Midterm: Opening Moves
A twenty-item quiz on what you'd actually say, sat in tutorial the week initiation theory is covered
Due: 10 April 2028 · Weight: 30%
The brief#
Given the moment, say what you’d do — and say why that’s a good move, not just a confident one.
Twenty items, each a fictional prompt: a described profile photo, a bio line, or an offline scenario (a stranger’s opening line at a party, a comfortable silence that needs breaking). For each, you write what you’d say and, in one sentence, the concept from weeks 1–7 that makes it a reasonable move rather than a guess. A confident answer with no theory behind it scores no better than a hesitant one with the right theory attached.
What you submit#
Nothing beyond the sat paper — this is completed in tutorial 7, on paper or on the class laptops, in the time allotted. No take-home component.
How to prepare#
A six-item mock set, one per week 2–7 concept, each with a model response that names the concept it’s applying — the same format as the real paper, worked through in the open.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- sat in tutorial 7, under exam conditions, in the time allowed
- every response names the concept (war of attrition, signaling cost, coordination under incomplete information) it's applying, not just an answer
- all responses concern fictional profiles or scenarios supplied in the paper
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight | Perfect (HD) | Excellent (HD) | Very Good (D) | Good (C) | Satisfactory (P) | Borderline (P) | Unsatisfactory (F) | Poor (F) | Not Shown (0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reads the situation correctly | 45% | Every item's situation is read with precision — the response matches exactly what the scenario calls for, with no items misjudged. | Near-complete accuracy in reading situations, with only the hardest items showing any hesitation. | Strong situational judgement across almost all items. | Most items are read correctly, with a few misjudged. | Situations are read correctly often enough to show the underlying judgement is sound. | Situational reading is inconsistent — right about as often as wrong. | Situations are frequently misread, in ways suggesting the prompt wasn't understood. | Responses show little sign of reading the situation at all. | Paper not attempted. |
| Response is defensible under the week's theory | 45% | Every response is backed by the exact concept the item is testing, correctly named and correctly applied. | Nearly every response names and correctly applies the relevant concept. | Most responses are defended with the correct concept, clearly applied. | Responses are generally defensible, with the concept named though not always precisely applied. | Concepts are named for most items, with defensible reasoning behind at least half. | Concepts are named inconsistently, or applied to the wrong item. | Few responses name a concept, and where named it's rarely the right one. | Responses are confident guesses with no theoretical grounding. | Paper not attempted. |
| The line actually lands | 10% | Every response is something you'd genuinely enjoy receiving — correct and charming at once. | Most responses are both theoretically sound and genuinely appealing. | Several responses are memorably good, not just technically correct. | Responses are pleasant and show some wit alongside the theory. | Responses are serviceable — correct, but nobody's laughing or blushing. | Responses read like they were reverse-engineered from the rubric, not said out loud. | Responses are awkward or stilted regardless of their theoretical grounding. | Responses would end the conversation, theory notwithstanding. | Paper not attempted. |