Psychology 242 | Critical Thinking Assignment | Grading

I have finished grading the critical thinking assignment on the conflict in Iraq as of April 26, 2003. I will give the papers to the TAs to distribute in sections this week (April 28, 30). If you do not pick up your paper in section, you can stop by my office to pick it up sometime after Wednesday. I will also bring the papers to the final exam if you would like to pick them up there.

In the on-line description of the assignment I suggested that I would grade the papers in the following manner: (a) First, I would split the paper into two groups, those written by people who adopted positions in favor of war (63%) and those written by people that adopted positions against the war (37%) and (b) grade the papers within each group on a curve such that 1/3 of the papers would get a C, 1/3 a B, and 1/3 an A. On average, however, the papers were fairly poor (see below), and, in the absence of a curve, approximately 60% of the papers would have received D’s. In order to create a compromise between the need to grade fairly (i.e., to make sure the pro-war papers and the anti-war papers had the same grade distribution) and the generally poor quality of the papers, I altered the grade distribution. Specifically, within each group (i.e., pro- and anti-war), 45% of the papers received C’s, 38% of the papers received B’s, and 17% of the papers received A’s.

I didn’t think it would be fair to give D’s because I originally indicated that the grades would be C’s, B’s, and A’s. However, I was surprised by the large number of students who didn’t complete the assignment. Recall that the assignment was (a) to adopt a position on the war in Iraq, (b) provide two reasons for your position, and, importantly, (c) provide systematic evidence that can be used to evaluate your position. Many people ignored Step C and simply wrote about their opinions. As we discussed in class on March 24^th, this was not supposed to be a simple opinion piece. One of the objectives of this course is to facilitate your ability to think critically and scientifically about the world. This entails making attempts to minimize the confirmation bias, attending to baserate information, and making the appropriate comparisons (i.e., using comparison groups). Many students failed to approach the topic in a scientific manner, and instead simply argued their case while dismissing disconfirming evidence that might undermine their case, ignoring baserate information, and more generally, not relying on the empirical facts as we understand them.

Below I have listed the 7 most common reasons students listed for going to war in Iraq. In the right-most column I’ve listed some of the points that would need to be addressed to treat the issue in a proper systematic manner:

We should go to war because . . .	Some appropriate systematic comparisons
. . . the Iraqi people want the U. S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power.	This requires demonstrating that a non-trivial proportion of Iraqi people desire U. S. intervention. There are undoubtedly some Iraqi people who want U. S. intervention, just as there are some who are opposed to it. What are the relative proportions? If 1% of Iraqi people desire U. S. intervention, then the implications of that statistic for foreign policy are much different from a statistic of 99%.
. . . because Iraq has repeatedly violated U. N. resolutions.	Has Iraq violated more U. N. resolutions than other nations? If so, then some kind of action against Iraq might be justified. If not, then why is war against Iraq in particular justified?
. . . Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.	How dangerous are these weapons relative to the weapons held by other nations? How do we know that Iraq currently (i.e., before the war) has weapons of mass destruction?
. . . many people have died (or been tortured) by Hussein.	Will fewer people die in war than under Hussein’s rule? Have more people died under Hussein’s rule than under the rule of other regimes in the Middle East or elsewhere?
. . . Iraq supports terrorism.	Is there evidence that Hussein supports terrorism to a greater extent than other governments across the globe?
. . . Iraq presents a grave threat to the security of the U.S.	This requires a comparative analysis that demonstrates that the threat posed by Iraq is greater than that of other nations.
. . . war is the only way to remove Hussein from power.	This requires demonstrating that the U. N. weapons inspections were not resulting in disarmament. Was Iraq, for example, disarming at an increasing, decreasing, or constant rate over the weeks prior to the war?

Here is a list of the 7 most common reasons students listed for against the war in Iraq. In the right-most column I’ve listed some of the points that would need to be addressed to treat the issue in a proper systematic manner:

We should not go to war because . . .	Some appropriate systematic comparisons
. . . the Iraqi people do not want the U. S. to intervene.	This requires demonstrating that a non-trivial proportion of Iraqi people are against U. S. intervention. There are undoubtedly some Iraqi people who want U. S. intervention, just as there are some who are opposed to it. What are the relative proportions? If 1% of Iraqi people desire U. S. intervention, then the implications of that statistic for foreign policy are much different from a statistic of 99%.
. . . because war is not the only way to disarm Hussein.	This requires demonstrating that the U. N. weapons inspections were leading to progress. Were they? Was Iraq, for example, disarming at an increasing, decreasing, or constant rate over the weeks prior to the war?
. . . Iraq is not the greatest threat to the U.S.	This requires a systematic analysis of the threat posed to the U.S. by a variety of nations. Such an analysis would reveal where Iraq lies with respect to the threats posed against our country.
. . . war has the potential to heighten the terrorist threat against our nation, not diminish it.	This requires a systematic analysis of the effects of prior military actions on terrorism rates. It may be the case that terrorism increases after military invasion; it may be the case that terrorism decreases after military invasion.
. . . this war is really about oil. This war is not about reducing terrorist threat, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or the liberating the Iraqi people.	What evidence exists that suggests that this war was initiated in order to obtain control over Iraq’s oil?
. . . this war will cost too much and our economy is already suffering.	What impact does war tend to have on economies? Has war actually hurt the economy in the past or has it helped? Are there no financial gains to be made (that outweigh the costs) by overthrowing Hussein?
. . . innocent people will die.	Will more innocent people die by going to war than will die if we do not try to remove Hussein from power? How many people have died under Hussein’s rule and how does this compare to actual and estimate war casualty rates?

Notice that in both of these cases, each reason could be analyzed in a systematic manner by studying the historical facts in carefully. As noted in the on-line description of the assignment, it may be impossible to obtain the “correct” answer to some of these questions, but they can be addressed to some extent.

The papers will count toward 25% of your Quiz component of the course. The A papers will be recorded as a 100% ; the B papers will be recorded as an 89%, and the C papers will be recorded as a 79%. Missing papers will be counted as an F or 0%. The grades for the papers are listed here.