Scoring Guides Used on the Graduate Record Exam

Three-Level Scoring Guide for Higher Education Qualifying Exams

Excellent (i.e., Strong Pass)

An Excellent paper presents a comprehensive, cogent, well-reasoned and articulated analysis of the question posed. A typical paper in this category

Demonstrates a solid theoretical and practical grasp of the topic by identifying and discussing the relevant major issues, perspectives, theories, and conflicts posed by the question Demonstrates significant knowledge of relevant scholarship on this topic by referencing and properly interpreting appropriate the major authors & literature (especially widely cited, refereed, or empirical sources); sources cited in the response are accurately described and interpreted Demonstrates clear and critical thinking by doing such things as identifying the salient arguments pro & con, thoughtfully analyzing & evaluating perspectives, accurately interpreting evidence, justifying key results, explaining reasons offered & assumptions made, synthesizing information from a variety of sources, and showing fair-mindedness in evaluating evidence. Demonstrates a clarity of organization by presenting an extremely clear thesis statement and introductory paragraph, building an argument or articulating a position in a logically appropriate sequence, spelling out the significance of the literature cited, and offering a clear conclusion. In short, there is a “flow.” Demonstrates a clarity and conciseness of expression by writing precisely, using an appropriate style for professional writing (e.g., consistently demonstrating appropriate word choice), and demonstrating command of the conventions of standard written English

Satisfactory

A Satisfactory paper presents a generally competent analysis of the question posed and conveys meaning adequately. A typical paper in this category

Demonstrates some knowledge of relevant theories, research and best practices but the response does not address fully the question (e.g., omitting some important aspects of the question posed) or inadequately addressing several important issues, conflicts, perspectives and theories) and/or containing some major or many minor errors. Demonstrates some familiarity with relevant scholarship on this topic by referencing and properly interpreting appropriate the major authors & literature (especially widely cited, refereed, or empirical sources); occasionally sources cited are not accurately described and interpreted. Demonstrates limited critical thinking by NOT fully: identifying strong arguments either pro or con, thoughtfully analyzing & evaluating perspectives, accurately interpreting evidence, justifying key results, explaining reasons offered & assumptions made, synthesizing information from a variety of sources, and showing fair-mindedness in evaluating evidence. Demonstrates acceptable clarity of organization by: presenting an understandable thesis statement as well as introductory and concluding paragraphs and building an argument or articulating a position though the argument’s flow at points is lost and/or the supporting evidence offered is either weak or absent Demonstrates adequate skill in written express overall though the response was confusing and awkward in places, sentences were sometimes short and choppy or too long and full of clauses, there were occasional instances of poor word choice.

Unsatisfactory (i.e., Non-Pass)

An Unsatisfactory paper contains several significant deficiencies in response to the question posed. A typical paper in this category

Fails to demonstrate a solid theoretical and practical grasp of the topic by not adequately identifying and discussing relevant major issues, perspectives, theories, and conflicts Fails to demonstrate significant knowledge of relevant scholarship on this topic by omitting or incorrectly interpreting the major authors & literature (especially widely cited, refereed, or empirical sources), by offering little evidence supporting the position taken and by placing too much reliance upon personal experience or minor sources (e.g., unpublished or not widely cited, non-refereed sources, or non-empirical sources). Fails to demonstrate clear and critical thinking by offering biased interpretations of evidence, not identifying or hastily dismissing strong arguments pro or con, ignoring or superficially evaluating important perspectives, offering fallacious or irrelevant reasons or not explaining one’s reasons, maintaining or defending views based largely upon personal or anecdotal experience or preconceptions, exhibiting close-mindedness Fails to demonstrate a clarity and coherence of organization by presenting ideas in a jumbled or disconnected fashion (e.g., not offering a clear stated thesis and/or conclusion), offering irrelevant arguments, information, or citations Fails to demonstrate a clarity and conciseness of expression by writing imprecisely (e.g., frequently demonstrating inappropriate word choice), not using an appropriate style for professional writing, and making frequent errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics