UTSC Association of Philosophy Students

Proposed Undergraduate Conference Paper Grading Rubric

APS conference Grading Rubric (PDF) (We will be using this Rubric to Grade papers)

General Directions:

We are going to be grading papers on a scale of 1‐5:

5 Outstanding
4 Highly Satisfactory
3 Fairly Satisfactory
2 Borderline
1 Problematic
0 Total wreck

The criteria for grading conference papers are as follows (TOTAL: 100 POINTS):

Argumentation                                                                                                                                           60 points

o  Claim (a.k.a. “Argument Quality”)                                                                                        [15]

  • Is the claim novel/original?                                                                                   (5)
  • Is the claim philosophically appealing?                                                              (5)
  • Does the claim address or respond to a relevant/recent issue in PHL?    (5)

o  Coverage                                                                                                                                     [15]

  • Did the paper address the two sides of the issue?                                         (5)
  • Was each side accurately represented?                                                            (5)
  • Did the writer read his/her opponent charitably?                                          (5)

o  Defensibility                                                                                                                                [10]

  • Did the paper consider all and any possible objections?                              (5)
  • Was the response to the possible objections effective?                               (5)

o  Evidence                                                                                                                                      [10]

  • QUANTI: Was their enough evidence to support the paper’s claims?      (5)
  • QUALI: Was the evidence effective in arguing for the claim?                      (5)

o  Logical Implication                                                                                                                    [10]

  • Did the paper reflect an interpretable argument structure?                       (5)
  • Did the paper’s conclusion logically follow from its premises?                   (5)

Accessibility                                                                                                                                                 15 points

o  Did the paper use jargon effectively (i.e. defined + explained key terms)                [5]

o  Did the paper presuppose any prior philosophical knowledge vis‐à‐vis reader?    [5]

o  Can the paper be talked about with someone with little to no PHL background?  [5]

Style                                                                                                                                                              15 points

o  Was the paper grammatically correct?                                                                               [5]

o  Did the paper follow a structure/“template” (i.e. easy to follow)                               [5]

o  Was the paper written interestingly/engagingly?                                                          [5]

Conference Applicability                                                                                                                           10 points

o  How well does the paper fit the conference theme?                                                       [5]

o  How suitable is the paper for a diverse undergraduate audience?                                [5]

Basic Information:

Title:

Philosophical Field (Check all that apply)

¨     Aesthetics ¨     Epistemology ¨     Philosophy of Law
¨     Analytic Philosophy ¨     Ethics ¨     Philosophy of Mind
¨     Ancient Philosophy ¨     Logic ¨     Political Philosophy
¨     Asian Philosophy ¨     Medieval Philosophy ¨     Social and Cultural
¨     Continental Philosophy

(19th/20th  C)

¨     Metaphysics

¨     Philosophy of Action

Philosophy
¨     Early Modern Philosophy ¨     Philosophy of Language

Claim (see Abstract)                                                                                                                                                                 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s