POL S 390 (A1)

Fall 2006

Guide to midterm (and final) exam grades

In essay exams there is no one, perfect answer; people often earn the same grade in various ways. Although the questions must be answered directly and completely, and you must show an understanding of key ideas and information from the classes and readings, I accept lots of different approaches to the essays.

My comments mostly indicate weaknesses, since the vast majority of what you say is good and/or accurate. (Checkmarks indicate that I’m noting that you made a major point. Questions indicate things that important enough that you should have addressed them or expanded on what you were saying.)

Comments show: 1) whether you misunderstood or didn’t (fully) answer the question, 2) if you make points that overlap or repeat, 3) if there are key gaps in your answer, 4) vagueness/lack of concrete information, 5) a focus on details at the expense of the bigger picture, 5) whether your discussion needed to be longer or more elaborated, 6) if you’ve made a (significant) error of fact or understanding,

My comments are the best explanation of your grade, but here is a key to the kinds of things that (in some combination) will result in the different passing grades:

A+/A range (superior work)

•         ideas are very clearly expressed

•         goes beyond presentation of information to making arguments

•         ideas are developed thoroughly

•         only details are missing

•         interprets material (correctly) in ways that were not discussed in class or readings

A- (very good work)

•         lacking some more minor points

•         one key idea may need development

•         makes clear arguments

•         uses specifics, examples, concrete information for support (i.e., not vague)

•         no mistakes about key information

B/B+ range (average-to-slightly above the average GPA for a 300-level course)

•         a solid, nothing-fancy answer to the question asked

•         shows clear understanding of material

•         uses information from lectures and readings both

•         needs more development of one or two points

•         some overlap between points

•         no gigantic mistakes about major issues

B- (a notch below the average GPA for a 300-level course)

•         needs development in a few places

•         didn’t make as many points as asked for

•         includes a big mistake about something important

•         describes things more than interprets them

•         vague in spots

•         doesn’t use information from lectures and readings both

C+/C range (completely acceptable work)

•         a very basic answer to the question asked

•         likely repeats information or parts of discussion

•         points need much more development

•         on the right track, but vague throughout

•         or misinterpreted question but presented a good essay on a related topic

C-/D+/D (still passing but really should consult with the professor)

•         simply has not answered the question

•         needs to show much more familiarity with relevant ideas and information (but is not oblivious to them)

•         very vague or very brief

•         often major problems with expressing ideas clearly

•         or a weak essay that’s also off-topic

P.S. As long as I can understand well what you’re saying, I do not evaluate your writing skills on exams.

For the midterm exam:

I.a. There were a lot of points you could have made here, and your grade may well have depended on how distinct your points were from each other. Discussing various versions of RP taking a longer-term, broader view than OS) wasn’t as strong as having that be one of your three points, for example. It was better to talk about some instances of RP actually losing lawsuits rather than only talking about RP settling cases (i.e., not “losing”).

I.b. All answers needed to talk about legal aid (and, hopefully, to go beyond pointing out that legal aid is funded by governments). Discussing US judicial elections was helpful if you specified how they block access to fair trials/appeals. Canadian judicial appointments don’t have a clear connection to access to justice issues (access to justice is not the same as judges interpret law differently or the fact that judges share the partisanship of Prime Ministers). Court funding and filling empty vacancies is OK but not the most significant issue. Talking about both countries was better than talking only about one country. [Note: There was a section of the course under the heading of “access to justice,” and it was right up front in our discussions of lawsuits, tort reform, party capability theory, and judicial elections.].

II.a. Your answer had to be about how Justice Rothstein was selected for the Supreme Court of Canada position this winter (this being the first and only time the new process has been used). You needed to address both the screening committee and the Parliamentary hearing parts -- the whole point of the question to was evaluate them (their contribution to picking good judges, democracy, the appearance of democracy, etc.) compared with the old method. The Saskatchewan Judges Affair and Justice Brown appointment were off-topic.

II.b. “Borking” includes the questions and answers in Bork’s Senate confirmation hearing, the involvement of interest groups in the appointment process (esp. using the media), partisanship (D&R) within the Senate/White House, and the new practice of nominees refusing to give their views about issues that might come before the Court. That’s the core of it and couldn’t be avoided. Stronger answers added info about the decline of cooperation around appointments, the spread of borking to lower court appointments (filibusters, nuclear option, Gang of 14), and borking on issues of character and judicial record.