# Grading System employed

## Effective Grading

Either pass or fail.

## Qualitative Grading

Grade | Definition
--- | ---
31337 | Outstanding
1337 | Very Good
42 | Competent
0 | Failed

## Method

Graded every month, the ceiled average is the final.

No Quantitative Grading system will be used.

The contributions will be evaluated according to the following directives:

> Autonomy with which the work was done

- Low (was unable to progress autonomously);
- Competent (some autonomy but with blocking situations that required the
  intervention of the mentor);
- Very Good (very good ability to solve problems independently in useful time
  with the mentor mostly focused on defining the next steps of the work);
- Outstanding (is sometimes able to suggest surprising and valid alternatives to what was originally planned by the mentor).

> Objectives satisfaction

- Low (haven't reached to the minimum objectives admissible for the proposed work);
- Competent (the objectives were reached though not entirely);
- Very Good (reached up fully);
- Outstanding (exceeded up the objectives set).

> Intrinsic difficulty level of their work

- Low (relatively easy work, both from a scientific or technical point of view,
  based on widespread knowledge);
- Competent (work with some high complexity of details requiring more advanced
  knowledge/expertise, either technical or scientific);
- Very Good (relatively complex work, requiring a substantial knowledge and
  technical skills, or resulting in some innovative contribution);
- Outstanding (InSaNe).

### Grade formula per month

                                    Autonomy level
    Satisfaction of objectives |    Low     Competent       Very Good       Outstanding
                    -----------+-------------------------------------------------------
                    Low        |    0       0               0               0
                    Competent  |    42      42              42              1337
                    Very Good  |    42      1337            1337            31337
                    Outstanding|    42      1337            1337            31337

                            Grade from matrix above
    Difficulty level   |    0       42              1337    31337
            -----------+-----------------------------------------
            Low        |    0       0               42      1337
            Competent  |    0       42              1337    1337
            Very Good  |    0      1337             1337    1337
            Outstanding|    0      1337             1337    31337

# Modules

N.B.: The following are the minimum averages in GNU social's Summer of Code, we will come up with a custom "transcript" for any interested student.

## Web Technologies

### Amount of time allocated to each module unit

Designation | Time (hours)
--- | ---
Autonomous study | 80
Mentorship | 20
Project work | 46
Total | 146

### Assessment Components

Designation | Weight (%)
--- | ---
Proposal | 80
Proof of Competence | 20

### Proposed Credits

1 Carnegie Unit
5 ECTS

Proposal Rating Guidelines

## Internship | Training

### Amount of time allocated to each module unit

Designation | Time (hours)
--- | ---
Internship | 276.5
Autonomous Study | 93.5
Final Report | 24
Mentorship | 44
Total | 438

### Assessment Components

Designation | Weight (%)
--- | ---
Practical or project work | 100

### Proposed Credits

4 Carnegie Unit
18 Austria, Italy, and Spain ECTS
16 Finland, The Netherlands, Portugal, and Russia ECTS
15 Germany, Belgium, Romania, and Hungary ECTS