How to Grade Graduate Papers

The model of the Graduate Paper is the published journal article. A paper can get an A without being publishable, but a very, very good graduate student paper is, in fact, a publishable article--if it is good enough. Some young scholars publish some of their papers after they get their PhD. Someone close to me sent in a paper for a seminar to Hispanic Review and they accepted it on the spot. I'm not advocating publishing weaker papers that might come back to haunt you, just saying that there is no difference in genre between the seminar paper and the article.

So this confluence with the publishable article determines what we are looking for as Graduate-level professors. Correct MLA format, solid writing, a theoretical approach or perspective of some kind. One reason why a paper would get an A and not be publishable is if it were lacking in originality. It might be fine as an academic exercise but not contribute anything really notable to the field. The application of theory might be too mechanical.

So the graduate paper deserves extensive comments, like those of a peer-reviewed article. I just write about a single-spaced page outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Everything is fair game, from the format and prose-style to the substance of the argument. I'm looking for a strong, distinctive thesis backed up by some kind of convincing evidence. What I really want to see is a level of engagement that leads to some strong thinking: ideas that I would not have come up with myself. I don't really hold back in outlining the weaknesses. It is not really being "nice" to do this. I might exaggerate a bit on the strengths just to provide some encouragement, but I am the professor who is going to kick your ass on the final paper. Yes, I am that guy.