Closed Prompt 1-11/15/15

2009 Exam-Prompt 1:

Student 1A: This student has a remarkably complete and accurate analysis of Cardinal Woosey's soliloquy. His/her essay is broken into perfectly organized paragraphs that focus on diction, figurative language, and tone. The primary strength of the essay is in its organization. The student uses these different aspects of the poem to demonstrate understanding of the different literary devices present and also provide further analysis and interpretation. Within that organization, however, the content is equally strong. I was especially impressed with how he/she connected the shift in tone with the intricate variety of emotions Wolsey expresses. While the language can be repetitive at times, the argument is sophisticated and such minor imperfections should be forgiven. It is also important to remember the time constraints this essay was written under, making its achievement of a 9 impressive to say the least.

Student 1B:  This essay is overall well-written but generally lacks interpretive depth. The student appears to understand the language of the poem quite well and uses ample textual evidence, but the analysis of the evidence does not justify its quantity. It seems that overall, the student refrained from using the examples and interpretive ideas he/she clearly extrapolated to further an argument based around the literary devices present, choosing instead to use the interpretations as the argument. For example, the student refers to Wolsey’s tone as “cathartic” at one point, but never explicitly demonstrates that he/she really knows what this means. If the student had been clearer, his/her strong understanding of the text could have warranted a score higher than 6.

Student 1C: Glancing at the essay and reading the introduction, I was at first confused over why it scored so low. However, it is clear after the first few lines that the student simply did not organize the content of the essay to fit the argument, nor did he/she even interpret part of the poem correctly. The primary mistake in interpretation was due to a poor attempt to scale back the language to apply it erroneously in too general a context. While the other essays mentioned the universally human qualities of Wolsey’s frustrations, they did not base their entire interpretation off of it. This makes a great deal of sense because, of course, the soliloquy is part of an overall play, and should not be compared to a work with broader intention such as a stand-alone poem or short story. Because of the poor interpretation and lack of organization, the essay scored only a 4.