the number of points each group of batch-self checks is worth; row 3 shows the number of tests performed for each problem: all were batch-self check tests. Rows 4-5 shows further information about the tests performed in each column.

Rows 6 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each student (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student missed 1 of 4 tests on a 4 point problem, he/she would receive 3/4*4 = 3 points. Column L shows each student's cumulative score, for all the tests in the single problem in this assignment. Columns M-O show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 50). Note that these columns are filled in both for submitters and their partners (these are the only columns filled in for partners): a partner should see his/her submitter's line for details.

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • A few students submitted code that didn't finish executing in some part and therefore failed all that part's tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop).

  • A few students submitted code that (a) incorrectly named partners -wrong format or wrong UCInetID, or (b) had students listed a partners of multiple submitters, or (c) had both students submitting and listed as partners of submitters. The TAs are authorized to try to understand these problems and help me correct them (but, I will deduct some points for dealing with these problems).

This assignment was designed to illustrate the richness of ways to solve programming problems: writing a program that automatically writes a class, given the required information to specify it (class name and fields). It also provided an opportunity to improve your string-processing abilities. As with all assignments, you should examine my solution.


Announcements

ICS-33: Intermediate Programming

In reverse-chronological order

#15: 10/12/17
Midterm Graded
The TAs and I have graded and recorded the scores for the midterm exam. The TAs will distribute the graded midterms in the common lab this week. If you do not pick up your exam then, you will have to come to my office hours to retrieve it (and I would prefer not to have hundreds of exams stockpiled in my office). I have not yet received exams from students who took it at DSC. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files.

The class average was about 65% and the median was 66% (last Fall they were 66% and 68%). Because the average was below 75%, about 12 normalization points (10%) will be added when computing the average of all graded instruments on the spreadsheet. The grades recorded in the spreadsheet (both in Columns R and S) are the actual exam grades (without normalization points; see cell R8, highlighted in yellow, for the number of normalization points that will boost your score). After normalizing the scores on the midterm, overall there were 22% As, 23% Bs, 18% Cs, 19% Ds, and 18% Fs (last Fall there were 21% As, 24% Bs, 24% Cs, 13% Ds, and 18% Fs; that is a pretty close match). I will show some more detailed information about the exam in lecture on Monday.

Now is a good time to look at course grades as well, as we have graded nearly half of the total number of testing instruments (450 of 1,000 points). Now is the first time that recorded grades are truly meaningful, because they include testing instruments in all the major categories: quizzes, programs, in-lab exams, and written exams. The approximate distribution of course grades (for those students who submitted a midterm exam) is 38% As, 26% Bs, 18% Cs, and 18% Ds and Fs: these numbers are better than my original prediction of of 25% in each of these four categories (e.g., we have 64% As and Bs instead of 50% As and Bs).

The different problems, with the indicated averages, were graded by the following staff.

  • Problem 1: 63% Functions on Data Structures (Rich )
  • Problem 2: 64% Regular Expressions (Shrivani)
  • Problem 3: 77% Operator Overloading 1 (Te-Yu
  • Problem 4: 64% Operator Overloading 2 (Nicholas)
  • Problem 5: 55% Iterators/Generators (Harsha)
  • Problem 6: 68% Recursion/Functional Programming (Vikki -a 46 reader- see me)
  • Problem 7: 50% Attributes, Operators and FEEOP (Andrew -a 46 reader- see me)
  • Problem 8: 54% Short Answer (Mixed - see me)
I would like to thank the TAs for their efforts over the weekend (each spent about 16 hours grading their problems on about 350 exams and then entered the grades for all the students).

If you have any issues with how any exam problem was graded, talk to the staff member who graded it, and they can discuss the rubric with you and resolve any issues. But first, please examine my solution and understand the differences between it and your answer. Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

As with the In-Lab Exams, if student perform better on the Final Exam (since it is cumulative), I will replace their Midterm Exam score with their Final Exam score.

Finally, the normalized average for the 12noon labs was 74%, 2pm labs was 75%, and 4pm labs was 75%: all about the same.


#14: 11/4/17
Quiz #4 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Quiz #4 and the grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. The class average was about 77% and the median was 92%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems, and a bit over half (54%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Overall there were 54% As, 17% Bs, 5% Cs, and 18% Ds and Fs. About 9% of the students submitted early, and these early submitters scored much better (93% average) than students submitting on the due day (84%); I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later quizzes.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order) and Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time. Row 1 for Columns C-H shows how many points the problems were worth. Row 2 shows the number of tests performed for each problem. Row 3 shows the part of the problems in more detail.

Rows 4 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each student (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student missed 5 of 20 tests on a 4 point problem, he/she would receive 15/20*4 = 3 points. Columns I-J show the cumulative score for each Problem. Columns K-M show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 25).

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • A few students submitted code that didn't finish executing in at least one of their functions and therefore failed all its tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop). Most of the problems were with extra tests I performed on the drop_last generator.

This assignment was designed to provide you with a good grounding in the use of iterators and generators (which can be used to implement iterators), and how to write code that uses iter and next directly (using while loop instead of for loop). All these topics will be tested again on the Midterm and In-Lab Exam #2. As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.

#13: 11/2/17
Program #2 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Program #2 and the grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. The class average was about 95% and the median was 100%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems, and over half (86%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Overall there were 86% As, 3% Bs, 4% Cs, and 7% Ds and Fs. About 393% of the students submitted early, and these early submitters scored much better (101% average) than students submitting on the due day (92% average); I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later programs.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order); Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time (for pairs, only the submitting student will show an X, not their partner); Column C shows the extra credit points for early submissions (students submitting a few minutes late show -2; students submitting more than a few minutes late were not graded).

Row 2 for Columns D-Z shows how many points the problems were worth. Row 3 shows the number of tests performed for each problem: all were batch-self check tests. Row 4 shows further information about the tests performed in each column.

Rows 5 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each student (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student missed 1 of 4 tests on a 4 point problem, he/she would receive 3/4*4 = 3 points. Columns AF-AG show each student's cumulative score, for all the tests in each of the two problems in this assignment. Columns AH-AJ show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 50). Note that these columns are filled in both for submitters and their partners (these are the only columns filled in for partners): a partner should see his/her submitter's line for details.

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • A few students submitted code that didn't finish executing in some part and therefore failed all that part's tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop).

  • A few students submitted code that (a) incorrectly named partners -wrong format or wrong UCInetID, or (b) had students listed a partners of multiple submitters, or (c) had both students submitting and listed as partners of submitters. The TAs are authorized to try to understand these problems and help me correct them (but, I will deduct some points for dealing with these problems).

This assignment was designed to provide you with a good grounding in the use of the classes and practice in overloading operators. Quiz #4 covers decorators for iterators using generators. All these topics will be tested again on the Midterm and In-Lab Exam #2. As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.


#12: 4/30/17
Quiz #3 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Quiz #3 and the grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. The class average was about 88% and the median was 100%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems, and over half (68%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Overall there were 68% As, 16% Bs, 3% Cs, and 13% Ds and Fs. About 45% of the students submitted early, and these early submitters scored better (96% average) than students submitting on the due day (83% average); I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later quizzes.

There were about half a dozen students whose code timed-out when I graded it; I let the grading program run everyone's code for 10 seconds. If you code timed-out, talk to your TA about replacing the body of any offending code by just pass, so that it won't time-out, allowing all the other code to be graded.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order) and Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time. Row 1 for Columns C-M shows how many points the problems were worth. Row 2 shows the number of tests performed for each problem.

Rows 4 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each student (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student missed 5 of 20 tests on a 4 point problem, he/she would receive 15/20*4 = 3 points. Columns O-P show the cumulative score for each Problem. Columns Q-S show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 25).

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • A few students submitted code that didn't finish executing in at least one of their functions and therefore failed all its tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop or just code that took too long).

This assignment was designed to provide you with a good grounding in the use of operator overloading in classes: this includes both standard arithmetic and relational operators, as well as other methods that Python writing calls automatically (e.g., __repr__, __str__, __getitem__, etc). All these topics will be tested again on the Midterm and In-Lab Exam #2. As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.

In the Date class, some students wrote operators that returned strings instead of Date objects; I added a few bsc.txt tests to fail in such cases.


#11: 10/27/17
In-Lab Programming Exam #1 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for In-Lab Exam #1 and the grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7.

You can find your solutions (by your Hashed ID), my solutions, and the actual bsc.txt files I used to compute grades for this assignment, in the EEE dropbox for this class (see the name pattis_ilestudentsolutions.zip); when you test your code with the bsc.txt, you will have to replace its script by importing driver and calling driver.driver(). See the script in my solutions for this code.

I believe the In-Lab Exams are the best indicator, of all testing instruments, of your ability to program: read specifications and transform them into working code (writing code and debugging what you wrote). As I'll say in class, Tolstoy is often quoted (from Anna Karenina) as writing,

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
My adaptation of this quote is
"High-scoring students are all alike (knowing how to program well); every low-scoring student did poorly in his/her own way: e.g., lack of programming or debugging ability, freezing on the exam, misreading or misunderstanding some problem statements, spending too much time debugging one problem, being ill when taking the exam, etc."
So, I understand that there are many possible reasons that students don't do well on In-Lab Exams.

I computed the grades a bit more liberally than 20% per problem (all students received the same or higher scores): all 5 problems correct: 100%; 4 problems correct: 85%; 3 problems correct: 70%; 2 problems correct: 55%; 1 problem correct: 35%; no problems correct: 0%. Of course, correctly solving the sixth problem was worth 1% extra.

The result was the class average was about 81% and the median was about 85%. At the extremes, 43% of the students submitted code in which all five functions passed all batch self-check tests; 19% scored 55% or below (only two functions passed most tests; in fact, 4% got no functions to work on any tests).

The approximate distribution of grades on this In-Lab exam is 43% As, 30% Bs, 8% Cs, 0% Ds, and 19% Fs. FYI, the averages for the different times that the exam was given (early morning through late afternoon) were: 12noon 76%, 2pm 77%, and 4pm 75%. About as many students got 100 points as 101.

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • If you submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • If you submitted code that didn't finish executing in at least one of their functions and therefore failed all its tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop).
The actual batch self-check tests I used for grading were similar to the tests in the script of the exam; but, all produce differents results, so students could not "hard-code" any answers into their functions, hoping to get some correctness points. Often I just changed the names a bit (e.g., Cal to Cali) which leads to different but equivalent output.

Finally, if students score a higher percentage on their In-Lab Exam #2 (which involves material from the first, as well as Classes, Operator Overloading, and writing Iterators), I will score their In-Lab Exam #1 higher (in the past I have often made the first exam score equal to the second; thereby erasing the first score; other times I have averaged the two). Therefore, even a terrible grade on this exam can have a minimal effect on your final grade.


#10: 10/22/17
Quiz #2 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Quiz #2 and the grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. The class average was about 88% and the median was 100%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems; over half (71%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Overall there were 71% As, 3% Bs, 10% Cs, and 168% Ds and Fs. FYI, last Fall quarter there were 63% As, 4% Bs, 5% Cs, and 28% Ds and Fs. About 11% of the students submitted early, and these early submitters scored much better (96% average) than students submitting on the due day (87% average); I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later quizzes.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order) and Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time. Row 1 for Columns C-K shows how many points the problems were worth. Row 2 shows the number of tests performed for each problem.

Rows 4 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each student (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student missed 5 of 20 tests on a 4 point problem, he/she would receive (20-5)/20*4 = 15/20*4 = 3 points. Columns L-N show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 25).

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • A few students submitted code that didn't finish executing in at least one of their functions and therefore failed all its tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop).

This assignment was designed to provide you with a good grounding in the use of writing regular expressions and using the re module to write code that processes text using regular expression. All these topics will be tested again on the Midterm. As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.

#9: 10/22/17
Program #1 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Program #1 and the grades are now recorded. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. Note that the assignment grades spreadsheet has 3 tabs: one for parts 1-2; one for parts 3-5; one for the combined scores from each. Parts 1-2 (worth 24 points) do not include any credit for early dropoff; parts 3-5 (worth 26 points) include extra credit points for an early dropoff.

The class average was about 85% and the median was 98%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems, and over half (63%) of the class correctly solved all the problems (or had minor deductions). Overall there were 63% As, 9% Bs, 11% Cs, and 17% Ds and Fs. FYI, last Fall quarter, there were 59% As, 14% Bs, 8% Cs, and 19% Ds and Fs. About 19% of the students submitted early, and these early submitters scored much better (106% average) than students submitting on the due day (86% average). I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later programs.

In the assignment spreadsheet, Column A contains the Hashed IDs of all students (in sorted order); Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time (for pairs, only the submitting student will show an X, not their partner); Column C shows the extra credit points for early submissions (we are counting these points only for the submissions of parts 3-5).

Row 2 for Columns D-Y shows how many points the problems were worth. Row 3 shows the number of tests performed for each problem: all were batch-self check tests. Rows 4-5 show further information about the tests performed in each column.

Rows 6 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each submission (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student failed 1 of 4 tests on a 5 point problem, he/she would receive (4-1)/4*5 = 3/4*5 = 3.75 points. Columns Z-AD show each student's cumulative score, for all the tests in each of the problems in this assignment. Columns AE-AG show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (what integer is entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (parts 1-2 24; parts 3-5 26). Note that these columns are filled in both for submitters and their partners (these are the only columns filled in for partners): a partner should refer to his/her submitter's line for details.

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned).

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests for that part: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting executable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • A few students submitted code that didn't finish executing in their influencer solutions and therefore failed all its tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace any method body with pass and rerun/regrade the code. But, I will deduct some points for submitting code with an infinite loop: in the future, replace any method body with pass if it causes an infinite loop.

  • A few students submitted code that (a) incorrectly named partners -wrong format or wrong UCInetID, or (b) had students listed a partners of multiple submitters, or (c) had both students submitting and listed as partners of submitters. The TAs are authorized to try to understand these problems and help me correct them (but, I will deduct some points for having to deal with these problems).

This assignment was designed to provide you with a good grounding in the use of the standard data structures in Python: list, tuple, set, and dict (and the defaultdict variant). It also included practice iterating overs such structures, writing comprehensions, use of the sorted function and lambda, and other useful/important Python functions. Unlike Quiz #1, the problems were bigger, requiring more interesting algorithms to solve, but still all expressible with a small number of Python language features. All these topics will be tested again on the Midterm and In-Lab Exam #1. As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.


#8: 10/16/17
Quiz #1 Graded
I have run the automatic batch self-check tests for Quiz #1 (checking correctness) and the TAs have examined problem 1 and the code (checking requirements: e.g., statements/solution) and the grades are now recorded and posted. See the assignment grades and Grades(zipped .xlsm file) files, whose details are discussed below, in Announcement #7. The class average was about 77% and the median was 88%, meaning that most students correctly solved most problems (43%), and 20% of the class correctly solved all the problems. Overall there were 43% As, 17% Bs, 13% Cs, and 27% Ds and Fs for those students who submitted work; most of the students who scored a 0submitted code that we could not run (see the paragraphs below for possible regrading by your TA). FYI, the previous Fall quarter the grades were 57% As, 11 Bs, 10% Cs, and 22% Ds and Fs for those students who submitted work.

About 44% of the students submitted early (although there are no extra credit points on quizzes for doing so), and these early submitters scored much better than students submitting on the due day (83% compared to 73%): a difference of one full grade (students submitting 2 days early had an average of 92%). I am assuming that some students ran out of time before they finished all the problems, and will plan to get started earlier on later quizzes.

In the assignment grades spreadsheet, Column A contains the ID Hashed of all students (in sorted order) and Column B contains an X if we believe the student submitted work on time. Column C shows deductions for

  • written work submitted late (written work is due at the start of class)
  • not printing a copy of quiz page on which you wrote your answer
Row 1 for Columns D-O shows how many points the problems were worth. Some problems show points in two columns: e.g., Problem #3 has 1 point in Column F (3a/C: produced correct answers according to the batch self-checks) and 1 point in Column G (3a/R: the requirement of 1 assert/return statement, according to the TAs). Any /C column relates to correctness; any /R relates to requirements. Row 2 shows the number of batch self-check tests performed for each problem (for those checked automatically; for the other columns it is just the number of points the problem is worth).

Rows 4 and beyond show the number of failed tests for each student (a blank indicates no failed tests: equivalent to 0 failed tests). To compute the number of points you scored for a problem/in a column, compute the percentage of successful tests and multiply it by the number of points the problem is worth. So for example, if a student missed 2 of 6 tests on a 5 point problem, he/she would receive (6-2)/6 * 5 = 3.3 (actually, 3.333...) points. Columns P-R show each student's cumulative Score, the score Rounded to an integer (that integer is the score entered in the Grades spreadsheet) and Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth (here 25).

TAs graded problem 1 and the function requirements for all students in their labs. The TAS will distribute these pages in labs this week only; after that, the papers will be archived in my office. The rubric for this problem was as follows: each part was worth .5 pt.

  1. some names are written inside module objects/ovals, but no m.x/m.y/etc.
  2. boxes are written underneath names
  3. most arrows point from "namey things" to "objecty things"
  4. all "objecty things" appear as ovals
  5. all "object things" are labelled (by str, int, list)
  6. m appearing on left points to m's module object
  7. x appearing on left points to "listy thing"
  8. x appearing on right points to same "listy thing" (as x appearing on left)
  9. x appearing on right (same as 8.) has crossed out arrow pointing to int(1)
  10. y appearing on right points to same int(1) object as remaining arrow in a "listy thing"
  11. only one "listy thing" present, showing its 0 index crossed out and its 1/other index pointing to int(1)
If you lost any points on this problem (most students did) I suggest that you start by comparing your solution to mine.

Requirements points for the functions were deducted only for too many statements. Many students created extra/temporary lists:

  • Lists created by any kinds of comprehensions.
  • Lists for sorting parts two different parts of the parameter, and then another list that was the concatenation of these two lists.
But, I decided to have the TAs not take off points for these deviations from the requirements: if you had these issues, closely look at my solutions to see how to avoid them in future work, where I might deduct points.

Students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or dispute any of these marks. The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share.

Students should examine their graded work immediately and get any regrade issues settled as soon as possible (within a week of when the grade is assigned). Show up to lab and settle these issues immediately.

IMPORTANT Information about Student Grades

  • A few students submitted code that extraneous imports or had syntax errors and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to fix a few simple syntax errors in the code you submitted and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for submitting unexecutable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.

  • If you submitted an assignment, but the X in column B has the comment TIMEOUT it means that one of your functions contained an infinite loop, and therefore failed all tests: the TAs are authorized to allow you to replace the body of any function by pass and rerun/regrade the code (but, I will deduct some points for not submitting gradable code). Also see Announcement #5 below.
This assignment was designed to provide you with a good grounding in the use of the standard data structures in Python: list, tuple, set, and dict (and the defaultdict variant). It also included practice iterating over such structures, writing comprehensions, and use of the sorted function and lambdas. All these topics will be tested again on the Midterm and In-Lab Exam #1 (along with appearing in Programming Assignment #1 as well). As with all assignments, you should examine my solutions.

#7: 10/9/17
Programming Assignment #0 Graded
The TAs have graded (and I have recorded the grades for) Programming Assignment #0. As with most assignments, there are two files that you should download, unzip, and examine to understand your performance on this assignment, and your cumulative performance in this class.

Both of these files are sorted by Hashed IDs (which are computed from the 8-digit UCI IDs of all the students in the class). To determine your Hashed ID, see Message #6 below.

  • The first file to examine stores the assignment grades, a zipped Excel file that details how each student was graded on this instrument: what marks were given and why. It is sorted by Hashed IDs (column A). Column B contains an X if the student submitted work (later, if you work in pairs, the X will appear only on the Submitter's cell, not in the Partner's cell, although both will receive the same grade). Column C (for Programming Assignments only) shows extra credit points for early submission: 1 point for submitting 24 hours early; 2 points for submitting 48 hours (or more) early; a blank here means no extra credit/early submission points.

    Columns D and beyond show marks for the various parts of the assignment. The last three columns show your Score, the score Rounded to an integer (see the discussion below) and your Percent, based on the number of points the assginment is worth. If a cell contains a comment (those cells with a red-triangle in their upper-right hand corner) you can hover over the cell and you will see the comment that explains why the marks were given: sometimes you must edit the comment and enlarge its bounding box to see the full comment.

    Students should talk to the TA who graded a question, if they do not understand why they received the marks they did or to dispute any of these marks. For Programming Assignment #0, the grading was as follows

    Part A: Nichola Ceglia
    Part B: Te-Yu Chen
    Part C: Shivani Inamdar
    Part D: Harsha Nadimpalli

    The best time to talk with your TA about grades is during one of your Labs, when both student and TA are physically present to examine the submission and the grade, possibly running the solution on a computer they can share. The same goes for talking to other TAs. All TAs can download your work from Checkmate.

  • The second file to examine stores the cumulative Grades(zipped .xlsm file) -also available as a link on course web- unzip it, and then click the tab labeled Winter 2017. This tab records all the grades for all the testing instruments that you submit during the quarter. It is also sorted by Hashed IDs (column A). You will notice that in this spreadsheet all recorded grades are rounded up to integers: so receiving a 27.5 on the first spreadsheet will translate into a 28 recorded on the second one. We will use this same "round-up" process for recording all grades during the quarter.

    On this spreadsheet, columns B-T contain your scores: for the Quizzes (B-I), Programming Assignments (J-O), In-Lab Programming Exams (P-Q), and Written Exams (R and T: I'll discuss S after the Midterm). Columns U-X contain the sums for all these testing instruments. Column Y contains special extra credit points (for example, submitting the faculty/course evaluation at the end of the quarter; more on this then). Column Z-AD contains your cumulative points (Z), your average (AA), your rank in class (AB: 1 means highest-scoring student), and your current grade (AC is the letter, AD is +/- if appropriate).

    You should check this spreadsheet after every assignment is graded to ensure that your score was recorded correctly. Again, students should talk to the TA for their Lab first, if this spreadsheet contains any errors.

IMPORTANT: Scores wil revert to 0, if I do not receive a signed Academic Integrity Contract from you (we are tabulating them this week). Please come by during my office hours as soon as possible if you need to fix this problem.

This assignment was designed to test you on whether you have mastered the basics of using Python in Eclipse, the Eclipse Debugger perspective, and batch-self-check files in the driver.py module (in courselib). It was also designed to see if you could follow instructions and ask questions: more on that below.

The class average was 28 (or about 94%) and the median was 29 (or about 97%). For those students submtting work, there were 82% As, 10% Bs, 2% Cs, and 6% Ds and Fs.

The assignment was not meant to be hard, but it was not trivial either, and there were many opportunities to lose points (and learn from your mistakes). Your work in the Eclipse/Python Integrated Developement Environment (IDE) throughout the quarter will leverage off the understanding and skills that you acquired in this assignment.

Let me talk about what will probably be the most contentious single point of the 1,000 points that this course is worth (thus .1% of the grade): this point was lost by about 14% of the students submitting work. I took off 1 point if you corrected the misspelling Inteprxter (and two points if you didn't have either spelling: in this second case you obvious failed to meet the specifications because you did not print what was required). When some students hear about this point deduction, their heads explode and they cannot believe that I am taking off a point for correcting what you thought was my mistake. But... I am trying to foster an atmosphere where nothing is taken for granted in the instructions that I give: if anything seems confusing or plain wrong, I should be questioned about it -preferably in public, on a MessageBoard forum- so others can learn if there really is a problem, and if so the correction.

  • Some students did ask me outside of class if they should correct the misspelling, and I told them "no"; some students asked me by email if they should correct the misspelling, and I told them "no"; one student asked on a Forum whether they should have corrected the misspelling, and I posted a reply saying that they shouldn't, for all students in the class to see. It is critical for programmers to be sure they know the specifications of the problem they are being asked to solve, otherwise they will solve, test, debug document, etc. the problem incorrectly, and another cycle of development will be needed to fix the misconceptions. The overview lecture included a graph that showed that the later in development a problem is found, the harder/more expensive it is to fix. So if we can find problems at the time we are reading the specification of the problem to solve, that can save us a lot of work/money later.

  • The bottom line is that you are responsible for reading the instructions carefully and reporting any confusion so that I can clear it up (best reported on the MessageBoard Forum for Programming Assignments). Of course, you can freely talk to anyone about the problem specifications, just not the code that you write for your solutions. If you make any assumptions (like the node names in Programming Assignment #1 always being one letter long -that is not part of the specification), they might come back later to haunt you (gradewise). When working with a partner, you'll have two pairs of eyes reading the specifications. I am willing to deduct this one painful point at the start of the quarter, from many students, to get across this perspective, and save everyone grading grief during the quarter. I hope you submitted early so the extra credit erased this point loss.

  • I will not intentionally do anything like this on subsequent assignments; but I can certainly be unclear about the specifications (which have lots of details) or even contradict myself from one spot to the next. It it up to you to clear up the confusion, and best to do it on the MessageBoard forums, so I can clear up the problem once for all students.

Also, some students did not carefully read the instructions in the Debugger Perspective document for the quiz part, which required them to change a line in the craps script before running it with the debugger to gather the required information. With this change in your program, we can check your answers for correctness; without it, we cannot check you answers for correctness.

Finally, about 52% of the students submitted the program 2 or more days early; about 14 submitted the program 1 day early. So, about 66% of the students submitted this assignment early. Keep up the good work: you can earn 12 extra points if you turn in every Programming Assignment 2 or more days early (upping your grade by 1.2%): for some students, this boost will be enough to raise their final grade. Over the course of a two week assignment, it will be to everyone's benefit -students and staff alike- if students try to finish and submit early.

IMPORTANT If you believe that we graded your work correct, please examine the files mentioned above first, then contact the TA who graded it, to discuss the issues with him/her. Such a discussion can have only positive outcomes: either he/she will agree with you that you deserve more credit (and, we do want you to receive all the credit that you are due), or you will come to understand the question, program, or solution better and realize why you lost points. This is certainly a win-win situation. Please read my solution and the assignment grades spreadsheet carefully before contacting your TA; ensure that you understand what is the correct answer and what points were deducted from your assignment and why. If there is a problem, your TA will email me a revised summary about your program, and cc a copy to you. I will update the grades spreadsheet as appropriate (it might take a bit of time for all these events to cumulate in a changed grade) and email you.

If you feel there is still an unresolved problem after talking to your TA, please contact me (but always contact your TA first). Also, because of the size of this class, if you have a grading issue, we will consider it only if you bring it to your TAs attention within a week of when I return the materials. This policy is in place to avoid grade-grubbing late in the quarter.


#6: 9/28/17
Hashed ID
When we grade assignments, we often distribute/update various spreadsheets with the relevant grading information. These spreadsheets are indexed and sorted by each student's Hashed ID. The course web-page has a Find ID Hashed (grade key) link, right below the Grades(zipped .xlsm file) link, which you can use to retrieve your Hashed ID (or click Find ID Hashed). Use the result it shows when examining any spreadsheets of grades; I suggest that you find this number once, and write it down for future reference.

#5: 9/28/17
Important:
Submitting Code
without Losing Points
ICS-33 uses software that automatically grades most quizzes and programming assignments; it uses (self-checking) testing cases that we supply with the testing instruments that we distribute. You will learn about these tools in Programming Assignment #0. Here are a few hints to ensure that you will understand the grading process better and minimize your point loss.
  1. Ensure that you submit the code you wrote, not empty files, nor the original files that you downloaded. Be very careful and double-check what you submit to avoid this mistake: if you are not sure that you submitted the correct code, resubmit it.

  2. If you are submitting with a partner, ensure that the Submitter and Partner lines of the program are correctly specified. The names must appear in the exact format required, with no misspellings nor punctuation errors. The student listed as Submitter must be the one who actually submits the code. See the Programming Assignments web page for the exact form required (and you must follow that exact form, with no misspelling nor punctuation errors).

  3. Ensure that you submit your code on time. We can, and mostly do, ignore any work submitted after the deadline (even by a few minutes). It is a fairness issue for other students who do submit on time. The best strategy is to finish the work and submit it well before the deadline (and get extra credit points): you will learn more too, if you aren't rushing to meet a deadline. To ensure that we will grade something, submit partially complete code ahead of the deadline; then, if you miss the deadline, we will still grade the partially complete code. Be warned: Checkmate can get bogged down if many students all try to submit a few minutes before the due time, so do not wait until the last minute to submit your code.

  4. Ensure that you test your code using the self-checks that we provide and use for grading. By using these self-checks, you will know when your code contains errors that will result in point deductions when we grade it.

  5. Ensure that your files...
    1. ...contain no syntax errors.
    2. ...contain only appropriate import statements: typically just the ones provided in the download file(s).
    3. ...contain only functions that execute quickly (typically under a few seconds)

    Any syntax errors, inappropriate import statements, or excessive execution time may cause all self-check tests to fail during automatic grading. For functions that take excessive time, it is best to comment out their bodies, replacing their code with pass, resulting in the function immediately returning None: it will be counted wrong, but doing so will allow other functions to be run and graded for correctness.

    To avoid inappropriate imports and losing points, ensure that in Python have selected Window | Preferences | PyDev | Editor | Auto Imports and unchecked all boxes (illustrated below) and then clicked Apply following by OK.

After an assignment is graded automatically, the Announcement for it will contain a link to an Excel file that you can examine for detailed information about how your score was computed.

If this information does not match your expectations from running the assignment's self-checks while developing your code, contact your TA. It is best to meet with your TA during lab hours: he/she can talk to you about your code and run it while you are present, to help resolve the difference. But, if we have to modify your code to grade it properly (see the typical source of problems above), then we will deduct points. I hope that by students carefully writing/submitting their code, these grading anomalies and point deductions will be minimized during the quarter.


#4: 9/28/17
Communication
There are many ways to communicate with me (and other staff and students). Here is a quick overview.
  1. Email: If you send me email, please do it through your UCI email address. Include a well-thought Subject line. Also, please include your full name and the course (ICS-33), and your Lab # (for questions related to grading). I teach many hundreds of students each quarter in multiple courses. Providing this information helps me quickly determine the context of your email, so I can better answer it. Finally, when I respond to your email, please do not send a "Thank you" acknowledgement. Such niceties are not necessary for work-related email. For me, it just increases the number of emails that I must read.

Note that for questions that are not specific to you -questions that are relevant to the entire class- it is best to ask them on the appropriate Message Board Forum.

  1. Message Board Forum: Post on the forum most closely related to your question. Include a well-thought Title line that clearly identifies the issue you are asking about; doing so helps me and other students who are deciding whether to read your message and the response(s). If you discover the solution to your own question, revisit the Forum and explain (without supplying code) any useful information that you learned that might help other students with the same problem. Avoid a post that says just, "Never mind: I figured it out myself."

  2. Course Email (ics33-F17@classes.uci.edu): Mostly this is for me to use to communicate with all the students in the class. But, there are instances (very rarely) for students to use it: the best example is that if Checkmate appears to be down. Sending a Checkmate down email to this address tells me that it is down, and tells all the other students that (a) it is down and (b) I have been informed it is down. FYI, we rehosted Checkmate on a new computer a few quarters ago, and it is now much more reliable and rarely down.

#3: 9/28/17
First Lab
I expect students to attend all their scheduiled labs (unless they have already finished the current programming assignment). Programming Assignment #0 is assigned before the first lab of the quarter; so if you have not already finished it, I expect you to attend your first lab and work on it there.

Generally, you can get invaluable help from the TAs and Tutors for understanding Python and debugging your code: don't expect them to debug your code for you, but instead expect them to help you learn how to debug your own code in general, using your current problem/code as a concrete example.


#2: 9/28/17
Install Course Software
All students with computers should download and install the course Software: Java (to run Eclipse), Python, and Eclipse. All three products are available for free on the internet. Students can view instructions for downloading and installing this software by following the Course Software link. If you are using a Mac there are special instructions for you (e.g., Java is already installed)

If you have installed a version of Python prior to 3.6, you should install the current version of Python 3.6 (and the most up-to-date version of Eclipse as well).

Although students can work on their programming assignments on the computers in the UCI labs, I expect students with computers to download and install this software by the end of the first week of the quarter. If you are having difficulty with this task, the TAs and Lab Tutors will help you during the first Lab meeting (or beyond, if necessary: bring your computer to the lab). If you have successfully downloaded and installed this software, please help other students do so too. Finally, you can also use the class MessageBoard Forums to ask questions about installing this software and help other students install it.

I strongly suggest that you BACKUP YOUR WORK daily: computers can malfunction, break, or be stolen.


#1: 9/28/17
First Message
Welcome to ICS-33. I am going to post and archive important messages about the class in this announcements web page: each entry will be numbered, dated, and labeled. The entries will appear in reverse chronological order. Whenever you follow the link to this page, scan its top for new announcements; scan downward for older announcements. This message will always appear at the bottom of this file. I will never remove a message from this page

I have already posted some important messages before the start of the quarter. Expect a few new messages to be posted here each week, mostly regarding returned and graded work.

Check this Announcements page, along with your email and the MessageBoard Forums, daily.