An Essay Grade that is not a B

the grader can tell the difference. An example of an F, and an example of an A

I fed the essay grader a recent piece by Victor Davis Hanson. Those of you who are familiar with his op-eds know that he is an articulate spokesman for the conservative point of view. But by my standards, he does poorly, because he uses heavy-handed rhetoric and does not attempt to engage in the best arguments for the other side. In terms of my three-axes model, he speaks in a civilization-vs.-barbarism monotone. There is no chance that this sort of essay will change anyone’s mind. The essay grader reflected my concerns:

Your essay, titled "Nihilism is the religion of the Left," presents a strong and clear viewpoint but lacks balance and fair engagement with opposing perspectives, which are crucial elements in op-ed writing. The essay consistently portrays the left and its policies in a negative light, often using charged language such as "nihilists," "swarmed," and "bankrupting." This approach can detract from the effectiveness of your arguments by alienating readers who may hold differing views.

Strengths:

1. Clarity of Argument: You articulate your position clearly, leaving no ambiguity about your stance on the issues discussed.

2. Use of Examples: The essay includes specific examples to support your arguments, such as immigration policies and energy strategies.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Engagement with Opposing Views: The essay could be strengthened by acknowledging and fairly representing the perspectives and rationales of those you criticize. This would demonstrate intellectual openness and enhance the credibility of your arguments.

2. Inflammatory Language: The use of terms like "nihilism," "swarming," and "bankrupting" can be perceived as inflammatory. A more measured tone could make your essay more persuasive to a broader audience.

3. Acknowledging Complexity: The issues you discuss, such as immigration and energy policy, are complex. Acknowledging this complexity and the challenges faced by policymakers could add depth to your analysis.

4. Intellectual Humility: Consider expressing openness to the possibility that there might be valid points on the other side, or that your own understanding of the issues might evolve with new information. This approach reflects intellectual humility and encourages constructive dialogue.

Numeric Grade: 4/10

The grade reflects the essay's clarity and use of specific examples but is lowered due to its one-sidedness, lack of engagement with opposing viewpoints, and inflammatory language.

Final Thoughts:

To enhance the effectiveness of your op-ed, consider incorporating a more balanced perspective, engaging respectfully with opposing views, and employing a more measured tone. This approach can make your arguments more compelling and accessible to a wider audience.

Searching for a strong essay, I tried one of my own, a review of Scott Sumner’s treatise on market monetarism. The grader wrote,

Grade: A

This essay offers a nuanced and thoughtful analysis of Scott Sumner's "The Money Illusion" and the broader context of monetary theory. It demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject matter, discussing various monetary theories and their implications with clarity and insight. The essay excels in several key areas essential for a high-quality op-ed type essay.

Strengths:

1. Depth of Analysis: The essay delves deeply into the complexities of monetary theory, thoughtfully examining Sumner's arguments and situating them within a broader historical and theoretical context.

2. Clarity in Explaining Concepts: Complex ideas, such as the different effects of money on interest rates and the nuances of market monetarism, are explained with clarity, making the essay accessible to readers with varying levels of expertise in economics.

3. Critical Engagement: The essay engages critically with the subject matter, raising pertinent questions about the operationalization of market monetarism and the practicality of NGDP forecasting. This shows an open-minded approach and a willingness to consider different perspectives.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Exploration of Counterarguments: While the essay does a good job of questioning Sumner's lack of an algorithm for NGDP forecasting, it could further strengthen its argument by exploring potential counterarguments or alternative viewpoints in more depth.

2. Broader Contextualization: The essay could benefit from a more explicit discussion of how Sumner's theories fit into the current economic and monetary policy landscape, which would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the practical implications of these ideas.

3. Potential Solutions: While the essay is effective in critiquing certain aspects of Sumner's work, it would be enhanced by suggesting possible solutions or directions for future research, thereby offering a more constructive critique.

Conclusion: This essay effectively communicates complex economic theories and engages critically with Scott Sumner's "The Money Illusion," offering insightful analysis and thoughtful critique. It could be further improved by exploring counterarguments in more detail, providing broader contextualization, and suggesting potential solutions or future research directions. The essay demonstrates the author's deep understanding of the subject and contributes meaningfully to the discourse on monetary theory.