School of Architecture and Planning

Final problem set scores + course grades

Dear negotiators --

We've just entered both on Stellar, and here are a few stats on the final problem set: median score=90; max=99.

'Solutions' for the final problem set will be posted by tomorrow as well, to help you capture final lessons of the semester and compare your answers to the models.

Best wishes - Todd and Xav

Announced on 28 May 2012  2:35  p.m. by Xavier de Souza Briggs

Reminder to complete online course evaluation by 9AM, 5/21 (Monday)

Dear all --

This is a friendly reminder to take 10 minutes and complete the online evaluation for 11.011, which must be done by 9AM this Monday, May 21st:

http://web.mit.edu/subjectevaluation

We're especially eager to get your feedback on specific elements of the course -- from the weekly structure to reading content and sequencing of topics, , the way we use the role plays and in-class cases, assignment types and timing, approach to discussions and more -- whatever clearly helped you learn, could be strengthened, should be dropped, etc.

These data are enormously useful to us and thus to future students.

So thanks in advance for taking a few minutes to complete the evaluation, and best wishes for the summer and beyond. Do stay in touch as you make use of these ideas and make new connections too!

Xav

Announced on 18 May 2012  9:29  a.m. by Xavier de Souza Briggs

Homestretch check-in

Dear students,

A few logistical matters relating to the next two weeks as we wrap up the semester:

1) Third problem set - A reminder that your third problem set is due this Tuesday, May 8th, by 2pm (upload to Stellar in PDF format). As with the first p-set, we have uploaded a couple of great examples from the second p-set to Stellar. You may want to look at them as you complete the third.

2) Final Offer video - You are expected to watch the Final Offer before this Thursday's class. Links to the film (online) may be found on both Stellar and in the prep sheet. We will also have an optional screening this Tuesday evening at 8pm in room 9-554, complete with popcorn.

3) Final, integrative problem set - The final problem set assignment - a set of word problems which will cover material from throughout the semester - will be posted to Stellar immediately after class on Tuesday May 15th, and will be due by 4pm on Thursday May 17th . Instructions and general advice on how to approach the word problems will be provided in the assignment document. You will choose and answer any three of the five word problems given, using no more than 250 words per answer.

4) Course Review - Part of the Tuesday May 15th class, which serves as a course review, will be devoted to recapping the semester and answering any questions might have. Please submit questions and recap requests to the 'Course Review Prep' thread on the Forum by Monday May 14th at 11pm so that we can prepare for and use this time wisely.

4) Required Forum Posts - Speaking of the Forum, a final reminder that part of your course participation score, which is part of your final grade, assesses your ability to contribute thoughtfully to this space (both original posts and 'response' posts). If you have not yet completed a minimum of six posts, we suggest that you post on Menehune Bay now or 'The Final Offer' case next week.

Have a good weekend,
Todd

Announced on 06 May 2012  3:40  p.m. by Todd Edward William Schenk

Grades and grading for the course

Dear students --

We've had a few Qs about grading, in some cases asking what it would take, say, to earn an 'A.' Here's some info that should be helpful for now.

Below is the syllabus excerpt on major components of the grading we will do next month, and the summary feedback we returned with the first problem set included grading tiers.

From the standpoint of focusing on your learning rather than some sort of artificial competition, this is a mastery-based course, meaning: we will not grade on a curve. There is no competition for a fixed number of As, A-minuses, etc. We evaluate you against an absolute standard of mastering and applying core concepts (as shown in your analytic writing in the problem sets, total 65%) and quality of your participation, encompassing the parts outlined below (total 35%).

Having said that, b/c class participation is a significant part of the grade and is evaluated right through the final exercise and final class discussion, at this point, forecasting specific numbers (targets) is not terribly meaningful. We do not and cannot know.

What's more, since Todd and I both do scoring, and subtle differences in evaluation come into play, we will take some mathematical steps, at the end stage, to ensure the fairest possible grade, regardless of 'inter-rater' or other differences across assignments. But we'll normalize to the grading scale shown after that first assignment, FYI.

Best wishes -- Xav

"Evaluation will be based on contributions to and full participation in the near-weekly exercises as well as class discussion, including a class blog (35%); three problem sets (35%); and a final, integrative problem set (30%)."

Announced on 01 May 2012  12:27  p.m. by Xavier de Souza Briggs

Problem Set #2 - Evaluated

Good morning,

Evaluated versions of your second p-set have now been uploaded to Stellar under the 'comments' section. They were generally well done, with most of you clearly responding to the core themes. The mean grade is 85%.

We provide individual feedback to each of you on your memos to help you think further about and clarify the key concepts, and to assist you as you prepare your third p-sets (which are due on May 8th - questions posted on Stellar). There were some general patterns that are also worth clarifying here:

Q1: Some of you seem to have confused or misunderstood the terms. 'Value creation' (or the integrative phase of negotiation) is about creatively exploring interests and options to 'expand the pie'. Value distribution is about dividing the pie. Also, some of you asserted that value creation is more dispassionate while emotions inherently enter in the distributive phase. Neither is necessarily true; emotions like camaraderie can certainly enter the picture and be highly influential in the value creation process. Conversely, a distributive process that involves dispassionately agreeing upon standard, objective criteria for evaluation can lower the impact of emotions in the distributive phase.

Q2: There are, of course, numerous ways in which value can be created in a negotiation. Many of you emphasized things like 'building trust'. While this is often a good move tactically (and may be right morally), the reason exploring options and sharing in the context of bundling is important is because by exploring each others' interests you can learn more about what each party cares about, and then create packages (i.e. bundles of options) that trade across these things. The suggestion is that a solution maximizing joint gains is more likely to be found.

Q3: Many of you asserted that an even division of the pie is 'fair'. Challenge yourselves to think about why someone might suggest that this is not the fairest outcome; for example, if someone brought much more to the negotiation. Efficiency may be understood in many ways, but a few of you equated it purely with the amount of time a negotiation takes. Apropos our discussions on creating value to move towards the Pareto Frontier, the point of the question was to get you to focus on efficiency as we defined it in class: how much of the total potential value in a negotiation is actually created by the process, i.e. to grow the pie to optimal size, as distinct from dividing it one way or another. In Redstone, for example, every outcome on the frontier was maximally efficient, but some of those outcomes were more equitable than others.

If yo have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us.
All the best,
Todd

Announced on 26 April 2012  6:05  a.m. by Todd Edward William Schenk