A Paper in the a Range Deploys the an Argument with Exceptional Grace and Mastery

The following two grading rubrics are examples of the kinds of criteria that instructors can give to their students at the beginning of the semester. Instructors in different disciplines can develop their own detailed criteria that they then make transparent to students before students begin writing their papers.

Grading Standards

A paper in the A range deploys the an argument with exceptional grace and mastery:

• Thesis: interesting, arguable, incisive; sufficiently limited in scope; usually stated early on and present throughout • Structure: logical, progressive (not just a list), supple (invites complications, consideration of counter-arguments), with strong and obvious links between points; coherent, well-organized paragraphs • Evidence:sufficient, appropriate, and well-chosen; presented in a readable and understandable way • Analysis: insightful and fresh; more than summary or paraphrase; shows how evidence supports thesis; may dwell in depth on one or two key examples • Sources: well-chosen; deployed in a range of ways (to motivate the argument, provide keyterms, and so on); quoted and cited correctly • Style: clear and conversational yet sophisticated; diction level appropriate to audience; smooth, stimulating, a pleasure to read

A B range paper may in part resemble an A range paper but may also exhibit any of the following qualities:

• Thesis: arguable but may be vague or uninteresting, or feature unintegrated parts; may be only implied, not stated early on; may not be argued throughout, disappears in places • Structure: generally logical but either confusing in places (big jumps, missing links) or overly predictable and undeveloped; few complications or considerations of counter-arguments; some disorganized paragraphs (either bloated or skimpy; could be confusing) • Evidence:generally solid but may be scanty or presented as undigested quotations • Analysis: at times insightful but sometimes missing or mere summary; makes inconsistent connections between evidence and thesis • Sources: quoted and cited correctly (for the most part) but deployed in limited ways, often as a straw person or simply as affirmation of writer’s viewpoint • Style: generally clear but lacking in sophistication; may be weighed down by fancy diction meant to impress; may exhibit some errors in punctuation, grammar, spelling, and format A C range paper may in part resemble a B range paper but may also exhibit any of the following qualities:

• Thesis: vague, descriptive, or confusing; parts unintegrated (e.g., three unrelated prongs); only implied or not stated early on; not argued throughout, disappears in places • Structure: confusing (big jumps, missing links) or overly predictable (“five-paragraph theme”); few complications or considerations of counter-arguments; disorganized paragraphs (usually skimpy), often headed with descriptive (versus argumentative) topic sentences • Evidence:either missing or presented as undigested quotations; may be taken out of context • Analysis: some insightful moments but generally either missing or mere summary; may present some misreadings • Sources: plopped in (if used at all); may be quoted and cited incorrectly, used merely as filler or affirmation of writer’s viewpoint • Style: may be generally unclear and hard to read, or simplistic; may evince many technical errors

A D range paper may in part resemble a C range paper but may also exhibit any of the following qualities:

• Thesis: missing or purely descriptive (an observation or statement of fact), or may be a total misreading • Structure: confusing; little focused development (paper usually short but may be rambling); disorganized paragraphs (also usually short); missing, garbled, or purely descriptive topic sentences (plot summary) • Evidence:very few examples; undigested quotations; taken out of context • Analysis: missing or based on misinterpretations or mere summary • Sources: plopped in (if used at all); incorrectly quoted or cited; used as filler • Style: either simplistic or difficult to read; probably riddled with technical errors Grading Standards

Pluses and minuses represent shades of difference, as do split grades (e.g. B-/C+). I assign grades on the evidence of the essay submitted, not on effort or time spent.

A Excellent in every way (this is not the same as perfect). This is an ambitious, perceptive essay that grapples with interesting, complex ideas; responds discerningly to counter-arguments; and explores well-chosen evidence revealingly. The discussion enhances, rather than underscores, the reader’s and writer’s knowledge (it doesn’t simply repeat what has been taught). There is a context for all the ideas; someone outside the class would be enriched, not confused, by reading the essay. Its beginning opens up, rather than flatly announces, its thesis. Its end is something more than a summary. The language is clean, precise, often elegant. As a reader I feel surprised, delighted, changed. There’s something new here for me, something only the essay’s writer could have written and explored, in this particular way. The writer’s stake in the material is obvious.

B A piece of writing that reaches high and achieves many of its aims. The ideas are solid and progressively explored but some thin patches require more analysis and/or some stray thoughts don’t fit in. The language is generally clear and precise but occasionally not. The evidence is relevant, but there may be too little; the context for the evidence may not be sufficiently explored, so that I have to make some of the connections that the writer should have made clear for me. OR a piece of writing that reaches less high than an A essay but thoroughly achieves its aims. This is a solid essay whose reasoning and argument may nonetheless be rather routine. (In this case the limitation is conceptual.)

C A piece of writing that has real problems in one of these areas: conception (there’s at least one main idea but it’s fuzzy and hard to get to); structure (confusing); use of evidence (weak or non-existent--the connections among the ideas and the evidence are not made and/or are presented without context, or add up to platitudes or generalizations); language (the sentences are often awkward, dependent on unexplained abstractions, sometimes contradict each other). The essay may not move forward but rather may repeat its main points, or it may touch upon many (and apparently unrelated) ideas without exploring any of them in sufficient depth. Punctuation, spelling, grammar, paragraphing, and transitions may be a problem.

OR an essay that is largely plot summary or “interpretive summary” of the text, but is written without major problems. OR an essay that is chiefly a personal reaction to something. Well-written, but scant intellectual content--mostly opinion.

D and F These are efforts that are wildly shorter than they ought to be to grapple seriously with ideas; OR those that are extremely problematic in many of the areas mentioned above: aims, structure, use of evidence, language, etc.; OR those that do not come close to addressing the expectations of the essay assignment.