# Rubrics

Each graded part of the project has a rubric below. Each criterion is scored on three levels: **Strong (2 points)**, **Developing (1)**, or **Weak (0)**. All criteria in a component count equally, so your grade for a component is the points you earn divided by the maximum. For example, a proposal scored 2, 2, 1, 2 earns 7 of 8 points.

## Applies to every component

- **Your own words.** Written work must be in your own words and reflect your own understanding (syllabus AI policy). Undisclosed substantive AI use, or submitting AI output as your own, is an Honor Code matter, not a rubric deduction.
- **AI-use note attached.** A missing AI-use note costs **10%** of that component's grade.
- **Length.** Stay within the range for your units. Going outside it costs **5%** of that component's grade.
- **Partners.** Partners get the same grade for the written project components. The final presentation is graded partly individually (see below), and peer reviews are individual. For the proposal, the work-sharing contract is part of the grade (see below).

## Proposal milestone (10% of the course grade)

*Syllabus: motivate the project; explain feasibility.*

| Criterion | Strong (2) | Developing (1) | Weak (0) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Question** | Specific and answerable; who, where, when, and what outcome are clear; doesn't assume its answer | A real question, but still broad or vague in one dimension | A topic rather than a question, or the answer is built in |
| **Motivation** | At least one concrete reason (a number, a named gap, a named audience); passes "so what?" | Reasons given, but generic ("this is important") | No clear reason why the question matters |
| **Feasibility** | Sources, tools, or cases named, access checked, a realistic plan; biggest risk and plan B identified | Plan named, but access untested or the scope is ambitious for ten weeks | No clear plan for the evidence, or clearly not doable this quarter |
| **Fit with the course** | Clearly about AI's effect on a political or social challenge; engages at least one track | Connection to the course is there but thin | Weak connection to AI and politics |

**Partners: work-sharing contract.** It isn't scored, but it has to be accepted. It's accepted when every major step has a role for both partners and there's a realistic plan for working together. If steps are missing, or whole steps go to one partner, it's returned for revision.

## Implementation milestone (10%)

*Design and evidence progress; what has actually been done.*

| Criterion | Strong (2) | Developing (1) | Weak (0) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Real progress** | Concrete work done (analysis run, cases coded, argument drafted) and clearly separated from plans | Some real progress, but plans and progress are mixed together | Mostly plans |
| **Design** | Unit, scope, and comparison or standard are clear; strongest rival or objection is named | Design mostly clear; the rival or objection is weak or missing | Design unclear or unable to answer the question |
| **Checks** | 2–3 targeted checks on the real weak points, with pass standards set in advance | Checks present but generic, or pass standards unclear | No checks |
| **Plan to the final** | Realistic path to the final submission; changes since the proposal explained; minimum viable version named | Plan present but vague | No plan |

## Final presentation (15%)

*Syllabus: themed panel presentation and Q&A. 5 minutes, about 5–7 slides. Partners split the time equally.*

| Criterion | Strong (2) | Developing (1) | Weak (0) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Takeaway** | One clear claim that the audience can repeat afterwards | A claim is there but gets lost | A topic, not a claim |
| **Evidence and honesty** | Findings or argument shown clearly; limits stated; plans not presented as results | Evidence shown but claims somewhat stronger than it supports | Little evidence, or overclaiming |
| **Delivery and slides** | Within time; slides support the talk; one idea per slide | Somewhat over time or text-heavy | Well over time, or reads the slides |
| **Q&A** | Answers directly, including hard questions; acknowledges limits | Answers partly or defensively | Can't answer basic questions about the project |
| **Panel connection** | Relates the project to others on the panel in the discussion | Some connection | None |

With a partner, both of you present for about the same time, and the presentation is graded **partly individually**: **delivery and slides** and **Q&A** are scored for each of you separately; **takeaway**, **evidence and honesty**, and **panel connection** are scored jointly.

## Final submission (30%)

*Syllabus: all components integrated, plus attachments.*

| Criterion | Strong (2) | Developing (1) | Weak (0) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Argument** | Central claim stated early; every section serves it; one integrated piece rather than stapled milestones | Claim present, but some sections drift or repeat the milestones | No clear central claim |
| **Evidence and calibration** | Every major claim supported; causal language only where the design supports it; nulls and failures reported | Mostly supported; some over- or under-claiming | Claims largely unsupported, or clearly overstated |
| **Design and method** | Approach fits the question and is explained well enough to follow | Approach mostly fits; some gaps in explanation | Approach can't answer the question |
| **Rivals and limits** | Strongest objection or rival explanation stated fairly and answered; limits clear | Rival or limits addressed briefly | Missing |
| **Use of feedback** | Peer and panel feedback visibly addressed | Partly addressed | Ignored |
| **Writing and sources** | Clear and well organized; every citation verified and consistent; attachments usable | Minor clarity or citation problems | Hard to follow, or citations missing or unverified |

## Peer reviews (10%)

*Syllabus: 150–200 words each; giving usable feedback is a course learning goal.*

| Criterion | Strong (2) | Developing (1) | Weak (0) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Understanding** | Restates the project accurately in one sentence | Restatement partly off | No restatement, or misreads the project |
| **Strength** | One specific strength, with the reason | Strength named but generic | None |
| **Main concern** | The *one* issue that most threatens the project, explained clearly | A real issue, but not the most important, or a list of small points | No substantive concern, or taste presented as a flaw |
| **Suggestion** | A concrete step the author can take before the next deadline | Suggestion vague | None |

All three peer reviews, including Peer Review 3 in session, use this rubric.