In the October issue of the Writing Task Force Newsletter we presented the campus with the challenge of reading and evaluating a 200-level essay. The purpose of this exercise was to see if there was some agreement about what constitutes a quality paper. The data below certainly provides some very interesting information, the implications of which, may reframe how we talk about writing with our students. What becomes evident from reviewing faculty comments about this essay is that however we may struggle with the concept of objectivity in evaluation, criteria for good writing is an individual, subjective, and very human process.

Compare, for example, these general comments about the overall logic and organization of the paper in question:

"Well focused, powerful argument."
"Clear thesis and sense of purpose."
"Solid paper, well-organized, logical development of thesis."

"Very poorly organizedrambling."
"Paper is written as a "stream of consciousness," more like a writer would talk."

Okay, maybe our perspectives do differ about what is logical and what is not, what is organized and what is rambling, but certainly we can agree about grammar and syntax since we consistently complain about our students' abilities, can't we? Well, not really as these excerpts indicate:

"Presented well with few mechanical problems of note."
"Few grammatical errors."
"I found no obvious grammatical errors."
"Paragraph and pronoun problems throughout essay."

"Poor grammar and use of slang."
"Sentence structure is confusing and difficult to understand."
"Inappropriate informal language."
"Spelling & mechanics are above average for a 200-level course."

Although some of us may find these results confounding, I suspect many students would simply nod their heads in recognition of all these contradictory messages. The students, more than the faculty, may be painfully aware that what one professor sees as clear, concise writing, another sees as boring redundancy. One class calls for authenticity in the research process, while another calls for objectivity. And what makes this even more complex for everyone involved, is that even when we can agree on some criteria, there's simply no way of knowing how each of us truly defines the very words we use, such as clarity, organization, or purpose. It's kind of like agreeing that we all value 'respecting others,' only to discover that we have profoundly different definitions of what that phrase actually means.

Ultimately then, the issue isn't that we reach consensus on definitions or values about writing. In the larger scheme of the written word, I'm sure we all know that what constitutes clarity for one, is ambiguity for another. The real issue is twofold: it's about how well we know ourselves and our own criteria, and how clearly we communicate our very individual expectations to students. If we expect a piece of writing to be heartfelt and authentic, do we state that on our syllabus? If "stimulating content for discussion," is a criteria for an A paper, have we clearly defined that on the assignment sheet or do we just assume that everyone wants stimulating content and thus are disappointed when we don't get it?

Of course, one can say that we are teaching students that good writing is merely the ability to accommodate the needs of the reader-in this case, the faculty member-and that pandering to an audience is part of college life. And maybe that truly is the name of the academic game-a perplexing, if not troublesome thought. But wherever we stand on this issue, it is still incumbent upon us to be as clear and forthright about our criteria for judging good writing as we possibly can.

In the following pages, Jan Youga's Where's the Assignment discusses and makes some very useful recommendations about how to clarify your expectations; this is followed by yet another challenge to once again read and evaluate an essay. The Task Force decided to repeat this exercise to gain more information and data. We encourage and welcome your thoughts and feedback about any of these ongoing topics, and thank all of you who sent in your responses for this first essay.