Conferences: You will schedule at least three conferences with me to discuss your writing progress and for us to work together on your assignments.

Evaluation: Throughout the term, I will provide evaluative response to your writing, in written and oral comments and in grades on revised drafts. As a result, you should always know where you stand in the course. In general, grades will be based on the following criteria:

A Excellent. Work is of outstanding quality: stylistically engaging, effectively organized, cogently argued, based on sophisticated understanding of media and use of sources, and showing clear distinction in content and in execution.

B Very good. Work is of very good quality: engaging, clearly organized and argued, based on good understanding of media and use of sources, and showing some distinction in content and execution.

C Adequate. Work is all complete and shows competence, though it is not always engaging. Organization, argument, use of media and sources are all adequate but the work lacks distinction in content and execution.

D Poor. Work is not engaging or well organized; understanding of argument and media and use of sources not sufficiently evident.

NC No credit. Work is incomplete and/or of unacceptable quality.

Evaluation Breakdown

Rhetorical Analysis Unit	20 %
Research-Based Argument	30 %
Texts in Conversation	20 %
In-class Writing/Work	15 %
Portfolio Evaluations	15 %

Attendance: This is an intensive and highly interactive class. Your attendance is thus of great importance to your colleagues and to the instructor. I expect you to be present at every class meeting. Also, keep in mind that 20% of your grade is related to your in-class work. When you are not in class to carry out this work, you “in-class work” is therefore incomplete.

Promptness: Our class time is limited to two 75-minute meetings per week; each session will be packed with information and activities. I expect all of us to be in class on time and ready to begin work.

Due Dates: I will not accept late assignments unless I have given permission, in writing, for an extension.

The Stanford Honor Code: In the spring of 1921, after a seven-year campaign by the student body, the first campus-wide honor system was formally adopted by the University. The code underwent various changes through the years, most recently in the spring of 1977.

A. The Honor Code is an undertaking of the students, individually and collectively:

1. that they will not give or receive aid in examinations; that they will not give or receive unpermitted aid in class work, in the preparation of reports, or in any other work that is to be used by the instructor as the basis of grading;

2. that they will do their share and take an active part in seeing to it that others as well as themselves uphold the spirit and letter of the Honor Code.

B. The faculty on its part manifests its confidence in the honor of its students by refraining from proctoring examinations and from taking unusual and unreasonable precautions to prevent the forms of dishonesty mentioned above. The faculty will also avoid, as far as practicable, academic procedures that create temptations to violate the Honor Code.

C. While the faculty alone has the right and obligation to set academic requirements, the
students and faculty will work together to establish optimal conditions for honorable
academic work.

Intellectual Property: The PWR policy on academic integrity states that “All written work submitted to PWR classes may be sent by the PWR instructor to one of more databases for the noncommercial purpose of checking the writer’s use of sources. These databases check student writing against published works and other submitted student writing to ensure academic integrity, specifically that words and ideas have not been borrowed without appropriate citation.”