More Essay-grader Results

essays suggested by readers

At readers’ suggestions, I have the essay grader grade more essays.

First, this essay on California’s ethnic studies curriculum.

Grade: B+

Feedback:

1. Clarity and Structure: Your essay is well-structured and clear, presenting a balanced view of both inclusive and liberated ethnic studies. The contrast between the two approaches is effectively outlined, which helps readers understand the core differences. However, the essay could benefit from more explicit transitions to guide the reader through your argumentation.

2. Engagement with Opposing Views: You fairly represent the perspectives of both inclusive and liberated ethnic studies. However, the essay leans slightly towards favoring inclusive ethnic studies, which could be perceived as a lack of complete neutrality. To improve, consider elaborating more on the potential strengths of liberated ethnic studies while maintaining your critical perspective.

3. Demonstration of Open-Mindedness: The essay shows signs of open-mindedness by acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the validity of different viewpoints. However, it could further demonstrate intellectual humility by exploring more deeply the potential limitations or challenges of the inclusive ethnic studies approach.

4. Argumentation Quality: Your arguments are coherent and persuasive, particularly in highlighting the potential risks of a liberated ethnic studies curriculum. The essay could be strengthened by incorporating more empirical evidence or expert opinions to support your claims.

5. Avoidance of Inflammatory Rhetoric: The essay successfully avoids inflammatory language and maintains a respectful tone throughout. This is commendable, especially given the sensitivity of the topic.

6. Suggestions for Improvement:

   • Incorporate more diverse perspectives, possibly including voices from educators or students who have experienced these curriculums.

   • Provide more concrete examples or case studies to illustrate the impacts of both approaches.

   • Reflect on how each approach aligns with or challenges broader educational goals and societal values.

Overall, your essay is thoughtful and informative, contributing meaningfully to the discourse on ethnic studies in education. With some enhancements in balancing perspectives and deepening the analysis, it could serve as an even more impactful piece.

I felt obliged to reprimand the grader.

Once again, you are grading an op-ed. Op-eds are not supposed to be neutral, so you should not have raised the issue of neutrality.

Next, I asked it to grade this essay arguing that the United States was insincere at the recent climate change conference. The grader’s feedback:

The essay effectively highlights the contradiction between the United States' diplomatic stance on climate change and its actual practices regarding fossil fuel production. The author provides substantive evidence, such as the report from the Center for Biological Diversity and U.S. production statistics, to argue that the U.S. is a major contributor to the problem it publicly criticizes. This strengthens the essay's argument by grounding it in factual information.

Strengths:

1. Clear Argument: The essay presents a coherent and well-structured argument that the U.S. is not living up to its climate commitments.

2. Use of Evidence: The inclusion of specific reports and statistics adds credibility to the argument.

3. Global Context: By comparing the U.S. to other countries, the essay effectively situates the issue within a global framework.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Engagement with Opposing Views: The essay could be strengthened by acknowledging and addressing potential counterarguments. For instance, it could discuss the economic and political challenges associated with rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels in the U.S.

2. Acknowledging Complexity: While the essay's stance is clear, it could further acknowledge the complexities and potential trade-offs involved in transitioning to renewable energy sources.

3. Solution-Oriented Discussion: The essay could benefit from discussing potential solutions or paths forward, giving a more constructive dimension to the critique.

Overall Assessment: The essay is well-written and makes a compelling argument about the U.S.'s role in climate change discussions versus its actions. It would benefit from a more balanced perspective that considers the challenges and potential solutions, which would demonstrate a more open-minded approach to the issue.

Grade: 85/100

The essay is strong in its argumentation and use of evidence but could improve in demonstrating a more nuanced understanding of the issue and engaging with opposing viewpoints.

Another reader sent me an op-ed that he got published 25 years ago. He was arguing that we should be selective about the way we use trade agreements, because of their distributional effects.

perhaps we should scrap our membership in the big trade combines, NAFTA and GATT, in favor of trade agreements individually negotiated with our trading partners. If such agreements are designed to keep more labor-intensive work within our borders, low-end wages should rise. There's no free lunch. We should also expect an increase in the cost of living, with the net result that the purchasing power of the prosperous declines while that of the working poor increases.

The feedback from the grader struck me as generically about an essay on trade, rather than speaking to this essay. So I gave the grader feedback that it did not spell out clearly what the writer was advocating. Then the grader’s feedback became:

Grade: 82/100

Feedback:

• Argument Clarity and Cohesiveness (23/30): The essay presents a clear argument against the current model of free trade, especially highlighting its impact on low-skilled workers in wealthier countries. The distinction between the effects on different labor groups is well-articulated. However, the transition from problem identification to potential solutions is somewhat abrupt, and the essay could benefit from a smoother logical flow.

• Engagement with Opposing Views (22/30): You recognize the prevailing support for free trade and its theoretical benefits, which is commendable. However, the essay would be stronger if it engaged more directly with the specific arguments of free trade proponents, especially regarding the long-term benefits of globalization and technological advancements.

• Demonstration of Open-mindedness (17/20): Your essay acknowledges the complexity of the issue, particularly in the concluding paragraph. This shows an openness to the multifaceted nature of the topic. However, there could be more exploration of the potential downsides or limitations of your proposed solutions, demonstrating further intellectual humility.

• Representation of Facts and Assumptions (20/20): The essay effectively uses factual information about the disparities in labor markets and the impact of free trade agreements. The assumptions about the consequences of changing trade policies are plausible, though a deeper examination of these assumptions would enhance the essay.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1. Integrate Counterarguments More Fully: Engage more deeply with the arguments for free trade. For example, how do proponents of free trade address the issues of wage disparity and job loss for low-skill workers?

2. Smooth Transitions and Logical Flow: Improve the transition from problem identification to the proposed solutions. Offer a more detailed analysis of how renegotiating trade agreements might realistically impact both the economy and low-skill workers.

3. Further Exploration of Potential Downsides: Consider and discuss the potential negative consequences of your proposed solutions. For example, how might renegotiated trade agreements impact international relations or the global economy?

4. Additional Perspectives: Consider including perspectives from workers in both high-skill and low-skill sectors, as well as from countries that benefit from the current trade system, to provide a more rounded view of the issue.

Overall, the essay makes a compelling argument and effectively highlights the negative impact of free trade on certain segments of the workforce. With a more thorough engagement with opposing views and a deeper exploration of the complexities involved, the argument could be even more persuasive.

This is decent feedback relative to the criteria I asked the grader to use. But I myself would take off more points. The paragraph I quoted comes close to the end of the essay, and comes as somewhat of a surprise. That may be why the grader missed the point on the first try. From an essay-structure perspective, I prefer the old “announce where you’re going to take the readers, then take them on the journey, then reiterate the destination.”

Aaron Renn’s defense of Hillsdale College speech regulations. Renn wrote,

our speech code at Hillsdale College: “You may assert and defend any argument you conceive, as long as you do so in a way that is civil, academic, and conducive to thought and deliberation.” This rule is old, proven by time and thought.

The essay grader wrote:

Grade: B+

Strengths:

1. Clarity of Argument: The essay presents a clear and structured argument defending Hillsdale College's approach to freedom of speech. It articulates the college's position effectively, particularly in the context of its educational philosophy and speech code.

2. Representation of Opposing Views: It acknowledges the perspective of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), summarizing their concerns fairly before presenting a counterargument. This demonstrates a good understanding of the opposing view.

3. Engagement with Complex Ideas: The essay delves into the nuanced relationship between freedom of speech and the educational goals of a college, which is a complex and relevant topic.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Acknowledging Potential Flaws: While the essay defends Hillsdale College's policies, it could be strengthened by acknowledging potential limitations or flaws in these policies. This would demonstrate a more balanced and open-minded approach.

2. Engaging More Deeply with Counterarguments: The essay could benefit from a deeper engagement with FIRE’s concerns. For instance, exploring how prioritizing values over absolute free speech might impact the diversity of perspectives on campus.

3. Avoiding Assumptions: The assumption that Hillsdale's approach is fundamentally different and better than most competitors could be perceived as a bit dismissive. A more nuanced comparison or acknowledgment of the merits in different approaches to free speech in academia would enrich the argument.

Overall Feedback: This essay effectively presents and defends Hillsdale College's stance on freedom of speech, integrating the college's educational philosophy and policy. It successfully outlines the opposing view, albeit with room for deeper engagement and analysis. The piece would benefit from a more explicit recognition of the potential limitations of its own argument and a more thorough consideration of alternative viewpoints. This would strengthen its demonstration of intellectual humility and openness.