A GreatESSAY EVALUATION CRITERIAMeets and exceeds assignment but still reads like an independent piece. Causal, logical sequence of well-defined, unified paragraphs. Form that matches function. Defines its terms and applies them intelligently and consistently. Strong, appropriate evidence for claims. Smooth movement between general claims and specific, ample details. Considers opposing viewpoints and anticipates reader response. Establishes logical connections and necessary distinctions. Ideas build upon other ideas. Consistent tone that suits its subject, occasion, and audience. Few mechanical, spelling, or diction errors. A distinct, active voice. Smooth, clear expression that uses parallelism, subordination, transitions, apposition, and sentence variety. Precise verbs and nouns.
B Good
An ambitious idea not fully realized for logical, organizational, or grammatical reasons or a consistent treatment of less ambitious idea: high competence. Clear direction and organization. Relevant supporting material in all paragraphs. A strong paper slightly off task. Most paragraphs in useful sequence. Explicit links between general claims and examples or details. Good use of subordination and transitions; some use of parallel structure. Consistent voice.
C Adequate
Typical material and execution that meets the basic terms of the assignment. Ordinary observations and untested assumptions. Cliches of thought. Clear but formulaic. A good idea with flawed execution. Relevant material but loose, disproportionate arrangement. Sometimes repetitious and redundant. Little sense of paragraph progression. Following structure that borrows from source. Support is not well subordinated to claims. More claims than developed arguments for them, more generalizations than detail. Vague links between points and between paragraphs. Minor flaws in reasoning. Some paragraphs which relate only vaguely to the paper’s purpose, or paragraphs which wander from their focus or function. Description of subject’s features rather than explanation of how features work or what their consequences are: summary more than analysis or synthesis. Little sense of audience and its response. Clear but flat language: lacking sharp verbs, subordination, parallelism, sentence variety, transitions. Verbose and vague expression. Occasional grammatical and diction errors. Somewhat shorter than prescribed length.
D Weak
Completely self-evident claims and material. Relates only slightly to the writing situation. Little support of claims. Sweeping generalizations. Superficial thinking. Formulaic position poorly argued. Wildly disproportionate presentation of material. Major flaws in reasoning. Only glimpses of insight into material. Tone and material that contradict audience or occasion. Unclear organization and direction with uncertain connections between paragraphs. Rambling and monotonous expression. Unnatural, grammatically flawed language. Frequent, distracting grammatical errors. Much shorter than prescribed length.
F Inadequate
No apparent thesis or a thesis well outside the assignment. Organization that defies understanding. Claims without any evidence, examples, or explanation. A fatal, systemic flaw in reasoning. Severe, recurring grammatical, mechanical, or expression errors that block understanding. Too short for assignment. Plagiarism.
rev. 1/2001