Criteria: I evaluate your essays for their content, rhetoric, and form, looking for the following specific things:
Unity — each paragraph makes a distinct point, and the essay develops a clear claim or idea fully and thoughtfully.I look for signs that you have thought intelligently about subjects addressed in your essays and that you have had the skill to develop them honestly and agreeably, with precision and good sense, persuasive force, and a sure sense of style.
Coherence — sentences and paragraphs fit together smoothly in an orderly sequence, without irrelevancy, redundancy, or abrupt shifts.
Clarity — key words and phrases are chosen deliberately, defined carefully, and used consistently.
Plausibility — ideas are developed logically and fully, with exemplification / evidence sufficient to their final acceptance.
Mature Usage — correct grammar, conventional spelling, and regular punctuation prevail throughout.
Style — sentences and phrases are selected and arranged with a clear sense of economy, grace, and freshness.
Standards: Grades are based on the strengths and weaknesses of your papers. A, B, and C grades indicate an ability to write proficiently at the college level. Although the D grade allows you to pass and receive course credit, it is not a genuine measure of proficiency in college-level writing. It indicates only your exposure to the techniques and habits of mind that might later, with more practice, help you become a writer of mature college prose. I have listed the distinguishing strengths and weaknesses of what I consider to be A, B, C, D, and F essays. You might also compare the discursively-described guidelines of a teacher at another college.
1. Exceptionally clear organization, purpose, and focus on a well defined, explicitly argued claim or idea.
2. Always coherent, logically specific development of all relevant subtopics.
3. Concrete and appropriate diction, with ample exemplification / evidence fit to all opinions advanced.
4. Mature sentences in skillfully developed paragraphs, with conscious use of coordinate and subordinate syntactical, topical, and thematic structures.
5. Some originality of conception, with a creative plan for shaping understanding, controlling attention, and securing assent.
1. Clear organization, purpose, and focus on a developing claim or idea.
2. Often coherent and logically specific articulation of most relevant subtopics.
3. Usually concrete, appropriate diction, with sufficiently well developed exemplification / evidence fit to most opinions presented.
4. Some variety of syntactical and logical subordination, with sustained, reasonably conscious control of reader interest, attention, and understanding.
1. Clear purpose and adequate grasp of at least a pattern for an emerging claim or idea.
2. Coherent development of apparently relevant and logical subtopics, with some adequate concrete exemplification / evidence.
3. Syntactical structure and paragraph development fit to shape, if not sustain, reader interest and attention.
4. Prose reasonably free of minor and most major mechanical errors.
1. Weak or clouded sense of orderly development, often caused by lack of a clear claim or idea, or lack of relevant subtopics, concrete examples, or logical arguments.
2. Weak plausibility, usually caused by wayward, underthought digressions and generalizations — or by some confusion between fact and opinion, example and idea.
3. Sentences and paragraphs too poorly or too awkwardly expressed to shape, much less sustain, reader interest or attention.
4. Recurrent spelling errors, run-on sentences, comma splices, dangling modifiers, illogical predications, or persistent verb/number disagreements.
1. Extremely weak grasp of organization and/or planned development.
2. Unclear, unfocused, overgeneral expression of only passing thoughts.
3. Underuse of clear, complete sentences.
4. Incomplete, inadequate, abbreviated, broken paragraph sequences.
5. Very weak mastery of diction and tone, grammar, usage, and style.