UTSC PSYA01 Marking Fucktards
Can these fucktards at -university- mark or follow simple instructions?
Or are they too busy getting piss drunk and puking their liver out to bother?
I wouldn't put my money on the piss drunk part, I would say they don't belong in university and they'll be gone by the end of the year, but that's beside the point.
Examples of the fucktards who marked my last assignment:
Fucktard 1
What the hell? Not linked in a memorable way? When the hell since is chronologically not memorable?
What do you want, a fucking poem? IT'S A SUMMARY DUMB-ASS!
1 point, should be a 9/10 if you're going to stick with this dumb shit.
Fucktard 2
Obviously you don't agree with Fucktard #1, good for you.
However, I haven't covered all of the points? Well, A) yes, yes I have covered all of the points. B) THIS IS A FUCKING SUMMARY DUMB-SHIT!
They don't want specifics about the article, they want a general idea.
1 point, should be a 9/10 if you're going to stick with this crap.
Fucktard 3
Nice and short...THE ESSAY WAS A SUMMARY, NOT THE REPLIES DIPSHIT!
Also, what in the fuck are "topical sentences". Looks like someone was trying to sound smart.
1 point, 9/10 if you're going to stick to this representation of your low IQ.
Fucktard 1
Nice and short again, but whatever, you obviously didn't "have time" for this. Screws the fuck out of the rest of us who put time into this.
Anyways, so I have good arguments, but weak arguments huh? (Examples = arguments in the case of an essay, probably didn't think about this one now did you dumb-ass.)
If you really want to stick to your jack-assery, then 1 point, should be 9/10...NOT 6 OUT OF FUCKING 10 DIPSHIT!
Fucktard 2
"Paragrpah"...huh? Someone was too "busy" to bother with their spelling I guess...
While the "some parts" point had some validity, that would only hold in a situation that another term could be used.
Point: If you're going to criticize, provide an alternative dumb-ass.
Either way, in this situation, it was only "some parts" that I had a problem with, not all of them. Suggest another term.
1 point, should be 9/10.
Fucktard 3
The argument is convincing, yet it's not convincing.
Also, where is this non-existent "counter attack"? Someone may want to get some Psychological help, seeing as a "counter attack" is more of a violent function.
Anyways, my first point still stands, you contradict yourself.
So, 1 point, should be 9/10 if you're going to stick with your stupidity.
Due to technical problems with my ISP, I have the marks and comments that I gave people that I was marking.
Abstract Marks
Article 1 - Mark 9/10
Positive:
- mentioned all points from the article briefly
Negative:
- unsure why the title is in the middle of the summary itself (perhaps a computer glitch, but this is how it showed up for me, ignore this comment if this wasn't how you submitted it)
Article 2 - Mark 10/10
Positive:
- though unorthodox, HTML commenting notation surrounding the title was effective
- well written
- large vocabulary used was well appreciated
- very concise and within the word limit specified
Negative:
- while creative, the HTML commenting notation in the title may not be accepted by everyone
Article 3 - Mark 7/10
Positive:
- captured the main idea of the article well
Negative:
- 2nd sentence - the "b" section of the list shouldn't have been separated
- summary is over word limit that was in the specifications
- "In conclusion strong sex..." should have had a comma after "conclusion"
- was a bit too specific for a summary
Article 4 - Mark 8/10
Positive:
- mentioning Darwin was a very good idea
- very concise, which was appreciated
Negative:
- may have wanted to specify which article or which author instead of "The YES article..."
Article 5 - Mark 9/10
Positive:
- large vocabulary and variety of words made the summary seem more professional
- covered ideas in the essay well
Negative:
- "The author..." - who is the author?
- "Using d statistic..." - may want to review what "d" should have been, if it if should have been there at all
Critical Thinking Marks
Article 1 - Mark 9/10
Positive:
- very good points about fertility and sexual access being different
- very good criticism about that point of the article
Negative:
- "From way back then, human have less..." - "human" should be "humans"
- same part as above, there were 2 tabs
Article 2 - Mark 10/10
Positive:
- very good arguments, introducing current day variables
- case was air-tight to my perspective
Negative:
- perhaps 'the "Yes" article' could have been changed to something like the title of the article or "David M. Buss' article"
Article 3 - Mark 8/10
Positive:
- well thought out points about gender roles and society
Negative:
- "there fore" should be "therefore" (it was used multiple times)
- it wasn't clear what the point of the piece was (a clear statement in the introduction may have fixed this)
Article 4 - Mark 10/10
Positive:
- agreeing entirely with neither article leads to a more thought out reply, good idea
- there were no criticisms that I could find for this piece, very well done
Negative:
- no criticisms available
Article 5 - Mark 8/10
Positive:
- introduction to the ideas presented in the article were very welcome
- the idea of stereotypes running through the articles was well observed
Negative:
- main points of the piece came in at the end of the article - this may not be the best idea
Honestly, which one contains more accurate and over-all better marking?
AND DON'T TELL ME THE FUCKTARD ONES!
Congratulations to the fucktards from the 1st RTCP set who avoided my wrath.
Oh, yeah, ignoring the profanity...THIS IS HOW YOU CRITICIZE SOMETHING FUCKTARDS!
Also, look at how those above were marked. THIS IS HOW YOU MARK SOMETHING DIPSHITS!