In class today I went over a number of questions about the marking criteria and gave a draft of a paper.
You can find a recording of the class here.
You cab find the sketch I wrote here
Below is a summary of my recollection of the Q&A:
“Does the referencing style matter?”
No, as long as you are consistent and give sufficient information.
“Is there a specific way you want code to be presented, like a screenshot of some specific code or would something like a hyperlink to a jupyter file be acceptable?”
A screenshot is better than a link (the link might die and/or the site might change) but including the code directly in your work is preferred. If you are using LaTeX here is some information on how to do that.
“How many topics of game theory should we cover for a good paper”
It depends: some papers might use all the tools we have discussed. Others might use just one. You will be marked on appropriateness of the research presented.
“Do we reference results from notes in the appendix or assume the reader has access to them?”
You do not have to reference the notes (in the context of the assessment).
“Do you need to provide your code/ will the code be marked?”
If you have written a specific piece of code that is original and you want to make sure you get marks for than you should include it. If you are just using calls to Nashpy (for example) then you can just include a sentence saying something like “[…] computed using Nashpy […]”.
“Is week 12 the week straight after week even (first week of Easter) or is it the week back from Easter”
This year week 11 finishes BEFORE the Easter break and week 12 is the first week after the Easter break.
“Is there a minimum size for the font in the paper?”
No but I would suggest going no lower than 10pt.
“Do the references count towards the page limit? Are they different to an appendix?”
Yes the references count to the page limit.
“Is there a set level of content needed for 40%? I.e. include Nash Equalibria”
If you are looking to just pass (completely understandably, no judgement here) I’d recommend having a chat with me. I can take a look at your work and give you specific advise.
“In an old lecture I remember you saying that the average module marks had to fall within a certain range. How will this affect you marking our individual or group courseworks?”
I will be marking your work according to the marking criteria and sharing your mark with you. This is technically a temporary mark and might be modified by the exam board.
“Is it better to write more things rather than be more specific?”
This is a non trivial question to answer without saying “it depends”. Breadth and depth are both important.
“Do we need to include graphical component?”
You do not necessarily need one. However, given the nature of the course I’d expect most of your work to benefit from a graphical component of some form.
“How are we suppose to know what you define as: “Good”, “Exemplary”, “Stupendous””
This is a fantastic question. I do not however have a good answer except to recognise the subjective nature of this coursework as opposed to the usual mathematical exam where having something right or wrong is clear.
Source code: @drvinceknight Powered by: Jekyll Github pages Bootsrap css