Pennsylvania College of Technology   Dr. Vavra's ENL 121: Lit & Comp

Course Menu MP Menu Back

Click above for music from Beethoven's  Sixth Symphony.

     Curious about what students thought about the essays and my grading, I asked them to read the papers and my grades and comments, and then to select one specific grade that I gave to each of two papers and explain why I was wrong. For example, they could look at the grades on two papers for similarities for foil # 1 and explain why my grade for one of the papers was not fair to the other. As an incentive for doing this, I offered up to two course bonus points for their responses. At the time this offer was made, only about half of the essays were on the net, but students did have a wide range to choose from. The following are the responses I received. I am reproducing them here both to show what students thought and to respond to some of their misunderstandings. Students' comments are in blue; mine, in brown.

     It is understandable that grading papers, especially written work, can not be done to perfection. Everyone can find something to complain about. I analyzed each paper you grade [sic] and found some things that I would change. I based each of these critisms [sic] on the way that you graded everyone else's papers.
     To start with, you never give anyone points for effort. So many of these writings had so much though and effort put into them yet, they got such low grades. Not everyone was born a natural writer. I thought teachers are there to grade us on what we have learnt rather than how little we know. I personally know everyone in the class has learnt [sic] an extreme amount. Everyone is writing much better papers. Yet, everyone is still getting on average lower grades than what they deserve.

       Points for effort is a question that students often talk about, and I'm glad it was raised here. First of all, it is not true that I never give points for effort. One of the last sections on the grading sheet is for "Bonus Points." Those points are entirely a reflection of effort. They are awarded BEFORE an essay is graded, based on the amount (not quality) of brainstorming, outlining, and revising (not copying) that is reflected by all the drafts and notes in the envelope. It is true that I do not award very many of these points, but that is because so many papers come in with only one rough draft (with few changes on it) and a typed copy that is almost identical to the draft. (Unfortunately, it is simply impossible for me to reproduce and share everything that is in everybody's envelope.) As of now, I am considering doing away with these bonus points. They were intended to help just those students whom this writer is discussing. But if you look at who got bonus points, you will see that almost all of them  were received by people who earned an A, B, or C on the paper.
      Although this student claims that "[S]o many of these writings had so much though and effort put into them," what evidence for that do I (or can I) have? As I note at the beginning of the course, students' logs are intended to help me see which students are at least claiming to put in effort. Look at the log that accompanies each essay. Some students spent comparably little time and got good grades. They were well prepared for this course. Other students put in a lot more time to get high grades. They are claiming to have worked for those grades. But look at the time claimed for many of the essays that received those low grades. (Also look at how that time was distributed.) I do not, as I have stated many times, look at the logs before I grade the essays. In the first place, I am supposed to grade on the quality of the paper; second, if I considered the logs before grading, some students would start lying. Early in the semester, however, I get a sense from the weekly logs of which students are at least claiming to try and which are not.
      There are, by the way, other ways in which students get rewarded for effort. They can, for example, make an effort to get to the Tutoring Center. Look at the logs to see how many (and which) students did. Also, students are always welcome to come to see me with outlines and/or drafts. Again, few students do, and those who, in this case, did, tended to get higher grades. On the other hand, I remember talking to a student this semester, a student who was not doing well, and asking that student to come to see me. The student responded that she couldn't because she was going to meet with another student from my course to work on the paper. To me, that doesn't make sense.
     [Paper #286 was not on the web when this student reviewed the essays, but my comment on it is relevant here.]

       Although the student has a point, these comments reflect a basic misunderstanding of the functions of introductions. Let's start with paper #579. One purpose of an introduction is to set a context for the following paper. These papers were written for a course which had, as its major theme, "Who am I?" The anecdote at the beginning of #579 -- related to the writer's personal leaping out of a plane -- connects the title of the essay "Take the Leap," with the writer's basic idea -- that Hamlet's problem is that he is too hesitant in leaping. This introduction, therefore, is one of the best in the entire set (which is why it is among those for special notice for introductions).
      As for paper #863 the student is, perhaps, correct -- I gave the introduction only 3 of 5, whereas I gave most others, including #275, at least 4 of 5. But the introductions to #863 and #275 are not, as the student claims, "almost identical." The student claims that # 863 "gets it's [sic] point across." But #863 does not have a point -- it simply states that certain characters are foils. #275, on the other hand, has a weak point, but at least it is a point -- "The foils in Hamlet help build up to the outcome of the play." Three other things probably influenced me to give #863 only 3 of 5 points. First, there is no title. Second, the title of the play is not underlined, and third, there is no definition of foils anywhere in the essay. These three are covered elsewhere, but as I often say in talking about ethos, grades can move up or down a point based on a general sense of the student and the work. When a student does silly things, like not including a title, the "subjective" categories tend to be graded down as well. (Note that, overall, paper # 863 earned an 85, whereas # 275 earned a 78.)
      This student's comments also reflect a major misunderstanding of foils. The following definition has been on the website since the beginning of the course, and it was assigned reading as we began to read A Doll's House:
 

A "foil" is a minor character in a literary work who,       a) by the similarities and differences in what he or she does               (as compared to a more important character), or        b) by simply being there for another character to talk to,   helps the audience understand a more important character.

It is paper # 275, not #863, that refers to this definition, and, after all the related class discussion, I have to wonder why this student claims that "#863 has a sentence in that doesn't even belong there. 'Sometimes foils are put in a play so the main characer has someone to talk to'? You must agree that makes no sense." Several of the other papers show that indeed it makes a lot of sense.

     First, I wish more papers had the quality of detail that is exhibited in the preceding paragraph. I will attempt to address the points in order. Once again, this student raises a very good question. "Paper #579 has an extremely nice definition of foils in the third paragraph and only received 3 points!" The grading sheets are my attempt 1) to show students what is expected, and 2) to explain to students why they got the grade they got. Having read paper #579, I knew it was going to get an A. I also knew it had 2 bonus points. As I picked up the grading sheets, therefore, I was looking for places to take points away! I knew that I was not going to get very many of them. The writer of #579 does not include the idea that "foils are put in a play so the main characer has someone to talk to." But, as noted above, that is part of the definition of a foil. I thus took two points away here, points that I might not have taken away from a paper that was struggling to get a C.
     As I noted in my comments on the paper, #539 has the best definition of foils that I received in the entire set. The second paragraph of this essay not only includes ALL the aspects of a foil, but it also develops them with the writer's own examples. If you want to demonstrate that you understand something, explain it by using your own examples.
 Paper #426 raises another interesting and important question for college students. Dictionaries, including Random House College, are intended for GENERAL USE. What this means is that you should use the dictionary when you do not have anything else to use. In many courses, in many fields, terms are defined technically, i.e., more precisely, than what you will find in these dictionaries. Given the choice between using a definition given by an instructor (or a textbook) and a dictionary, always use the instructor's. There is, however, another reason for the point taken away from paper #426. The writer claims that the purpose of the foils is to " to enhance Hamlet's understanding." As my note in that paper suggests, this is wrong. As a literary device, a foil enhances the audience's, not the character's understanding. Thus, this definition is partially incorrect.
     Paper #275 gives whatsoever no definition of foils, not even a clue and received 2 points. Two points that weren't deserved. Reread the first paragraph of the paper. As for paper #863, the assignment was to include a brief definition. Hints are not a definition.

     The entire concluding paragraph of #863 (given below) is NOT "a very strong paragraph."
       In conclusion, the foils of Hamlet are very important to understanding the character of Hamlet in the play. The differences in the foils and Hamlet are what show the reader the different qualities of Hamlet.
Not only is the paragraph short, it does not even begin to state what the "different qualities" are. In retrospect, I wonder if the writer could have named those qualitites. Paper # 121 received only one more point, for the following conclusion.
      Throughout William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, [Titles] minor characters reveal
the hidden characteristics of Hamlet. From his two friends, who exposed a
cunningnous within him, to a gravedigger that was called a clown, the character of
Hamlet was deciphered. Although Hamlet was going mad all through the play, he
did "win" in the end. His character was sneaky, loving, psychotic, incestuous
[evidence?] and even humorous at times. The importance of literary foils is
apparent [in] all short stories and plays [You cannot generalize from one example,
Hamlet, to "all."]; without them the main characters would be viewed, and
characterized differently. The significance of the foils in Hamlet allows the reader to
have a clearer understanding of the main character and theme behind the play.
Not only is this conclusion longer -- and thus a more acceptable paragraph, it also includes a reference to Hamlet's madness (the theme of the essay), a renaming of the foils discussed, and a restatement of the importance of foils as a literary device. It may not be the best of conclusions, but it is certainly better than that in paper #863.

It does matter.

     I certainly appreciate these final comments. Unfortunately, it takes about two hours to prepare each paper for the net. I can probably do them a little faster if I leave out the log information, but still I'm not sure that I could complete the set for Major Paper #2 much before the due date for #3. I am hoping that future students will be able to use this set to get a better idea. But, although this student claimed that "So many of these writings had so much though and effort put into them," I still have my doubts. I am reproducing on this page ALL of the evaluations that were handed in. As readers will see, this one is by far the most thoughtful and most detailed. And, even though it could have raised their grades from F's to D's, or from D's to C's, many students didn't even bother to read the papers and write an evaluation. Most of the evaluations that follow were written by students who already knew that they had earned a C, B, or A in the course.

P.S. It took me four hours and ten minutes to write from the beginning of this document to this point. (I log my time too.)

1.     This final paper is a difficult one for me to do. I usually look for good points rather than not-so-good points in other people and the work that they do. I found this especially difficult because I also know how people are different: what is important to one doesn't even concern another. When comparing the grading sheets, I felt they were fair and accurate. The low grade papers were deserving of the grade the [sic] received. Idid, however, find one paper I had a slight disagreement with. Upon reading paper 86/75 and reviewing the grading sheet, I disagree with the 2 points received for "The difference between foil 2 and Hamlet..." and "An explanation of similarities establishes Laertes..."  [I think this writer is referring to paper 75/86, as there is no 86/75.]
2.     Although there were many similarities between the two, only two were mentioned. This does not give much support for the concept that Laertes is a foil for Hamlet. If the writer had mentioned they were the same age, they were both skilled in fencing and they both loved Ophelia, the base of support for the foil would have been stronger. Also, Ophelia's death could have been related to the evil concept of the story. She did die, but it was a tragic death, due to her father's murder; thus, relating it to evil. This could also lead to the differences between Laertes and Hamlet.
3.     Laertes was, in fact, avenging the death of his father and sister. Hamlet was only avenging the death of his father. Other differences could also have been used to support the foil concept. Hamlet's passiveness to avenge his father's death was a good point compared to the aggression of Laertes. However, I don't fgeel that expanding on this point would support the "evil" theme.
4.     This paper could have done more with the similarities and differences between Hamlet and Laertes. I do not feel what I read supported the 4 points these two areas received. Had I graded this paper, "similarities" and "differences" would have each received 1 point. The play had a lot more to offer that [sic] what was in the paper.

This writer not only makes, but also supports with examples, some good points. [And some students claim that I'm a hard grader.  :) ]
 

       In looking at the Major Paper assignment number three, which was to write about the foils in Hamlet, I took particular interest in the grades for G65-01 and G48-01. In paper G65-01, the student presented a poor outline with four subdivisions and no descriptions for the subdivisions. The student went as far as saying they "never liked writing outlines, nor do they think they are helpful." In the section of the grading sheet which says the essay is to be accompanied by a typed formal outline with subdivisions, the student received 2 out of a possible 4 points. I feel the student should have received ZERO points for the simple fact that outlines have been a requirement for ALL of the major papers, ALL of the in-class essays, and some of the homework assignments.
     On the other hand, in paper G48-01 the student presented a solid outline with subdivisions and descriptions. The student received 1 out of a possible 4 points in this area while presenting a more descriptive outline than in paper G65-01. I feel the student should have at least received 2 points in this area, and possibly 3 points if the outline in paper G65-01 could manage to receive 2 points in that area. I don't feel the outline in G48-01 was "totally unacceptable." But I do feel it was incomplete, yet the student had a nice start in trying to produce a solid outline.

This is an excellent observation. In my defense, I'll note that both outlines are so bad that neither should get any points. [Neither outline includes a Roman Number II !] Ultimately, however, I'm simply going to plead guilty to this one.

     I do not agree with papers 116 and 539 getting 1 bonus point for their outlines when paper number 433 did not get the points. You gave paper number 433 all possible points in the organization category and the other two papers in one of the organiation categories received a 3. Paper 433 Also [sic] spent 60 minutes brainstorming and did not receive points for that time. Again, paper 539 received credit and time logged was 45 minutes. If paper number 433 would have received this bonus points [sic] the final score would have been 101.

     Bonus points are NOTawarded for final outlines, for the quality of (or time claimed) for brainstorming, or for the quality of revision. They are awarded entirely on the "extra" materials in the envelope. Generally speaking, if I see two, fairly developed, different outlines in the envelope, I give a bonus point or two for outlining. If I see signs of significant revision or brainstorming, I give points for that. These points are basically for effort, not for the quality of the product, and they are awarded BEFORE I read the essay. As I believe I stated above, I'm thinking of doing away with the bonus points. All three of the papers referred to here received an A. Bonus points were intended as a reward for those students who have trouble getting a D. Unfortunately, most of those students don't get bonus points because their envelopes are relatively empty.

     I have read over all of the papers that were posted on the Internet. I have noticed  two certain points in this paper that weren't in any other paper. The paper was G85-01. For this paper the student has not given a self-grading. Only the instructor's grading is there. The first grading that caught my eye was the question that deals with the definition of what a Foil is. This particular paper was graded with a 0 in a 0 - 5 scale. I read over the paper where the definition of a Foil should be and I agree that this particular student has not given a description or definition of a Foil. Although, I do not agree that the grade for this part should've been a 0. I still do not believe that the student should've gotten a 5, but definitely not a 0. The third sentence of the first paragraph states, "The foils of Hamlet, to the Prince Hamlet, gives the reader a bsis to summarize his character within the play." This sentence is giving an inkling to what the meaning of a Foil is. It still isn't the full definition. The first two sentences of the second paragraph help out with my explanation of this grade. They state, "The first foil or character that sets off Hamlet, in the play is Laertes. After King Hanlet's death, he, along with Prince Hamlet, return to Denmark for the funeral services. That is the first sign that Laertes will become a foil to Hamlet in the play." This saying is also giving a small amount of information to my explanation. It tells what Laertes is to Prince Hamlet and forsees what Laertes will be to Hamlet. Now I know that this isn't the greatest explanation for the grading, but that's why I said this person shouldn't deserve a 5 on that part, but I think they should deserve better than a 0.

     I probably could have given G85-01 a 2 for definition of a foil, and, if the rest of the essay had been weak, I might have. Once again, however, even within the specified categories, the grading scale is somewhat subjective. I knew that I was dealing with a B paper, and, if that paper could be improved to get an A, one of the things I would have expected was a more direct definition of foils. This student is right -- a definition is implied in the paper, but shouldn't someone who earns an A be able to directly provide a definition when the directions indicate that a definition is what is required?

     Between paper #539 and #579 there seemed to be some bias. I thought that #579 was the best of all the papers on the web. It's strong examples of similarities and differences between Laertes and Fortinbras, and the superb understanding of foils should have earned it a 100%. It was clear, understandable, and interesting. In paper #539, I found myself getting confused quite a bit. It seemed as though you easily looked over this person's errors. For instance, the constant repetition. If the writer was speaking of a character, instead of using pronouns it seemed as though in every sentence they restated the characters name. It also seemed as though a few of the paragraphs were restating the same exact facts as the paragraph before. I understand that you did take points off, but they were earned back with the bonus. I found that the bonus section, although it would have been time consuming, should have also been put on the web so we could judge bonus points. In #579 you took points off mostly because they didn't mention the foil's use as a listener; but I felt that with such extraordinary details with similarities and differences that this should have been overlooked just like the repetition in paper #539.

      Both papers are certainly excellent, and, without the bonus points, their grades are very close: 95 for # 539, and 94 for # 579. Both, in other words, earned solid A's. My question, then, is how well did each fill the assignment. As I looked back at the two papers, my grading of them, and my comments, I noted thta #539 clearly dealt with the concept of foil as listener, both in the definition, and in the details. Paper #579, on the other hand, never gets close to the topic. From this perspective, it seems to me that paper #579, in spite of its other qualities, should not even have earned a A. Of the twenty possible points for details, six (30%) were allocated for "foil as listener." Of these six, the writer of #539 EARNED four; the writer of #579 WAS GIVEN four, with the comment, "A reward for the other excellent details."
     The idea about sharing the bonus point material is interesting, but impractical. In the case of these two papers, if I remember correctly, #539 had two or three pages of brainstorming notes, two significantly different outlines, and several distinct revisions. #579 had fewer notes from storming, a single outline, and fewer traces of revision. Because these points are based on drafts, notes, etc., I would have to scan every piece of paper in every envelope, thereby creating a graphic image of it. I would have to identify (in some way mark) every such piece of evidence, and then I would have to create links to each image from the web pages for the paper. I don't have the time.. I will try, however, to do all this with one or two good sample papers so that all students can see some examples

     The sections that I chose to look into the grading of were the audience (worth 20 points) and the thesis (worth 20 points). I chose a paper with a grade of 78 --"The Foils of Hamlet" and compared it with a paper with a grade of 44 -- "Revenge."
     One particular grade that I did not understand was how paper 44 got a higher score of 3 (out of 5) for the definition of a foil, while paper 78 only got a score of 2 (out of 5). Paper 78 gives a whole paragraph about foils, but paper 44 only gives a brief one to two (Well, it should have ony been one sentence) definition.  I actually think the grades should both be 2 because neither one truly described what a foil was and what role they have in a play. (I made this determination by also reading other foil defnitions that were much better.)
     Another area I questioned was the conclusion. Paper 44 got a score of 2 (out of 5) while paper 78 got a score of 3 (out of 5). I thought paper 78 basically said the same thing paper 44 did but just repeated themselves again to add more to the conclusion. Paper 78 talks twice about "the outcome of the play"; they merely changed a few words to make it look good. I don't think that warrants extra points.
     The thesis is another area for debate. Paper 44 got a score of 3 (out of 4) for having the thesis recognizable, somewhere near the beginning of the essay, whereas paper 78 got a score of 4 (out of 4). I actually thought paper 48 [44?] had the better thesis. Therefore, I also would not have given paper 44 a score of 2 (out of 4) for the thesis and essay reflecting at least an average understanding of foils in Hamlet without lowering the score of paper 78.
      The grading was, for the most part, the same as I would have given -- maybe even a little more generous. The bad thing about it is I still don't think my papers for this class were all that great for the grades I got. I think it would have been interesting to evaluate our own paper in comparison with others. I could have probably really ripped that one apart! :) [Note -- This writer's paper was not on the net in time for it to be considered by the class. It is always helpful to be able to quote a student who says that I grade generously; some students claim just the opposite.]

     My thought process behind the grades for the definitions in these two papers may be of interest to many students. This writer agrees with me on the 2 for paper 78, and basically questions why I gave the paper that got a 44 three points. In part, it was the result of the fact that this category is at the beginning of the grading sheets. I knew that the paper that ended up with a 44 was going to be clobbered later on down the sheet, and I was looking for places to give it SOME credit. I chose the definition of foils because I was able to use the student's own definition to show how something later in the essay contradicts that very definition. I felt that that in itself was worth a couple points. I have generally maintained that I teach writing courses, and that -- in my courses -- it is more important for students to learn to get details into their writing than it is for them to get the details correct. [That is reflected elsewhere in this set of papers.] In my eyes, the fact that the definition in 44 is detailed enough for me to use it against the writer is a definite plus.
     The comments about the conclusions are accurate. Perhaps I gave 78 an extra point simply because the padding makes a more acceptable paragraph, i.e., its final paragraph at least reflects some understanding that even concluding paragraphs should be developed beyond three short sentences. Also on my mind, however, was that 3 out of 5 is the equivalent of a 60 -- the lowest possible passing grade. I gave that to the paper that ended up with a 78 as, I thought, a negative grade. Paper 44, however, was so bad, and appeared to have had so little effort put into it, that I had no desire to reward it with a passing grade.
     The comment about the recognizability of thesis is a good one, especially because it makes me think more about something that has bothered me. The points are awarded for "recognizability," not for quality. I really should change that and at least include a category for quality. In these two essays, the 78 has a poor, but recognizable thesis: "The foils in Hamlet help build up to the outcome of the play." The 44, on the other hand, simply lists the foils that will be discussed. I don't agree that the 44 has a "better" thesis, but I am bothered by the fact that the 78 got 4 out of 4.
     I have to stand behind my 2 on 44 for thesis and essay reflecting at least an average understanding of foils. For one, the writer claims that foils are "between" characters. For another, the writer has the minor characters Laertes and Gertrude foiling each other. I would have no problem with a paper that challenged or extended the definition of foils such that minor characters could foil each other, but the writer of 44 says that a foil is a minor character whose purpose is to help us understand a more important character. Thus, the writer of 44 contradicts his own definition. In addition, the writer of 44 bases his discussion of foils on far too many inaccurate statements. There is, for example, NO evidence that Laertes EVER wants to know who killed the king. There is no evidence that he even cares. Yet the writer of 44 uses this as a similarity between Laertes and Hamlet. There are far too many such inaccuracies to repeat them all here, especially since they can be reviewed by clicking here.

     The two papers that I have compared were #275 to #478. And to be even more specific the definition of a "foil." A "foil" is defined in the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and I quote "some one or something that serves as a contrast to another."
     In paper number 478 you find the "foil" definition in paragraph 2. So it should get some points for not putting it in the introduction, but even the instructor pretty much disagrees with the defination with comments such as :" A foil has to be both similar and different" which question the defination totally. Even in the paragraph later on the instructor again questions the definition by saying "According to the  you gave, [sic] a foil is the minor character. How can these two be foils for each other?" This is two major problems with the definition and still the instructor gives this student a grade of 3 out of 5.
     In the second paper I looked at was number 275. In this paper the student does put the definition in the first paragraph, so points should be deducted right there. But that is the only problem I can see in the definition. The instructor doesn't even put mark on the paper till the second paragraph. The definition of a "foil" is fundamental sound and grasps the concept of a "foil," but on the grading sheet the instructor give [sic] this person a 2 out of 5 with comments saying "It is too short and in the introduction."
     I have read these two papers and realized something. That it doesn't matter what you write or how creatie you are in your writing, you always have to follow the rules (which is ashame [sic]) no matter what you would like to do. In my opinion paper 275 should of [sic] recieved [sic] at least 3 or even maybe a 4. Now I know that there was an instructional mistake made but the definition is definatly [sic] sound.

      I discussed the question of dictionary definitions above. The attitude reflected in this writer's comments are disappointing. In fact, it is not true that you always have to follow the rules. No one forces anyone to go to college. But once you are here, one of the things that you are expected to learn is how to follow directions ("rules," if you wish).

     When going through and looking at papers I came on to [sic] two papers which by reading them and just looking at the first two items that were graded, I feel the one person got ripped off two points. The first item that was graded was the essay has a good introduction paragraph. In student's paper number 579 the professor gave that person a five out of five for their introduction. Which I do agree with the professor on. This was a great introduction. It gave a little background of the person and how Hamlet reminded them of a humorous moment in their life. When we go and look at student's paper number 116 the professor gave that person a four out of five. I feel this person deserved a five out of five because it too is a great introduction. It goes on to say how in the play of Hamlet the character came. [?] It says that we met Hamlet and through Hamlet we met Horatio. Then it goes on to tell us how we met the other characters in the play. I feel this was a great introduction, which as the first one pulls us into the paper and wants us to read more. I feel this to deserve a five out of five.
     The next thing that I noticed with these two papers comes from the second item on the grading sheet. That would be the essay includes a brief definition of foil and it question [?] goes on to say more, but this is where I feel again that same student got ripped off. We look at student's paper number 579 and see that this person goes on the [sic] describe foils used in the play "so that the readers are better able to understand the major character (Hamlet). In a foil, the minor character is similar in many ways to the main character so that we will compare the two. However, it is through these similarities that we are able to see the more important differences between the two." The professor gave this person a five out of five, which again I do believe this person deserved that grade. However, I feel when reading student's paper number 116 and seeing that they gave a definition for foil as "a minor character in a play or novel that shows the feelings and thoughts of the major character. This is done not only be the dialog between the two characters, but also their similarities and differences." I do believe from what I have read that these two papers gave great definitions of foil and both of them say about the exact same thing. That is why I also feel this person deserved a five out of five for these item [sic] rather then [sic] a four out of five.

     These are two thoughtful and interesting objections. But if I remember correctly, the this writer includes my reason for taking a point away from the introduction for essay 116. In 116, the writer says that we met Horatio through Hamlet, but the reverse is true. We meet Horatio first, and through him, we meet Hamlet. It's a minor point, but I think it was enough for me to reduce the 5 (a perfect score) to a 4. As for the definitions, in grading 579, I think I was still dazzled by that brilliant introduction. As a result, I missed the omission of foils as listeners.

     In the paper, G92-01, the conclusion grade distributed to them is a four. However in paper, G87-01, the conclusion grade given to them is a three. Both of the paper's conclusions are in a sense vague. They both speak about the similarities and differences at the end of the paper also, neither of them seem to be using examples at the end. They are pretty much talking about the same thing. Paper G92-01 uses Laertes and Horatio as foils for Hamlet. Paper G87-01 uses the ghost and Laertes as foils for Hamlet.

      I must confess -- I've been caught. I'd have to say that this is a mistake. Both papers should have had a three.

     On paper G92 01 the person got a 3 for similarities between Hamlet and Laertes. That person had a lot of examples of why they were similar, but they did not really explain them. There was some explanation. On paper G87 01 the person had as many examples but that person explained their examples in more detail. I think the person with G92 01 should have gotten a lower grade for that section of paper because they did not do enough explaining.

     Let's look at both comparisons side-by side. This is the paragraph on similarities between Laertes and Hamlet from G87:

3     To see Laertes as a foil for Hamlet, you must first examine the similarities. The
most obvious are the age and sex of the characters. Hamlet and Laertes are both of
the relative same age, and they are both males. Their fathers are both dead. Laertes'
father's murder was committed by Hamlet. While speaking with his mother, Hamlet,
"Thrusts his rapier through the arras" (692). Polonius is behind the arras. He kills
him. Hamlet's father is also murdered. According to the ghost, "'Tis given out that,
sleeping in my orchard, a serpent stung me. So the whole ear or Denmark is by a
forged process of my death . . . the serpent that did sting thy father's life now wears
his crown" (648). The ghost tells his son to, "Revenge his foul and most unnatural
murder" (648). This causes Hamlet to become revenge oriented. Laertes is also
driven to revenge due to [the fact of] his father's death. Due to this revenge, the
men both are stabbed by a poisonous sword, which kills them both.
 
I do not agree that this explains the examples "in more detail." Actually, I would suggest that this is one of those rare cases in which too much (irrelevant?) detail is included. Do we really need the quotations from pages 692 and 648?  Isn't the basic similarity that both of their fathers were murdered? The fact that Hamlet killed Laerte's father, whereas Claudius killed Hamlet's, is actually a major difference, not a similarity. Thus the explanations in this paragraph actually get in the way.
      This is the corresponding paragraph from G92:
 
5     As a foil, Laertes shows us how different Hamlet compared ["is"] to what he
wanted to be.  The major similarity between Hamlet and Laertes is the deaths of
their father's [H - 50] and the revenge that they both choose to take for these
deaths.  Both Hamlet and Horatio feel strongly about their father's [no ' ]. They also
were two very good swordsmen.  Their fight at the end is energetic because of the
talent and skill that both men share in this field. They also had a very deep love for
Ophelia, and both leaped into her grave at her funeral (act 5, scene 1, p722).  Both
Laertes and Hamlet die at the end of the play by Laertes' poisoned sword.
G92 does not include the obvious similarities of age and sex, but it does include two similarities which are missing in G87: their skill as swordsmen, and their feelings for Ophelia. Whereas there are numerous other characters (such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) in the play who are also the same age and sex, there are only two who are excellent swordsmen and who love Ophelia. Thus these two characteristics are the more important in establishing Laertes as a foil to Hamlet. I still think that both papers deserve the full credit that they received for this category.

     On paper 863, paragraph 2, it got three points. On paper 777, paragraph 3, it got two points. They are both about Hamlet / Laertes. 347 was written well and should have received more points.

     Whereas #863 treats all similarities in one paragraph and then addresses the differences in the next, paper #777 attempts a more difficult arrangement -- each similarity is extended to accompanying differences, all within one paragraph. Perhaps as a result, it does not cover as many similarities, and thus gets a lower grade for this category. Also, as I noted in the essay, in claiming that Hamlet "takes a more aristocratic approach," paper #777 contradicts the earlier statement that "Hamlet’s character is played down to that of a more peculiar type commoner."

1.      In paper #777, Mirror Images I believe that a scolding notation should have been placed in the paper because the student didn't use the tutoring center. This could've been a great paper.
2.     In paper #643, Continuing Cycle of Evil, you graded his thesis as a four. I believe this was too generous. On paper #241, you gave another four on a much inferior paper. Perhaps you are to easy to [sic] please on thesis paragraphs!

      These are both interesting observations. Under the circumstances in which it was written, #777 IS a great paper. If I had ever had to work in those circumstances, I doubt that I would have been able to get a paper written, period. By the way, the writer of #777 saw me after seeing the grade for the paper and wondered if I had boosted the grade based on sympathy. I asserted that I had not, and I take this student's (and the preceding student's) comments as support for that assertion.
     As for the thesis in 643 and 241, as I noted in relation to another student's comments, I'm not happy with the grading sheets. The first category under thesis simply reflects the recognizability of a thesis, not its quality. In the two papers under discussion, I attempted to grade the quality in the second category, "The thesis and essay reflect good, independent thought about Hamlet." In this category, I gave #643 three of four, and #241 two of four. I still intend to change the sheets to include a category for the quality of the thesis.

      This comparison deals with Major Paper #3 S98G92 and paper #3 S98G83.
      In comparing the two papers, the paper which received a 97 [sic] has numerous sloppy errors. This is also the case with the paper that received the 83. However, the errors in the paper with the higher grade were not detected by the instructor and were left uncorrected . These errors appear in paragraphs 2, 4, 6 and 7.
     In addition, the paper which received a 97 scored a 2 out of 2 for mature and varied sentene structure, however paragraphs 4 and 5 appear to be choppy and difficult to understand. Moreoever, there appears to be a runon sentence in paragraph #7.
 

       I wish this student had been more specific about the errors. Paper G92 does have several awkward sentences, and two errors which I did not detect, but two of the errors in it are my fault, not the writer's. In my attempt to get these papers onto the net ASAP, I had trouble copying some students' files. In this case, a check with the original paper copy shows that in the second paragraph, the original had "A foil is a minor character in a play," whereas my net version inaccuratey had "is a play." Likewise, in the fourth paragraph, the original is "To be a foil the character also has [not "have"] to be a sounding board...." I thank this writer for pointing out my errors, and I apologize, both to the writer of the essay and to the writer of the comments.
      The writer of the comments is correct that there are two errors which were left uncorrected. In paragraph seven, "Hamlets" should be "Hamlet." This was my oversight, and I have since indicated the error. In the sixth paragraph, the only error I could find is the missing possessive "Polonius['s]." I had intentionally left this error uncorrected and unmarked because, at the time these papers were first put on the net, this paper was being held hostage for apostrophes. That meant that the writer had to get the paper off the net and correct the apostrophe errors.
     There is no run-on in paragraph seven of paper G92, but there is a definite difference in the style (sentence structure) of the two papers. First, however, note that both papers received full credit (2 of 2) for mature and varied sentence structure. This category is difficult to explain to students because our schools do such a poor job teaching grammar, but, in essense, it involves such things as main clause length and the use of subordinate clauses, semi-reduced clauses, appositives, gerundives, and parallel constructions. Most of these terms are probably meaningless to most students, but because of this student's comment, and because the course materials are now on the net, I will attempt, over this summer, to develop a better explanation with examples. For now, I'll simply note that the category really does not include errors -- they are accounted for elsewhere.

     The problem I looked at with the major papers is the definition of foils. In Madness (G78-01) the foil definition is in the first paragraph and it got a 3. In G66-01 -- A Better Understanding of Major Characters -- the introduction also contains the definition of a foils but it got a one.

     "Madness" is G65-01, not G78, but let's look at the opening definitions in all three, starting with G65, which earned 3 of the possible 5 points:
      In many short stories and plays there are persons involved which [who] help
characterize other main characters. This process of characterization is called a foil.
[A foil is not a process.] "A foil is a minor character, who by similarities and
differences, reveals characteristics of a more important character, and who, as an
element of plot, is there for the more important character to talk to" (Vavra). The
foils in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, help the reader understand the main
character; [, not ;] Hamlet.
I tried to be consistent in taking off one point if the definition was in the introduction (which the directions said it should not be). That explains one of the points lost in this paper. The other point was lost for the statement that "This process of characterization is called a foil." As I noted in the essay, a foil is not a process.

     G78-01 earned only 2 of the 5 points:

 
   Many plays, such as Hamlet, contain foils.  Foils are minor characters that
have similarities or differences with a major character.  Sometime the minor
character is in the play so the major character has someone to speak with.  The
similarities between the foil and the major may include gender, same social class, or
may be in the same situation.  The differences between the two may be an
important aspect in their character.  Some of the foils in the play are the Ghost,
Laertes, and Ophelia.  The foils in Hamlet help build up to the outcome of the play.
 
Here too, one was lost because the defintion is in the introduction. Another was lost because the definition essentially omits the purpose of foils. This writer includes similarities, differences, and the role of listener (more or less), but when it comes to purpose, this writer state only that "The differences between the two may be an important aspect in their [sic] character," i.e., there is no indication that this writer understands that the foil primarily exists to help us understand the major character. (The relationship between foil and major character is not an equality.)
     This writer lost a third point because the essay itself reflects a misunderstanding of foils. Consider the discussion of the ghost:
 
2.     The Ghost of Hamlet's father is a foil for Hamlet.  The ghost is in the play so
Hamlet has someone to speak with.  The ghost gives the information of how he died
and who committed the murder.  While Hamlet is talking [with] the ghost, he
becomes very angry with his and [sic] mother and uncle.  He decides he wants
revenge from Claudius for the murder of his father.  Both Hamlet and the ghost
think Claudius should pay for what he has done.  Another similarity between the
ghost and Hamlet is that they are from the same social class.  Those were a few
examples of the similarities between Hamlet and his father.
3.     Along with similarities, Hamlet and the ghost have a few differences.  The
ghost was murdered before the beginning of the play.  The audience finds out about
the death when the ghost is talking the [sic] Hamlet.  Hamlet dies at the end of the
play while he was fighting with Laertes.  When Hamlet and his father talked about
his mother, he said he wanted to punish her for what she has done.  The ghost
to[ld] him to leave his mother alone and that she would eventually be punished.
The ghost said it was fine for Hamlet to go after Claudius.  Hamlet was mad at his
mother for marrying his uncle and the fact that she did not wait long enough after
her husband's death.  The ghost helps to explain why Hamlet wants revenge.
According to this, the purpose of the ghost is to explain why Hamlet wants revenge. But we know why Hamlet wants revenge because of what the ghost says, not because of what Hamlet says to the ghost. According to the definition, the foil is supposed to be the listener, not the talker.
4.     Laertes is another foil for Hamlet.  Laertes was in the play so Hamlet would
have someone to fight at the end of the play.  Both Hamlet and Laertes want
revenge for their father's death.  But Laertes want revenge from Hamlet. [SV Agr
-1]  Hamlet killed Polonius by accident when he was in his mother's bedroom
because he thought it was the king.  Hamlet and Laertes loved Laertes['] sister
Ophelia.  Both were very distraught over her death.  When Laertes found out, he
was mad and really wanted to kill Hamlet.  Laertes blamed Hamlet for the death.
Hamlet did not want anything to happen to her because he told her they could not
be together. [I do not understand the causal reasoning here.] He was afraid he
would turn out to be just like the rest of his family. [This needs more explanation --
what was wrong with his family at the time he talked to Ophelia?]
5.     Laertes and Hamlet have a few differences between them.  Their disposition
throughout the play was very different.  Once Hamlet found out who murdered his
father he started to act very strange.  He wanted everyone to believe he was going
to [to?] crazy so they would not know what he was up to.  Everyone began to
believe that there was something wrong with him.  Laertes did not hide his true
feelings.  When he found out about his father, he was very angry.  He wanted
Hamlet to pay for what he had done.  Another difference between the two was their
locations during the play.  Hamlet was in the play from the beginning.  Laertes was
in Paris and did not show up until after his father's death.  Laertes and Hamlet had a
few differences between them.
 
According to the preceding two paragraphs, the primary purpose of Laertes in the play is "so Hamlet would have someone to fight at the end of the play." There is no recognition of Laertes' primary function as a foil -- to emphasize, by his haste for revenge, Hamlet's lack of action. (Hamlet's lack of action, after all, is what the play is primarily about.)
      And, in discussing Ophelia (in paragraph six), the writer states: " The final foil in the play is between [sic] the queen and Ophelia." We discussed this "between" in class, and I've also discussed it above. Individually, these errors would not have resulted in an additional point being deducted, but together they reflect real confusion about what a foil is.

     G66 recived only 1 of the 5 possible points. One point was lost because the definition is in the introduction; a second was lost because the definition does not include the function of listener:
 

(1)     In many plays, the minor characters['] only purpose is to establish a main
aspect of a major character.  A "foil" is a minor character in literary work who by
the similarities and differences in what he or she does (as compared to a more
important character).  [Frag - 1] It is to help the audience and reader get a better
understanding of the more important character.  In the play Hamlet , [sic] foils are
used to establish a major point that would be hidden if they were not used.  There
are many foils[,] but Hamlet/Laertes and Hamlet/King Hamlet will be the only ones
explored in this essay. [Very weak thesis -- What point is this essay going to try to
make about them?]
 
The fragment in the middle of the definition did not help, but consider what happens in the discussion of the ghost:
(2)     King Hamlet and Hamlet, father and son, not only share the same last name,
but also have many other similar characteristics.  Both men share the belief that
King Hamlet was hurt so terribly by  Cladius that it ruined and ended his life in the
living world. The cause of both of their deaths was due  to poisoning, by this horrid man.  These two loving men are very well liked by everyone around them.  The similarities of the King and his heir to the throne puts [SV Agr - 1] into perspective the fact that Cladius is a horrible man who both of them were terribly wronged by.
["Perspective" needs more explanation -- what perspective? Or do you simply mean
"emphasizes"?]
 
According to this paragraph, the ghost is in the play as a foil to Hamlet so that we can learn about Claudius' character! That is simply NOT how a foil functions. And, in the next paragraph, we are told that the ghost is in the play to show us how indecisive Hamlet is:
(3)     Not only do these two have very similar characteristics, but they are very
different in many ways to. [H 50]  King Hamlet was a very serious man who
always went through with deeds that needed to be done. [Examples?] On the other
hand[,] Hamlet is a very indecisive man.  This is proved by the fact that he was
very hesitant to fallow [sic; H 50] through with his father's request to avenge his
death.  If  the situation was switched around[,] and Hamlet asked his father to
avenge his death, he would fallow [sic] through with no questions asked.
[Evidence?] As shown during the play within the play, Hamlet is a very humorous
and almost cocky man.  The whole play scene was a joke to him, but his father is
always a very serious man.  [This contrast (humorous/serious) is very interesting,
but you should have followed it up with evidence from the play. If it does indeed
exist in the play, it would help explain why Hamlet takes so long to follow his
father's directions, but first you need to show that it does indeed exist in the play.]
The differences of these two definitely prove that Hamlet is not nearly the man that
his father was.
 
Hamlet's indecisiveness is indeed emphasized by a foil, but that foil is Laertes, not the ghost. Moreover, we are given a number of unsubstantiated comparisons. (Note my requests for examples and evidence.) In effect, this writer is continually comparing apples and oranges. [And one of the purposes of this assignment is to enable students to make better comparisons, be they between foils, or between types of sweeteners (for Culinary Arts) or types of wood (for Forestry).
     The writer then goes on to discuss Laertes as a foil, but the discussion is ungrounded and contradictory:
(4)     Laertes and Hamlet are very similar in many ways.  These two men are both
about the same age and both have a love for the game of fencing.  They are both
athletic men to a certain extent, who will never except [accept]  loosing [losing] at
anything. [Evidence?]  The similarities of these men truly make the reader and audience believe that both of them could walk in each others shoes. [B.S. If that is true, then you should be able to give a LOT more similarities.]  The only thing that makes these men who they are is that one was born heir to King Hamlet's throne and the other
was not.  [You have just said that your next paragraph is worthless -- be careful
with the word "only."] These similar qualities show why it is so hard for Hamlet to
avenge his father's death, because he is very hesitant and lacks the confidence
needed to do such an act. [Doesn't this contradict your previous sentence?]
 
The writer claims that it is the similarities which emphasize Hamlet's hesitancy, but in fact it is the differences that do that.
(5)     Although they are very similar, there definitely is some differences to. [SV
Agr -1; H-50]  Ophelia received love from both of these men.  Laertes loved her as
a sister and Hamlet loved her in a more romantic way.  When Ophelia dies the
reaction of Laertes and Hamlet differs completely.  Laertes is very angry and is
almost ready to avenge his sister's death.  Hamlet on the other hand is very
sorrowful[,] and since he knows that it is so hard for him to avenge his father's
death, he could not even think about being angry with Ophelia's death. [???] The
differences between these two men show Hamlet that the best thing to do when
dealing with death is to just let things happen and deal with the consequences. [This
needs a lot more explanation.]
 
The final sentence of this paragraph, the sentence which expresses the purpose of Laertes as a foil, has nothing to do with the differences stated in the paragraph. Perhaps I could have deducted only one additional point and have considered this as no worse than the understanding reflected in G78, but the writer of G78 at least compares apples to apples, and the writer of G78 provides more evidence for the various similarities and differences that are claimed. The writer of G66 simply makes too many unsubstantiated assertions about similarities and differences, assertions for which I see no evidence. Hence I deducted two additional points.