TCC401, Michael E. Gorman, 2-2905, Thornton A217, meg3c@virginia.edu

When I grade your proposals, I will, in most cases, recommend revisions for a higher grade. When I select this option, I will refer you to my comments on the proposal to indicate what revisions are necessary.

Procedure for revisions:

1. Read my comments carefully

2. Make changes where you think appropriate. What I will need to see is

   MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS ON YOUR ORIGINAL TEXT

   AND

   THE CHANGES YOU MADE--

   I WILL NOT RE-READ THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL! HIghlight exactly those parts I need to look at.

3. Write a memo describing what changes you made and why, and also indicating where you disagreed with my comments and decided not to revise, and why.

   This is standard operating procedure for a scientific journal article that is recommended for acceptance, pending revision-- you write a letter with the revisions, describing what you did, what you didn't do, and why. See my revised proposal, on reserve, for an example. Part of the task is to divine the real problem that motivates the reviewer's comments. Sometimes my suggestions for fixing your proposal will be off base, because I don't know the content the way you do, but I have seen a problem, and my suggestions are a way of getting you to laok at it, too--and hope you can propose a better solution.

Proposal revisions are due within two weeks of the time I hand back the proposal. There is only one revision cycle, and I reserve the right to lower a grade for a sloppy or helf-hearted effort that actually makes the proposal worse..