(Sociology of) Sex and Gender

How do we judge the final papers?

We assess how well the paper achieves each of four goals separately: use of course materials, biographical analysis, causal analysis, and quality of writing. Then we arrive at a summary "overall" assessment that determines the paper grade.  This summary assessment mainly reflects these four components.  The overall assessment may also be raised or lowered a bit to take into account general characteristics of the paper (either positive or negative) that are not captured by the four major criteria; if that happens, it will be reflected in the textual comments on the paper.

We assess how well a paper meets each of the four main goals by giving an evaluation between "poor" and "excellent" (see the full range in the table at the bottom of this page).  "Okay" is the standard with which we begin; it is our expectation for an average paper of an average student.  As used here, "okay" means that the paper has met our expectations for reasonable, normal, or average performance. 

To help make the assessments easier to understand, below is a fuller description of the four goals or criteria, what we expect for an average paper, and what makes a paper better or worse than "okay".  Following that is a table that roughly shows how the assessments relate to grades.

The four assessment areas for final papers

• Knowledgeable use of course material.  A paper should show command of course material.   The use of course material in the biographies must be selective, of course, but the paper should reflect a broad range of the readings where the central ideas or evidence are relevant to the subjects considered in the biography.  The paper should use these course materials effectively.  This means that the paper uses correct interpretations of the readings, it makes sensible connections between the course material and the biography, it avoids referring to materials that are inappropriate or unneeded, and it does not overlook course materials and ideas that are appropriate and would enhance analysis.  In short, we are looking for breadth, depth, and accuracy.
  • Okay implies that each part of the paper has the most important relevant references to the course material, that most parts are responsive to a correct interpretation of the referenced material, and that at least some parts of the paper explicitly attempt to state what the course material means and how the biographical issue relates to it.
  • A paper gets a lower than okay assessment if it does not meet one or more of the expectations for "okay" just stated.
  • A paper is considered better than okay to the degree that it
    • uses or responds to major arguments from the materials rather than relying on narrow points encompassed in a short quotation,
    • consistently gives good, explicit statements of the arguments used in the course materials
    • shows a better than average range in the materials considered,
    • when using the course materials, the paper responds to the causal arguments rather than simply comparing outcomes in life with outcomes expected by the course materials
    • includes particularly thoughtful or original insights into course materials
• Analytical biography.  A paper should unearth the biographical significance of gender in a thoughtful and analytically sound manner.  The paper should aim to show how someone's gender has played a central role in their biography.  It should try to reveal how a person's gender identity has evolved, how and why it reflects and defies the social influences in the person's environment, and what it implies about the author's future.  It should seek to show how someone's life has differed from what might have been were their gender different.  Distinct from the use of course material, the biographical analysis should show a good understanding of the ideas developed in this course (by presenting an analytical investigation of gender's role in the biography, by seeing the kinds of things we would expect from someone who has understood and applied the ideas developed in the class, by avoiding saying things that conflict with the ideas developed in the class).  The paper should achieve some kind of insights about gender's biographical impact that go beyond stating the obvious or mundane (for example, showing us how the author's embodiment of gender is both like and unlike dominant patterns).  The paper should not leave us asking, so what?   Here we are looking to see how well the paper meets the analytical expectations described in the guidelines and class discussions. 
  • Okay implies that each part of the paper looks at a biographical issue concerning gender, it examines the long-term biographical implications of most stories considered, and it at least sometimes attempts biographical insights responsive to the ideas and materials of the class. 
  • A paper's biographical analysis appears less than okay if
    • the paper inappropriately stresses observations of other people (e.g., what happened to my brother) or relies on general commentary on relevant social issues,
    • if, when appropriate biographical episodes are considered, the paper repeatedly fails to examine the biographical implications of the events, processes, or circumstances described,
    • or if biographical episodes or issues lack consistent or accurate connections to the course material.
  • Better-than-okay assessments do the desired facets of the biographical analysis more consistently, more thoughtfully, more often, or with greater breadth
• Causal analysis.  Does the work have legitimate causal analyses considering issues of how? and why? effectively?  An effective causal analysis will refer to causal arguments in the course materials and also identify plausible causal sequences explaining gender's autobiographical significance.
  • Okay implies that at some points the paper has tried, plausibly, to explain the role of gender in the events or circumstances it describes, it has effectively used causal arguments in the course materials (rather than simply responding to statements about the ways people act and what usually happens), it has explored why their gender identity developed in one direction rather than another.  The goal here is to compare the causal processes in one's own biography with the causal arguments developed in the course materials.
  • Paper's causal analyses are less than okay if they
    • show little or no effort to pursue questions of "how?" and "why?" or misunderstand what these questions mean
    • treat the course materials solely as descriptive statements summarizing what people do and what happens to people, showing little or no awareness that a principal value of these materials lies with the causal arguments exploring how differential opportunities, historically created structures, norms, pursuit of self interests, and other circumstances produce the relevant gender effects
    • consider socialization and gender differences sufficient explanations of all gender related biographical influences (that is, rely on the weakest and least meaningful approaches to explanation)
  • Better-than-okay papers pursue causal arguments consistently and thoughtfully, showing a strong grasp of ideas in the class materials.
• Quality of writing.  Here we simply ask if the paper is well-written in the usual sense.  We consider whether the paper is well-organized, displays good prose, has a clear focus and path from beginning to end, and has a good introduction and conclusion. 
  • Okay implies papers that follow all the basic rules for expository prose, including a sensible organization, writing that is clear and syntactically correct, including accurate citations and bibliography.
  • Less-than-okay papers simply fall short on one or more dimensions of the normal expectations for a well-written paper.
  • More-than-okay papers rise above the basic expectations. They use prose that reads quickly and easily, are engaging or witty, paint the biographical scenes vividly, avoid any excess, and the like.

The summary evaluations

• Comments [Initial Draft Only].  Brief comments are also offered where appropriate.   These aim to flesh out the judgment of the papers with a few select and pointed observations.  They aim to identify the issues that need to be addressed to improve the paper.
• Overall Quality [Final Paper Only].  This is the summary evaluation of the final paper.  In most cases, it simply pulls together the implications of the four assessments above.  In general, the four criteria are given about the same weight, although in special cases some criterion may be given more weight because this aspect stands out in the paper (usually because it has been done well).  Also, on occasion some other overall characteristic of the paper that is not captured by these four criteria may also stand out, either positively or negatively, and become an additional influence on the overall summary. 

Interpreting the summary assessments for final papers

The following table shows the terms used for the paper assessments and briefly indicates both what they are meant to convey in words and what is the approximate letter grade equivalent.

Assessment	Meaning	Rough Grade Equivalent
Excellent	A step beyond, truly exceptional, outstanding	A+
Very Good	Demonstrates all the knowledge and effort we hope to see	A
Good	Solid work that could still be improved with effort	A-
Fairly Good	Somewhat better than adequate or okay	B+
Okay	Average or adequate - neither more nor less	B
Nearing Okay	Approaching "okay" but straining the bounds of acceptability	B-
Weak	Shows some effort and some knowledge, but clearly falls short	C
Poor	Did something, but it is seriously deficient	D
Very Poor	Nothing or as bad as nothing	F