Sunday, October 11, 2015

Closed Prompt #1: 10/11 Analysis of Student Responses from the 2003 FRQ, Question 2


Student YYY (9):  

This student has a remarkable understanding of the tone of the passage. He/she not only recognizes the social satire, but most aptly characterizes it as attacking “the institution surrounding marriage.” He/she notices that it does not actually make fun of the principles of marriage itself, but rather the moronic associations with a stable marriage that society has established, as expressed in the behavior of Carol and Howard. The vocabulary is well-varied and the voice is humorous, even entertaining. The most sophisticated argument was perhaps the description of the way society’s rules for forming marital relationships drive marriages to destruction based on the “circular logic” of the rules themselves. The structure of the essay is also easy to follow, talking about characterization and then the recurring themes of the passage. This student’s interpretation is about as spot-on as an AP grader could hope, and thus the passage earns a well-deserved perfect score.

Student CCC (6):

            The opening and concluding paragraphs contribute very little to this essays’ argument, and despite the redundant use of “society,” the student has a strong understanding of the passage’s message. The real problem is that the student doesn’t really explore the points of understanding to any real depth, leaving the understanding of the social satire and characterization vague and incomplete. While he/she uses effective parallelism at one point, it is to make a point about how society affects both Howard and Carol, making generalizations that only apply to one of them at a time. This may be a comprehension issue, or simply a lack of planning which led to a rushed argument that required a quick summary of the message. It appears that the student could have benefitted from looking at the characterizations of each individually and making more generalizations about their actual similarities. Either way, the essay was effective enough to earn a 6.

Student JJJ (4):


            If this student had used “social commentary” one more time in writing this passage, I could imagine an AP grader throwing a fit. The argument is so trite, so uncreative, and so boring, that the essay probably earns its four points from generally good conventions and sentence structure alone. The student may understand the passage, but we will never know for sure. The message is essentially that there is a “social commentary” conveyed in the work, but the nature of this commentary is never elaborated on, and the characterization is addressed only to the extent of “character development,” which doesn’t actually bear significance. Instead, the passage emphasizes a satirical perspective related to love and marriage through the use of two static characters. The satire actually emerges from the fact that Carol and Howard behave in a certain way, which their development would only hinder. This essay is a good example of what can go wrong if a student develops a lukewarm argument backed by little more than a few references to the passage. 

2 comments:

  1. Can I just say, I love your writing style. It's something nice and elegant. I like your analysis of the first person. What I really feel drawn to is the second person.

    I'm not that into literature. To the point where I'm questioning my choice in taking this class. One of the hardest things for me is supporting my claims in essays. I feel that the critique you did for the the second writer is the same type of critique that I would receive on my writing.

    Maybe you could help me out sometime?

    Otherwise, your responses were clear, well thought out and enjoyable to read. Continue writing my good sir.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thomas, your use of vocab makes your writing really enjoyable. I liked that each critique you give the writers are different.
    You also do a great job of explaining the reasons for the critique that you gave. I loved the comment that you gave to the author of the third response. These were the essays that I responded to in my first blog post and I was thinking the exact same thing. It was as if the writer ran out of ideas and could only focus on one thing.
    I really enjoy your posts.

    ReplyDelete