I'm about to send out the Week 1 HW scores. They were almost all 2, with a sparse sprinkling of 3's and 1's.  Recall that 2 means that the work ranged from not good, through so-so, to not bad, but at least you made an effort. 

The major issues were:

A1. Some people didn't explain why 26% was so different from 25%. Just saying that it was different was not enough.

A2. Many people didn't explain why a radius-4 neighborhood was so different from the original 8-neighbor Moore neighborhood.

In both cases explaining why this happens was the most important thing.

B. Too many people didn't compare the codes of the other models to the codes of NetLogo.

Very few people discussed the question I posted on the forum about what the results teach you about building and interpreting models. (The answer is that differences in models that may not be visible may make a big difference in the results produced. So don't necessarily take model results at face value. Dig into them and be sure they are modeling what you think they are modeling. When you build a model be sure you are fooling yourself as a result of a computational artifact.)

I gave some extra consideration to HWs that had pictures and tables even if the answers were not better than similar HW without pictures. Pictures make it look like you were more engaged and made more of an effort.

To put approximate grades on the numbers:

3: A, A-;

2: B+ ..  C;

1: C- and below.

In other words, a score of 2 covers a very broad range.

In future HWs please submit the HW and separately, as a .txt file, your self-evaluation. (See previous post about evaluation.)

It's fine to work together. (It's a form of involvement.) If you do, please indicate who you worked with and the extent to which you worked together. But if you work together, each person should understand the entire HW even if you concentrated primarily on only part of it. Working together is not supposed to be a way of thinking about only part of the homework. When we talk about the homework in class, it is not acceptable to say that you didn't work on that part, and you don't understand it. You should insist that your collaborators explain it all to you and that you can explain it to the class and me.

Homeworks are not expected to be polished papers. So I don't expect graphics, videos, etc. In fact, I was surprised by the submissions that included screenshots. I liked the screenshots but certainly didn't expect them.

What I care about most is the thought you put into the HW. As I recall, the HWs with the highest scores had no graphics. But they were carefully thought out.

On the other hand, sometimes you can't find your way to an intellectually sparkling answer. Although images and graphics don't substitute for intellectual depth, they tell me that you are at least involved with the work. You took the time and made the effort to get or create graphics or tables even if they didn't come together into a deeply insightful answer. That's definitely worth something in my view.

With respect to code snippets, those are often important in making a point. I was disappointed that no one submitted code snippets. Question B was about comparing the code in NetLogo to the code in other versions of the Schelling model. Almost always, the best way to talk about code is to show it and then comment on it. When you do that, you have shown me that you have read the code and have thought about it, which is what I want you to do. So code snippets with your comments are almost always good.