Rubric for Final Paper



Criterion

4

A-level qualities
(90–100)

3

B-level qualities
(80–89)

2

C-level qualities
(70–79)

1

F-level qualities
(below 70)



Score

Purpose Introduces and presents paper extremely effectively and clearly; purpose is readily apparent to the reader; student accurately restates Goldberg's argument and presents a well-reasoned stance for or against it Introduces and presents paper effectively; purpose is clear throughout the paper; student restates Goldberg's argument and presents a definite position for or against it Introduces and presents paper somewhat effectively; writing has a purpose but may sometimes digress from it; Goldberg's argument is presented and student expresses opinions about it, though the dicusscion may lose focus Introduces and presents paper poorly; purpose is generally unclear; student misstates Goldberg's argument and either fails to take a stance for or against it or presents erroneous information in support or critique  
Development and content Develops paper as assigned covering all of the stated questions thoroughly in a coherent narrative; critiques Goldberg's ideas with great insight and shows a thoughtful, in-depth analysis of the Goldberg volume Develops paper as assigned covering all of the questions; offers a thoughtful critique of Goldberg's ideas and an adequate basic analysis of the Goldberg volume Does not fully develop paper as assigned, may fail to address all questions or may do so in a disjointed or unsynthesized manner; analysis of the Goldberg volume is basic or general Paper is undeveloped and completely ignores or misunderstands course concepts or the Goldberg volume; paper does not relate to the assignment; analysis of the Goldberg volume is vague or there is no evidence that the writer has read it  
Makes appropriate and powerful connections with the readings in the course and effectively introduces three (or more) appropriate nonprofit examples as directed; treatment of the examples is thorough and sophisticated; examples are used effectively in the concluding argument Makes appropriate connections with the readings in the course and effectively introduces three nonprofit examples as directed; treatment of the examples is logical and appropriate; examples are mentioned in the concluding argument Makes somewhat vague connections with the readings in the course; introduces two or three nonprofit examples; examples may be less than appropriate or the discussion of them is cursory; may fail to mention or effectively utilize examples in the concluding argument Makes little or no connection with the readings in the course and introduces fewer than three nonprofit examples; examples may not be discussed or analyzed either in the body of the paper or in the conclusing argument  
Evaluates Goldberg's thesis in a sophisticated manner relative to current government, foundation, private placement and venture capitalist actions; goes beyond the stated questions Relates Goldberg's thesis effectively to current government, foundation, private placement, and/or venture capitalist actions; treats the stated questions thoroughly Provides some discussion of Goldberg's thesis in relation to the current climate, though the discussion may be vague and there may be little connection between the concepts and the Goldberg volume Does not include any coherent discussion of course concepts and reveals lack of understanding; comments are general or erroneous  
Documentation and support Ideas are supported effectively and the paper uses legitimate sources that are clearly attributed Ideas are generally supported and paper includes legitimate sources; attribution is mainly clear Although attribution is present, some sources included in the paper may be questionable; some statements are unsubstantiated and the source of some ideas is unclear Attribution is missing, or sources given are poorly chosen, or sources have not been used  
Organization Arranges ideas clearly and logically to support the purpose or argument; ideas flow smoothly and are effectively linked; reader can follow the line of reasoning Arranges ideas adequately to support the purpose or argument; links between ideas are generally clear; reader can follow the line of reasoning for the most part Arranges ideas adequately, in general, although ideas sometimes fail to make sense together; reader remains fairly clear about what writer intends Arranges ideas illogically; ideas frequently fail to make sense together; reader cannot identify a line of reasoning and becomes frustrated or loses interest  
Writing mechanics Writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness Writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness and contains only a few errors Writing lacks clarity or conciseness and contains numerous errors Writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors  
APA format Uses APA format accurately and consistently Uses APA format with minor violations Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA format Does not use APA format  

Total:

 

Note: Criteria are evaluated on a 4-3-2-1-0 basis. Total rubric points are converted first to a letter grade and then to a numerical equivalent based on a 0–100 scale: 30–32 = A (93–100); 29 = A– (90–92); 28 = B+ (88–89); 23–27 = B (83–87); 22 = B– (80–82); 21 = C+ (78–79); 15–20 = C (73–77); 14 = C– (70–72); 7–13 = D (60–69); 0–6 = F (below 60).