Short essay 1000 words

The Social Character of Race anonymous marking enabled

Submission dat e : 26- Feb- 2019 02:02PM (UT C+0000) Submission ID: 10124 894 4 File name : T HE_SOCIAL_CHARACT ER_OF_RACE.do cx (21.7 2K) Word count : 17 34 Charact e r count : 97 80

1

quot at ion marks

2

3

4

5

QM

FINAL GRADE

78/0 The Social Character of Race GRADEMARK REPORT

GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

T his is a f irst- class respo nse to the essay questio n. Yo u tackle head- o n the issue o f race as a so cial co nstructio n, and put to gether a very well structured argument that explo res the 'real co nsequences' o f racializatio n.

Altho ugh this is a very sho rt piece o f wo rk, yo u co ver a lo t o f gro und. I really like the way yo u discuss the maintenance o f white privilege at the end: it wo uld have been go o d if yo u'd had space to explo re ho w it is that racism can be rejected o n o ne level yet repro duced o n ano ther.

Yo u write clearly, and demo nstrate a really go o d understanding o f key so cio lo gical issues. Well do ne.

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

Comment 1

A very clear and well- written intro ducto ry statement. Great.

quotation marks

Here, and elsewhere, please use single quo tatio n marks f o r quo tes.

PAGE 3

Comment 2

Go o d. Well argued.

PAGE 4

Comment 3

Strictly speaking, all gro ups are racialized. What yo u (and yo ur so urce) are discussing here are racialized minorities.

PAGE 5

Comment 4

Again, so me go o d, clear discussio n.

PAGE 6

Comment 5

Go o d. I like yo ur attentio n here to an active investment (by white peo ple) in the maintenance o f their o wn racial privilege.

PAGE 7

RUBRIC: SOCIOLOGY ESSAY RUBRIC

IDEAS (20%)

/ (100)

FIRST (75)

2:1 (65)

2:2 (55)

3RD (45)

FAIL (35)

MAT ERIAL (20%)

/ (100)

FIRST (75)

2:1 (65)

2:2 (55)

3RD (45)

FAIL (35)

ANALYSIS (20%)

/ (100)

FIRST

75 / 10 0

7 5 / 100

Engagement with key ideas and co ncepts

Canno t be impro ved upo n.

Demo nstrates excellent critical engagement with and f o cus o n the questio n, drawing o n relevant ideas and co ncepts.

Demo nstrates go o d critical engagement with and f o cus o n the questio n, drawing o n relevant ideas and co ncepts.

Demo nstrates reaso nable engagement with and f o cus o n the questio n, drawing o n so me relevant ideas and co ncepts.

Do es no t suf f iciently engage with o r f o cus o n the questio n o r draw o n relevant ideas and co ncepts.

Insuf f icient engagement with and f o cus o n the questio n and with relevant ideas and co ncepts.

7 5 / 100

Use o f so cio lo gical and theo retical material

Canno t be impro ved upo n.

Uses extensive range o f appro priate so cio lo gical/theo retical so urces and emplo ys these persuasively to develo p and suppo rt the po ints made.

Uses wide range o f appro priate so cio lo gical/theo retical so urces and emplo ys these persuasively to develo p and suppo rt the po ints made.

Uses so me appro priate so cio lo gical/theo retical so urces and emplo ys these co mpetently to develo p and suppo rt the po ints made.

Little relevant reading and use o f appro priate so urces. Po ints made are no t suppo rted with relevant material.

Little to no relevant reading and appro priate so urces. Po ints made are no t suppo rted with relevant material.

7 5 / 100

Depth o f analysis and critical evaluatio n

Canno t be impro ved upo n.

Demo nstrates insightf ul, nuanced grasp o f material, with ability to identif y and

(75)

2:1 (65)

2:2 (55)

3RD (45)

FAIL (35)

ARGUMENT (10%)

/ (100)

FIRST (75)

2:1 (65)

2:2 (55)

3RD (45)

FAIL (35)

ST RUCT URE (10%)

/ (100)

FIRST (75)

2:1 (65)

2:2 (55)

3RD (45)

critically evaluate dif f erent theo retical po sitio ns.

Demo nstrates so lid grasp o f material, with ability to identif y and critically evaluate dif f erent theo retical po sitio ns.

Demo nstrates go o d grasp o f material, with ability to identif y and describe dif f erent theo retical po sitio ns.

Demo nstrates so me grasp o f material, with so me ability to identif y dif f erent theo retical po sitio ns.

Insuf f icient grasp o f material; purely descriptive writing with no relevance to academic debates.

7 5 / 100

Clarity o f argument

Canno t be impro ved upo n.

Argument is persuasive, and presented clearly and lo gically, with appro priate evidence pro vided.

Argument is persuasive and mo stly presented clearly and lo gically, with appro priate evidence pro vided

Argument is weak and/o r is unclear, with appro priate evidence no t always pro vided.

Argument is no t suppo rted with suf f icient evidence and/o r is unclear.

Argument is no t discernible.

7 5 / 100

Canno t be impro ved upo n.

Structure is clear; writing demo nstrates excellent f lo w and signpo sting (e.g. intro ductio n o utlines structure o f essay).

Structure is clear; writing demo nstrates go o d f lo w and signpo sting (e.g. intro ductio n o utlines structure o f essay).

Structure is reaso nably clear; writing is mo stly co herent and uses so me signpo sting.

Structure is unclear and writing do es no t f lo w o r use signpo sting.

FAIL (35)

WRIT ING (20%)

/ (100)

FIRST (75)

2:1 (65)

2:2 (55)

3RD (45)

FAIL (35)

Structure is no t discernible and writing do es no t f lo w o r use signpo sting.

7 5 / 100

Writing (grammar, punctuatio n) and ref erencing

Canno t be impro ved upo n.

No o r virtually no erro rs o f grammar o r punctuatio n; sentence structure is excellent, and ref erencing and biblio graphy are co mpletely accurate. Quo tes and paraphrased material are well inco rpo rated into the text.

Few erro rs o f grammar o r punctuatio n; sentence structure is very go o d, and ref erencing and biblio graphy are mo stly accurate. Quo tes and paraphrased material are mo stly well inco rpo rated into the text.

So me erro rs o f grammar o r punctuatio n; sentence structure is so metimes inco rrect, and ref erencing and biblio graphy are no t accurate. Quo tes and paraphrased material are no t always well inco rpo rated into the text.

Co nsistent erro rs o f grammar o r punctuatio n, and ref erencing and biblio graphy are no t accurate. Quo tes and paraphrased material are no t well inco rpo rated into the text.

Co nsistent erro rs o f grammar o r punctuatio n, and ref erencing and biblio graphy are no t accurate. If plagiarised material is in evidence, this will be repo rted to the Student Regulatio ns T eam.