Jim Pryor: Grades

The Univiersity gives faculty and students guidelines on what the different grades are supposed to mean. Here is what they say. (These don't distinguish between different levels of B — between B+, straight B, and B- for example.)

"A: Mastery of course content at the highest level of attainment that can reasonably be expected of students at a given stage of development. The A grade states clearly that the students have shown such outstanding promise in the aspect of the discipline under study that he/she may be strongly encouraged to continue."
"B: Strong performance demonstrating a high level of attainment for a student at a given stage of development. The B grade states that the student has shown solid promise in the aspect of the discipline under study."
"C: A totally acceptable performance demonstrating an adequate level of attainment for a student at a given stage of development. The C grade states that, while not yet showing unusual promise, the student may continue to study in the discipline with reasonable hope of intellectual development."

I doubt that most faculty and students would really regard a C grade as "totally acceptable."

But these guidelines sound about right for As and Bs. Only, I wouldn't say that a straight B or a B- is a "strong" performance. A B+ is a reasonably strong grade. As I understand it, a student who works pretty hard over the semester, keeps up with the readings, completes all their work on time, participates regularly in discussion, and more-or-less sort-of "gets" the basics of what the course aimed to teach, is earning a B+. Students earning A-s or straight As are achieving a sharper, more reliable and insightful mastery of the course's materials.

The syllabus for your course will give a breakdown of what counts towards your final grade, and with what weight. Usually 10 to 20% of this will be your participation and engagement with the course. In most courses, a large share will turn on our assessment of your philosophical writing. Here are some high-level characterizations of what different papers look like. After that, we give a detailed rubric we'll be using to evaluate your paper. That rubric explains the finer-grained categories and numerical scores we'll be giving you.

A: This is a truly outstanding paper. It is clearly written, well-argued, and original. A paper that just gives a straightforward or "obvious" response to some philosophical or interpretative problem would not merit an A, even if it is clear. An A paper does something extra--but not at the cost of a clear treatment of the problem. If you receive an A on a paper you have reason to feel extremely proud of your work.
A-: This is a really good paper, one that operates at an advanced level. It is clearly written. (If there are any significant problems with the writing or the organization of the paper, then it won't merit an A-. This is because good clear writing and organization are not separable from good philosophical thinking.) The paper may have a couple of minor mistakes or confusions, or it may fail to unpack some of its arguments sufficiently. It may have an original argument or interpretation, but if so, that will be offset by some other flaw. For example, in a longer paper, perhaps there is too little philosophical back-and-forth (considering objections and challenges, and responding to them). Or perhaps it is not as engaged with the texts as it should be.
B+: This is a decently-written paper with nothing terribly wrong. The writing often will have some small problems, though it may be flawless. The paper may make some mistakes or have some ambiguities that have to be sorted out, but overall it will do a pretty good job. The paper will show more promise or originality than a B paper, but nothing will make it stand out like an A- paper, or it won't be operating at as advanced a level as an A- paper. (Or perhaps the paper would stand out if some of its ideas were properly developed, but as it stands they aren't.)
B: This can be a solid paper, with some notable mistakes or obscurities, but no very serious misunderstandings. The writing may not be super-clear. To earn a B, the paper needs to make it clear why the problem addressed in the paper is a problem, and offer some response to it. (It may be a straightforward or unoriginal response; it may not be a decisive response; the paper may even end by showing that a certain response doesn't work. But the paper must put forward or examine some response to the problem.) A B paper should not seriously misrepresent the views of other philosophers.
B-: There are starting to be some serious problems. Perhaps the writing is especially unclear or the paper is poorly organized. Or perhaps there are straightforward mistakes and misunderstandings about what the problem is, or about what other philosophers say. Or perhaps the paper presents the problem correctly, but doesn't really address it. Probably if the author had worked harder on the paper, planned out and discussed her strategy more beforehand, and so on, many of these issues could be improved. Still, there is an effort. The author has some understanding of the problem and of the relevant texts. She does offer some argument. A paper with no argument at all usually won't merit a B-.
Papers with more problems will earn grades of C+ or below.: It is difficult to give a general gloss on those grades since the problems that beset these papers are quite varied.

In my experiences teaching at several universities, most students' first efforts at philosophical writing earn Bs or B-s. (For what it's worth, some of my first philosophy papers were B-s, too.) Don't let this discourage you. Doing and writing philosophy are hard. But they are skills you can learn. People who make a serious and sustained effort to learn them tend to be writing B+ or A- papers by the end of term.

Specific Rubric for how your essays will be graded

As I say in the “Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper,” you’ll be graded on three basic criteria:

How well do you understand what you’re writing about?

This subdivides into:

1A ("M") Your understanding of the course material you’re engaging with
1B. ("Q") Your understanding and handling of the question prompt you’re addressing
The quality of your arguments

This subdivides into:

2A. ("A") How developed and cogent is your argumentation?
2B. ("I") How much independent thought do you show?
("W") Is your writing clear, well-organized, and precise?

For each of the five categories above (M, Q, A, I, and W), we’ll give your paper between 0-5 points. Detailed examples of what each point corresponds to for each category are given below.

In addition, you'll get 0-10 further points for for how well you followed the instructions for what info to include at the top of your paper, how to submit it, and so on.

Then we’ll add up all of those numbers, and your grade can be interpreted like this:

33-35 = A  (corresponding to 95% – 100%)
30-32 = A- (corresponding roughly to 91.6%)
27-29 = B+ (corresponding roughly to 88.3%)
24-26 = B  (corresponding roughly to 85%)
21-23 = B- (corresponding roughly to 81.6%)
18-20 = C+ (corresponding roughly to 78.3%)
15-17 = C  (corresponding roughly to 75%)
12-14 = C- (corresponding roughly to 71.6%)
 9-11 = D+ (corresponding roughly to 68.3%)
 6- 8 = D  (corresponding roughly to 65%)
 1- 5 = F  (corresponding roughly to 50%)
No effort/Not submitted = F (0%)

The standards detailed below are based on the assumption that your paper's ideas and presentation of them are entirely your own work. If you had substantial input from other people or AI tools, you'll only get an appropriate portion of the credit.

1A. ("M") Your understanding of the course material you’re engaging with

Do you present positions and arguments we’ve discussed in class accurately? What about ones you draw on from outside class (if you do that)? Did you explicitly and thoroughly identify the philosophically important disputed issues relevant to your discussion?

5 points / Superior: Your paper displays a consistently strong command and understanding of the course material, reflecting careful reading of relevant readings and careful attention in class.
4 points / Proficient: Your paper displays a good command and understanding of the course material, though it may have some gaps and small inaccuracies.
2-3 points / Satisfactory: Your paper displays some command and understanding of the course material, but there are significant gaps and inaccuracies.
1 point / Needs substantial improvement: Your paper makes some attempt to engage with the course material, but displays a weak command or understanding of it.
0 points / Unsatisfactory: Your paper makes no serious attempt to engage with the course material, and suggests little or no attentiveness to readings or to class lectures and discussions.

1B. ("Q") Your understanding and handling of the question prompt you’re addressing

How directly and fully do you address the question prompt? Do you clearly state what you’re trying to accomplish in your paper? Is it obvious to the reader what your main thesis is? Is your paper’s structure conducive to your goal? Did you exposit enough background to understand the questions/issues you're addressing, but not more than was needed or directly helpful? Is what you contribute towards directly answering the prompt skimpy, or full enough to be persuasive?

5 points / Superior: Your paper shows you understand the question. You respond to it directly without irrelevancies or digressions, and arrive at a clear conclusion.
4 points / Proficient: Your paper shows you understand the question, and you respond to it directly. It may be that you occasionally digress or include irrelevant material, leave some parts of the question not fully answered, or leave the conclusion of the paper implicit rather than stating it explicitly.
2-3 points / Satisfactory: You show some understanding of the question, but it is in some way definitely imperfect, or your response is somewhat off-target, or the paper doesn’t arrive at specific, clear conclusion(s).
1 point / Needs substantial improvement: Your paper shows serious flaws in your understanding of the question or problem, or no clear conclusion to it is reached.
0 points / Unsatisfactory: Your paper shows you don’t understand the question you’re addressing, and you don’t respond to it.

2A. ("A") How developed and cogent is your argumentation?

Do you offer supporting arguments for the claims you make? Is it obvious to the reader what these arguments are? Do you illustrate your claims with good examples? Do you explain your central notions? Do you consider objections, especially ones that would play a large role in the reasoning of your opponents? How effectively and directly do you engage with objections? Do you present your opponents’ positions charitably?

5 points / Superior: Your paper is a strong display of cogent reasoning and argumentation. It does not add unnecessary steps or omit necessary ones. It engages with relevant, important objections.
4 points / Proficient: Your paper displays generally cogent reasoning and argumentation. It may add some unnecessary steps, or omit necessary ones. It makes a good effort to engage with objections, but may not always identify the most important or relevant ones.
2-3 points / Satisfactory: Your paper displays some capacity for cogent reasoning and argumentation, but there are definite gaps. It makes some effort to engage with objections, but not in much detail.
1 point / Needs substantial improvement: Your paper uses reasoning that contains significant errors or missteps. It engages with objections only minimally or in a perfunctory manner.
0 points / Unsatisfactory: Your paper doesn’t spell out its reasoning or engage with objections.

2B. ("I") How much independent thought do you show?

5 points / Superior: Your paper displays strong independence of thought by offering insightful perspectives that were not raised in class or the readings. Moreover, it manages to successfully explain these ideas and their bearing on the paper's main questions. (Limited success at this will earn a lower score.)
4 points / Proficient: Your paper displays significant independence of thought by developing ideas from class or the readings, putting them into a new context, or comparing or juxtaposing them in new ways.
2-3 points / Satisfactory: Your paper displays some independent thought, but mainly in a way that is limited to new examples or illustrations of familiar points.
1 point / Needs substantial improvement: Your paper puts ideas from class into your own words, or does a book report on one or more readings without seeking to analyze or critically engage with them.
0 points / Unsatisfactory: Your paper just rehashes the lecture notes or material presented in class.

3. ("W") Is your writing clear, well-organized, and precise?

Is your prose simple, easy to read, and easy to understand? Is it clear what the structure of your paper is? For instance, is it clear what parts of your paper are expository, and what parts are your own positive contribution? Do you say exactly what you mean? Does fuzzy language sometimes make your theses or arguments hard to understand?

5 points / Superior: Your writing is clear, grammatical, and well organized, with a clear structure. Your language is sharp enough for your goals.
4 points / Proficient: Your writing is mostly good, but shows some minor deficiencies in clarity, grammar, and/or organization/structure.
2-3 points / Satisfactory: Your writing is acceptable, but shows some notable deficiencies in clarity, grammar, and/or organization/structure.
1 point / Needs substantial improvement: Your writing is often unclear, and/or the paper lacks any identifiable structure. Its deficiencies could be set right only with significant rewriting.
0 points / Unsatisfactory: Your writing shows deficiencies in clarity and organization/structure so great that they could only be set right by rewriting the paper from scratch.

Thanks to Alex Worsnip for his grading rubric, on which this one was first based.