CEE 300 Revisions
Guidelines for Revision Submission
These guidelines are intended for any and all written assignments in CEE300 which students have the opportunity to revise. In other words, if you are revising any written assignment in CEE300, it must comply with these guidelines.
Cover Letter
All revisions must be prefaced by a cover letter which addresses why you are resubmitting and how you are changing your paper to address comments from your first submission. This cover letter should not be a separate document, but should be at the start of the document containing the revised report.
If in my comments I made a suggestion or asked a question, you must address this in your cover letter. You may do so by making two columns of text. On the left, explain the comment I made. On the right, explain how you resolved it, or why you feel you do not need to resolve it.
Submissions without a cover letter WILL NOT BE REVIEWED.
Changes to the Document
Revisions should include substantial changes to the document unless your original grade was above a 90. I will re-read the document and re-grade it according to the rubric you were provided with. If I find that your revisions merit a higher grade, the revision’s grade will replace your old grade. Your grade WILL NOT BE LOWERED as a result of submitting a revision, but there is no guarantee if will be raised.
Submission
Consult the CEE 300 Schedule for revision due dates.
Tech Report 1 revisions are due by October 10th, 2013 at midnight to CritViz.
Tech Report 2 revisions are due by November 21, 2013 at midnight to CritViz.
Every student in the group should upload the revised report to CritViz. Critique will not be necessary for revised reports.
E-mail revision submissions will not be accepted.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Andrew Berardy
The following page has an example revision cover letter.
Revision Submission Date: 10-15-13
To, Andrew Berardy, GTA CEE 300
Dear Andrew,
We appreciate the opportunity to resubmit our report “CFL vs. LED vs. Incandescent Bulbs” by Thomas Seager, Jay Banna, and Jason Stauffer. Our original grade was 85, so we would like to resubmit in an attempt to improve our grade.
All of your comments have been addressed, with corresponding changes made directly to the manuscript where appropriate. Accompanying this letter, please find a revised version of our report. Detailed responses to the comments are outlined below.
In addition, we have heavily edited our document to be shorter, but still thorough, because the lowest portion of our grade was in the category “Concise and Thorough”.
Thank you,
Thomas Seager
Jay Banna
Jason Stauffer
| Comment | Response |
| “You should include your conclusion in the executive summary” | We have added a couple sentences with our conclusion and supporting evidence to the summary. |
| “Are there environmental dangers associated with LED and incandescent bulbs as well?” | After researching both, we found that the power use associated with incandescent bulbs outweighs the potential damage from mercury in a CFL. Also, LED bulbs contain rare earth elements, but we believe they are still the best choice in terms of the environment. |
| “I think that your sensitivity analysis graphs could be aggregated into one more interesting graph” | We tried combining the three sensitivity analysis graphs, but the differences in scale between each type resulted in a distorted view of the problem, so we kept our original format. |
| “That’s very interesting!” | Thank you! |
| “This sentence is redundant” | We removed the sentence in question. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can revision hurt my grade?
A: No, but there’s no guarantee it will improve it.
Q: Do we have to keep the same group for revising?
A: No. Groups can stay together, split up or form partial groups for revision. New grades will only be assigned to students whose names appear on the revised document.
