Humanities professors: What's the difference between a B and an A for you?

I tend to use a rubric, but sort of generally: a B paper is a good paper that does exactly what I would expect it to. It meets all of the requirements, the student has shown an understanding of the course material, consulted some sources outside of class material, and have contributed some original thought.

An A exceeds the expectations that I have. The student consulted more primary sources than I expected them to, as example, they went well beyond the material covered in class to support their argument. Their arguments are more original than not, and they have a solid analysis.

Length and quantity of sources are more minor details, for me. You can have a brilliant 5 page paper and a terrible 10 page one. A student can have cited 30 sources but barely understood any of them, while someone might have done a really in-depth primary source analysis and have only a handful of supporting secondary sources.

All that said, everywhere I have worked and studied, an 88 is already in the highest grading bracket so this might not be helpful!

I have graded thousands of papers on the topics I teach. I can tell an A from a B, C, etc. in a few seconds.

I have used rubrics with the most minute details, points, etc. But I also know an A vs B when I see it. Whether I write out the points or assign a letter grade alone, it’s the same.

What’s the difference in grade? It’s level of analysis, ability to produce a coherent and cohesive argument, the use and synthesis of external research/evidence to support assertions, and following directions.

I usually have this in my syllabus. I also submit this to the school for accreditation purposes, etc.

For me -

B = a student does everything that I ask for, no matter how well they do. (well, if they do pretty poorly but still cover everything, they might get B-.)

A = a student does not do everything excellently, but also inspires me to think about some ideas/arguments seriously. I have at least one "wow! nice!" moment.

Then B+ and A- in between.

Edit: does not only…

If your class has a rubric, check that out. It might make it clearer for you. Generally, though a B paper is solid, there is a clear thesis and evidence supporting that idea is present. In other words, it accomplished everything I asked but didn't necessarily excel at any of those things. I often call that finesse, others polish or originality, etc. Usually, the thesis could be more specific and focused, the point of view (voice) strengthened (own the argument/active voice), or the evidence needs a bit more contextualization or nuance. Those are difficult to quantify and something most learners struggle to do consistently (which is why you might get an A one week and a B the next). Other times, it is as simple as formatting depending on the weight given to that component.

As you become more and more familiar with writing in the humanities, you see how clearly those tiny details improve an essay. If you are new to the field (most students) or writing in general, it will be a while before this is as obvious to you as it is to your professors. With practice, however, it will be clear to you also. That is not to say there is no subjectivity here, but with more practice, you begin to see the subjective assumptions made in the humanities approach. I sometimes compare it to significant figures in STEM classes, first year students complain and find it nitpicky, and then as they get to upper division, they realize that specificity is critical.

I had a student turn in a very “B” paper. It was good. It met requirements. And the writing was solid. But, a “C” also meets requirements. The “B” is a bit above that with good research and good connections, analysis, etc. And the “B” grade offended this student. So, I showed him an example of an “A” paper. Student name removed. I had asked permission from the student to use the paper in the future as an example if needed. Student had agreed.

My “A” paper went beyond expectation. Not in word count or source number, but in depth of analysis and depth of inquiry. Elements that stuck out to me:

Excellent writing skills. Check.

Excellent citation skills. Check.

Excellent synthesis of presented evidence and analysis.

Seamless attribution.

Sources required and sources delivered. All exactly as asked for in the instructions. Check.

Citation format flawless. Check.

Depth of analysis? Above expectation. Really made outstanding connections to theme, technique, evidence, effect, etc.

Depth of inquiry? Student went beyond parameters of assignment which was to analyze cinematic elements of a selected film. Did more than cursory background information about the film (e.g., when did the film come out? Who was the director?). Delved deeper than that. Discussed the cinematographer, the cinematographer’s background, education, history, and style they are known for. Discussed interviews where other cinematographers praised this guy’s work. Then explored the techniques.

What really got me was that the student showed curiosity. They included a line about being curious how this cinematographer’s biographical history might have impacted the work. And how interesting it was to learn X about the cinematographer. And then continued to connect that back to the thesis.

Students who SEEK a way to go deeper into their topic, argument, analysis? That shows.

I generally use rubrics that are linked to the learning goals for the course and assignment. But those are set up differently, so that some of them-- like mechanics --give fewer points and require basically near-perfect work to earn those, which most students do. (Because I don't want to waste time reading stuff with typos and errors that should have been corrected before submission.) Most of the weight is placed on catagories like argumentation, use of evidence, and proper sources/citations. In those the top bit of the rubric is indeed "exceptional" so most students score lower than that. In practice this means that an A paper will both be well-written and will exhibit excellent use of disciplinary methods, materials, and thinking. A paper that falls short of excellence in those areas tends to be a B if all the mechanics and other bits are strong. C papers are lacking in both areas, etc.

A paper that earns a B could easily be improved via correction or expansion. One that earns an A is far less likely to receive criticism beyond suggestions about style or strategy. In a given class 10% of papers tend to be As and probably 30-40% are Bs. As you might imagine, quite a few fall into the A-/B+ range as well due to falling short in one or more areas.

Others have already answered this question well, but in terms of receiving primarily good feedback, I have also had students confused as to why they made a B and not an A when most of my comments were positive. I personally use a very specific rubric to articulate where an assignment did not fully meet the parameters in order to articulate why a student got a particular grade. That being said, part of constructive criticism also involves telling students what they did well and why to encourage them to keep doing it. The amount of compliments I give is not proportionate to the grade. I mean, obviously, I try to find something nice to say without lying even in bad papers to keep students who do poorly from feeling hopeless as that discouraged them from believing they can improve, but I don’t “make up” positive feedback. A student could have made mistakes that ultimately cost them more on the rubric particularly in regards to addressing the content and parameters, which is what I personally weigh more. Yet I am obviously still going to give constructive writing comments when I see something worth noting because knowing what you did well is just as important as knowing what you could improve. That is usually what happens in a situation like yours — a student fails to fully develop an argument or the assignment parameters on the syllabus in a way that is difficult to mark line by line and should be addressed in a general summary but I will still note writing points as I go.

An 88 is very good for me, for the record. Well done!

B = Good to Very Good

A = Great

A paper with an 88 would be Very Good. It may not have anything wrong with it, which is why it received little feedback, it just didn’t have whatever else it needed to achieve greatness.

That said, I usually give feedback to help students understand where their work can be further improved, because it is another teaching opportunity.

Let me add another question here.

It’s one thing to grade research papers.

How do creative writing profs grade assignments?

A b is when you adequately meet requirements. Nothing is wrong, but also nothing is unique or thoughtful or personal or insightful.

A level work is when you take ownership of your he assignment and use it as a spring board for your own deliberate engagement.

I do distribute a clear rubric to this effect, though. I’m not trying to make students guess.

Yeah, B is competent, A is extraordinary. That’s basically it for me.

I have a rubric, but in general, an "A" paper exceeds all requirements and demonstrates unique research, analysis, and technical proficiency.

A "B" paper at least meets all requirements, exceeds some, and demonstrates high-quality research, analysis, and technical proficiency.

A "C" paper meets all requirements and demonstrates college-level research, analysis, and technical proficiency.

I use a rubric so everyone is graded on the same criteria and I don’t miss anything.

I'm mixed methods. It's all the same.

80-89% is 80-89% of the grading rubric.

I don't understand faculty that don't use rubrics.

• Efficacy of argument takes a B to an A.
• I'm interested in your integration of paraphrasing/quotes and citations.
• Smooth and useful transitions -Clarity, brevity and reader-centered context -Clear, objective authorial voice -Solid research and effective primary and tertiary sources. Does your data support your arguments, or did you just plug in sources to fill the paper with citations?

I'm less interested in grammar and punctuation that spell check might have missed. I want to see your mastery of the tools you've been given in the class. I want a paper that reflects solid understanding of your subject and conveys it so tat the reader understands it, too.

These are tools you must have going forward in academics. And I love to give an A when I see it.

I teach 100-level writing and lit courses. Primarily, the difference is in the writing itself. A paper with a strong thesis, well developed supporting points, and a coherent structure is a B. A paper with all those things plus a polished and professional writing style earns an A. This is all delineated on my rubric.

On final drafts, I rarely make specific comments on grammar/style or formatting because, in theory, I have seen several iterations of that paper beforehand and given that feedback on those. Plus, students aren’t rewriting those drafts, so I will save time by addressing lower-order concerns on drafts of future papers.

I mean is “good job” an A paper?

Watch Whiplash. “There are no two words in the English language more harmful than ‘good job.’”

Good job is a C and maybe a B.

An A is something more.

This is an automated service intended to preserve the original text of the post.

*This question is purely academic at this point, because the class is finished, and I ultimately got an A in it. But there's one paper I wrote where I still don't understand my grade. Which leads me to ponder, like, the philosophy behind undergrad essay grading.

How do you determine whether to give an A or a B on a paper? Do you have a points system that you use, or is it more of a vibe? Do you feel that an A needs to have gone significantly "above and beyond", and if so, what does that look like to you? Something quantifiable like paper length or number/quality of sources? Writing style? Intriguing thesis or analysis?

Do you compare students' papers to each other within the same class in order to determine students' grades?

The backstory is that I got an 88 on a paper that I personally feel was good work, got almost exclusively good feedback on, and literally the only note the professor had was something really minor like forgetting a hanging indent on one of my citations. And this has now become my Roman Empire. Especially because the other 2 (subsequent) papers I wrote got high A scores and didn't seem any better written or more "above and beyond" than the first. I probably didn't forget that hanging indent again, though.

I would never, ever, ever reach out to a professor to ask for a higher grade on an assignment, even if I felt I "deserved" it. Especially for a B+, lol.

*

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

ask fellow students who earn A grades if you can read their papers.