PAPER STANDARDS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ESSAYS

1. TOP OF THE LINE. REALLY GOOD. TERRIFIC WORK! CONGRATULATIONS! (GRADE “A” QUALITY)

--Incisive grasp of key details and Constitutional issues. Highly informed. Keenly perceptive.

--Logical argument, aided by ample references to precedent cases wherever applicable. Independent research in library materials and web sites.

--Fair consideration of opposing arguments, showing mature and persuasive reasons why they did not convince you.

--Superior command of the language. Elegant prose and flawless organization.

--Submitted on time.

2. GOOD BUT NOT GREAT. LESS-THAN-TOP-NOTCH. EASY TO ACHIEVE THIS LEVEL, SO LET’S TRY A LITTLE HARDER. (GRADE “B” QUALITY)

--Adequate grasp of detail and awareness of Constitutional issues.

--Logical argument and some reference to precedent cases (along with some disturbing omissions). Pretty limited effort to find additional material in the library or on web sites.

--Uneven or somewhat partisan consideration of opposing arguments.

--Clear and correct English. Satisfactory organization. Workmanlike prose, but lacking the extra attention needed to make it sparkling.

--A top paper, marred by a one or two days of lateness.

3. MEDIOCRE. NOT-SO-HOT. LOOKS LIKE A CASE OF LAZINESS. PLENTY OF ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. (GRADE”C” QUALITY)

--Flimsy, haphazard grasp of vital detail. Cloudy on Constitutional issues.

--Confusing argument. Murky. Little or no reference to precedent cases. Unsatisfactory effort to unearth independent material from library or web sources.

--Sparce attention to opposing arguments, or an utterly partisan and unfair consideration of them.

--Sloppy writing. Unclear and/or mechanically flawed prose. Carelessness in presentation.

--A good paper, reduced by lateness.

4. OUCH! A REALLY POOR EFFORT. DREADFUL. EMBARRASSING. POSSIBLY UNACCEPTABLE. YOU CAN DO A LOT BETTER! (GRADE “D” QUALITY)

--Careless and confused presentation of case detail. Gross misunderstanding of Constitutional issues.

--Silly, senseless, or ineffective argument. No meaningful references to precedents. No extra research.

--Complete neglect of opposing arguments, or an appalling misrepresentation of them.

--Unusually poor writing. Makes little or no sense. Painful to read; irritating and exhausting to correct.

--A good paper, ruined by several days of lateness.

5. SIMPLY AWFUL. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING??? HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN??? LET’S START ALL OVER AGAIN (GRADE “F” QUALITY)

--Practically no focus on the case at all. Shocking ignorance of Constitutional issues. May as well have written about chickens or UFOs.

--Total absence of an argument. Just mindless rambling. No understanding of precedents. No research of any kind.

--No sense whatever of views that may conflict with your own.

--Incomprehensible writing. Doesn’t make enough sense to be worth trying to read or correct it.

--An OK paper, submitted ridiculously and inexplicably late