Grading Rubric for Essay #1
The A paper
The B paper
The C paper
The D paper
The F
paper
Intellectual
Heft/Ideas
Organization
&
Clarity
Evidence
& Support
Style &
Voice
Mechanics
& Grammar
Excels in responding to the assignment. Is
interesting and compelling to read.
Demonstrates sophisticated thinking with a
clearly communicated argument that is worth
developing but also manageable. Paper
recognizes some complexity in its argument
and may even acknowledge contradictions,
qualifications, or limits to follow out their
logical implications.
Uses a logical structure appropriate to the
paper’s topic, purpose, audience, and
argument. Sophisticated transitional sentences
are used often to develop one idea from the
previous one or identify their logical relations.
Organization functions to guide the reader
through the progression of ideas, and may
allow for some useful/effective surprises and
conclusions. A clear and strong thesis is
evident and is developed through the essay.
Uses evidence appropriately and deftly to
provide a compelling explanation for
conclusions in order to convince the reader to
support the overall argument. Every paragraph
draws on well-chosen evidence that is also
framed and analyzed with exceptional clarity.
All sources are appropriately cited.
Chooses words for their precise meaning and
uses an appropriate level of specificity.
Sentence style fits paper’s audience and
purpose. Sentences are varied, yet clearly
structured and carefully focused, not long and
rambling. The writer’s voice is recognizable
and consistent throughout.
Almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation,
and grammatical errors. There is evidence of
proof reading and the paper requires little
editorial changes or content revisions.
A solid paper that responds
appropriately to assignment.
Clearly stated argument may
have minor lapses in
development, but begins to
acknowledge the complexity
of the argument and the
possibility of other views.
Shows careful reading of
sources, but may not
evaluate all of them
critically. Attempts to define
terms, but may not always be
fully successful.
Shows a logical progression
of ideas and uses fairly
sophisticated transitional
devices: e.g., may move
from a less to more
important idea. Some logical
links may be faulty, but each
paragraph clearly relates to
the paper’s central argument,
and a clear thesis exists. The
organization prepares the
reader for the conclusion.
Begins to offer reasons to
support its points, perhaps
using varied kinds of
evidence. Begins to interpret
evidence and explain
connections between
evidence and main ideas.
Examples bear some
relevance.
Uses words accurately and
effectively, but may be too
general at times. Sentences
are clear, well structured,
and focused, though some
may be awkward or
ineffective.
May contain a few errors,
which may annoy the reader
but do not impede
understanding of the
Adequate but less effective
response to the assignment.
Central argument is in general
rather than precise terms, and
may depend on platitudes or
clichés. Usually does not
acknowledge other views.
Shows basic comprehension of
sources, perhaps with lapses in
understanding. Terms, if
defined, are not clearly
understood and engaged.
Does not have a clear central
argument or idea. Does not
respond appropriately to the
assignment. The argument
may be too vague or obvious
to be developed effectively.
Paper may reflect a
misunderstanding of source
material.
Does not respond to the
assignment, lacks an
argument or central idea,
misunderstands and/or
misrepresents the
reading, and may neglect
to use sources where
necessary.
May list ideas or arrange them
randomly rather than use a
logical structure. May use
transitions, but they are likely to
be sequential rather than logicbased. Each paragraph may
relate to central idea, but logic is
not always clear. Paragraphs
have topic sentences but may be
overly general. Arrangement of
sentences within paragraphs may
lack coherence. Thesis is weak.
Often uses generalizations to
support main points. May use
examples, but may be obvious or
not relevant. Often depends on
unsupported opinion or personal
experience, or assumes that
evidence “speaks for itself” and
is not contextualized nor
connected to the point being
made. Lapses in logic.
Uses relatively vague and
general words, may use some
jargon or colloquial terms.
Sentence structure is generally
correct, but at times sentences
may be wordy, unfocused,
repetitive, or confusing.
Contains several mechanical
errors, which may temporarily
confuse the reader but do not
impede overall understanding.
May have random
organization, lack internal
paragraph coherence and use
few or inappropriate
transitions. Paragraphs may
lack topic sentences or main
ideas, or may be too general
or too specific to be effective.
Paragraphs may not relate to
paper’s argument. Thesis is
very weak or absent.
No appreciable
organization. Lacks
transitions and coherence
on the paragraph and
sentence level.
Depends on clichés or
overgeneralizations for
support, or offers little
evidence of any kind. May
rely on personal narrative
rather than essay form, and
summary rather than analysis
of sources.
Uses irrelevant details or
lacks supporting
evidence entirely. May
be unduly brief.
May be too vague and
abstract, or very personal and
specific. Usually contains
several awkward or
ungrammatical sentences;
sentence structure is simple or
monotonous.
Contains either many
mechanical errors or a few
important errors that block the
reader’s understanding.
Usually contains many
awkward sentences,
misused words, or
inappropriate phrases.
Contains so many
mechanical errors that it
is impossible for the
reader to follow
argument.
throughout.