Post-midterm self-assessment
Quantitative minimum
If you go back and reread the section of the course introduction on evaluation, you'll see that one part of the process of generating a mark in this course is to see what (if any) minimum mark has been generated by sheer participation in the ongoing work of the course -- that's the next section on "Quantitative factors (time and effort"). Please bear in mind that the record of this is simply a record; it doesn't get changed by my judgment about whether or not someone had a good reason for missing an assignment, because I simply assume that people have good reasons. It doesn't alter the fact that an assignment was missed; it was. (It might clarify things to think about the extreme case: suppose someone had a really good excuse for missing everything during the term. Would anyone argue that we should give credit for the course in that case?)
So, the first thing you need to do is look at the records page. It's been divided to make it more readable; there's now a "Total" column, which simply adds up all the tasks I'd been able to count through the end of October, which is when I decided to define the total. Using those numbers as a base, and bearing in mind my rule of thumb that people need to do about 3/4 of the tasks in order to establish a minimum mark at all, here are the minima as they would stand as of then:
Remember, all that means is that (at this point) your mark couldn't be lower than that. In order for the mark to be higher, you would need to demonstrate that your learning was at the kind of level defined by the university calendar.29 and higher: B[*this line got dropped from the printed version of the prompt.]
28 and higher: B-
27 and higher: C+
25 and higher: C
23 and higher: C-*
below 23: no minimum
You can (if you choose) demonstrate this by writing a convincing learning reflection (as you'll remember, there's an explanation of this in the course introduction). I won't elaborate on that explanation here, but I will offer you some questions which you can choose among (or ignore) as you write your reflection. Remember, in any case, that you are writing this as though for someone who doesn't know about the course, isn't interested in whether you have enjoyed it or not, and knows no more than you did at the beginning of September about the literature and society between 1660 and 1789. I often suggest, stealing an idea from my colleague Thom Parkhill, that you write it as though you were explaining to a well-loved but pretty skeptical aunt, who wants to know that you're not wasting your time in university (and especially in this course). Here are some questions she might ask. Imagine each begins with "What are you learning, and how when and where are you learning it, about . . .
Remember that your aunt thinks your learning is something you do, not something that happens to you, and she's not very interested in why you haven't learned, or in whether you like this course. She's only interested in what you have learned, and seeing some evidence to support your claim that you're learning.
Bear in mind, as well, that statements about the course -- how well, or poorly, it supports your learning, or how much, or how little, you enjoy it -- will not impress her at all. She's a tough old bird, and while she might think it nice that you like what you're doing, or too bad if you don't, her concern is what you're going to carry away from this experience for the rest of your school career and the rest of your life.
Take a couple of hours to write this; think of it as a midterm examination in which you choose, or make up, the questions. Write it as a file with your usual word processor, and post it in the "Midterm Reflections" Forum. You don't have to do it at all, but if you do, post it before next Tuesday night.
If you are working on one, post a note saying you're doing that instead of a weekly learning journal in your blog, by the usual deadline.