Grading Criteria for Exams or Papers

Your purpose in writing an exam or paper in my class is to think critically. This means that you should not think thoughts without identifying their weaknesses and responding to those weaknesses. The philosophy behind requiring such critical thinking is that the more energy you put into doubting what you think, the more educated you become. Furthermore, the more agile you become at anticipating potential counterarguments, the more equipped you will be to make arguments in the future. This skill is necessary in any situation in which you are required to communicate.

F	There is no argument at all. “There are many theories of jurisprudential interpretation.” And then your text summarizes those ways.
D	No connection between argument and rest of text. “Original intent is the best way to interpret the constitution.” And then, no real mention of original intent in the text.
C	You have an argument, but no rigorous defense of argument with counterarguments. “Original intent is the best way to interpret the constitution.” And then, no real mention of why that is the case in the text. You get a C if you do not explore counter-arguments at all.
B-	You have an argument, but defense of argument is not coherent. This is when sentences do not seem to flow together, nor do paragraphs seem related. You may have counter-arguments, but they seem indefensible. For example, if you are arguing that original intent is the best way to interpret the constitution, you may develop a counterargument that says: “Some may argue that we should get rid of the constitution and not have a rule of law at all.” Since most people would not argue that, it is not a defensible counter argument, and it does not help make your argument more rigorous. You also may have good counterarguments, but no reasonable response to those arguments. There are two ways to receive a B-: 1) your counterarguments are indefensible, or 2) your counterarguments are so strong that they overwhelm your argument and you are unable to make for a reasonably coherent response to them.
B	You have an argument and it is more or less coherent, but your argument is not rigorous. This has a good deal to do with your ability to connect your argument with your counterargument. If you are arguing that original intent is the best way to interpret the constitution and you mention that there are other good ways and defend those well, but you do not make the connection to why, given the other good ways to interpret the constitution, original intent is better, you would get a B- instead of a B. The difference between a B and a B-, then, is directly related to the strength of your ability to use counterarguments to make your argument more rigorous.

Grading Criteria for Exams or Papers, continued.

B à B+	The difference between and B and a B+ is the coherence of the argument. Sentences must flow together and paragraphs flow from one another. Coherence is a function of how much energy and thought you have put into thinking through these ideas.
B+ à A-	The difference between an A and a B has to do with developing rigorous criteria by which to judge which kind of interpretation is better. In other words, you want to think about your goals, how your goals conflict with other goals – and defend your goals against other goals and then defend why your preferred method of constitution interpretation is better, given those goals. In other words, an A exam connects the goals to the method in a rigorous manner, whereas a B exam has trouble connecting the goals or criteria with the method. For example, if you are arguing that original intent is the best way to interpret the constitution, you have to think about the criteria for judging the best method: whether the method maintains the rule of law, justice, pragmatic concerns, legitimacy (empirical and normative), and perhaps other criteria. Let’s say you argue that the rule of law is the best method. Then, you can argue clearly how using original intent is the best way to achieve the maintenance of the rule of law. You can concede the weakness of original intent, given (perhaps) the inability to ascertain original intent, but you can defend it despite that weakness. Either you could argue that it is easier to get an idea of what was intended, or you can say that even though it is difficult, it still provides justices with certain guidelines, for example. If you do not develop the connection between the criteria for judgment, your exam will be in the B/B+ range. Otherwise, it is in the A range.
A- à A	The difference between an A- and an A is the same as the difference between a B+ and a B. It has to do with coherence.
A+	You have everything that you need to get an A on the exam, but you have explored a unique, creative and extraordinary argument.