Criteria for Evaluating Essays

The "A" paper:

An "A" paper has few or no errors in grammar, syntax, or mechanics. It has a clear thesis presented near the beginning of the paper. The rest of the paper is clearly related to the thesis, and develops or defends it in depth. Moreover, the paper as a whole has a clear organizational plan, so that the purpose of every paragraph is understood. No remarks stray from the subject or bring in irrelevant material.

The "A" paper avoids emotional judgments or bias, instead making rational, sound judgments on the basis of clearly explained evidence and logic. It supports generalizations, opinions, or beliefs with illustrations and examples that clarify their meaning. It avoids commonplace language and vague statements. The writer shows an open mind that questions what others assume, qualifies accepted judgments, and/or brings in a fresh perspective.

But the most distinguishing feature of an "A" paper is that in addition to having these strengths, it teaches me something new and important that I had never heard about the subject. And it conveys the sense that the writer himself learned something new about his own beliefs in the process of writing the paper. The best writing--any writing that really merits the grade of "A"--is the end result of a process of discovery. It’s not a stale attempt to restate a writer’s long-held, familiar opinions and beliefs.

The "B" paper:

 A "B" paper has most of these strengths, but perhaps to less a degree. For example, it may have a few more mechanical errors. Or it may occasionally stray from an organizational plan that is nevertheless clear and easy to follow for the most part. Or it may contain lots of illustrations and examples to clarify generalizations, but not a whole lot of new thinking about these generalizations.

The "C" paper:

A "C" paper is acceptable--no more, no less. The English is reasonably fluent, so that I don’t have to spend considerable time literally decoding or translating the paper. The thinking is not either wildly irrational or seriously confused. There is some kind of main point, although it may not be a particularly interesting or original one. Most of the paper is somehow related to that point in some way I can see. And there is at least some attempt to clarify otherwise vague generalizations. For example, the writer doesn’t say "Crime doesn’t pay" or "TV stinks" and just assume that I know what he’s talking about, and why he says these things.