Philosophy courses at the University at Buffalo use standardized grading rubrics to evaluate student performance. These rubrics clarify expectations, support fair grading and help you understand how to improve your work.
Your essays, exams and logic assignments are assessed using shared departmental criteria. A higher standard of analysis and writing is expected in upper-division courses than in lower-division courses.
Student learning goals are measured through performance assessments in courses required for the philosophy major.
In writing-intensive courses:
In logic courses:
The rubrics ensure consistency while allowing instructors to evaluate both subject knowledge and broader philosophical skills.
Rubrics make grading transparent and consistent. They help students understand:
Rubrics also support fair and reliable evaluation across sections and instructors.
A rubric is a scoring tool that describes evaluation criteria based on expected learning outcomes. Each rubric:
Instructors use rubrics as a clear benchmark when grading. Students can use them as a guide when preparing assignments.
The department uses rubrics to:
Use these charts to understand exactly how your work will be evaluated and how to strengthen your performance.
Your Philosophy writing is assessed across five core areas:
Fails Completely
No identifiable thesis, or thesis shows lack of effort or misunderstanding of the assignment.
Unsatisfactory
Thesis is difficult to identify, inconsistently maintained or provides little structure for the paper.
Needs Improvement
Thesis is unclear, buried, poorly articulated or lacking insight and originality.
Competent
Thesis is promising but may lack clarity, insight or originality.
Exemplary
Thesis is easily identifiable, interesting, plausible, novel, sophisticated and clear.
Fails Completely
No evident organization. No transitions between major points.
Unsatisfactory
Unclear, unfocused or disorganized. Transitions are abrupt or confusing. Context is unclear.
Needs Improvement
Generally unclear or unfocused. Weak transitions. Does not provide sufficient explanation or context.
Competent
Generally clear and appropriate, though may wander. Some transitions may lack coherence. May not fully anticipate reader needs.
Exemplary
Well organized and appropriate to the thesis. Focused and unified. Effective word choice. Strong transitions. Anticipates reader’s need for information and context.
Fails Completely
No attempt to incorporate primary or secondary sources.
Unsatisfactory
Very little use of sources. Poor handling or integration.
Needs Improvement
Moderate use of sources. Some key points supported. Quotations may be poorly integrated. Possible citation problems.
Competent
Most key points supported by sources. Quotations integrated well. Sources cited correctly.
Exemplary
Primary and secondary sources used effectively and insightfully. Quotations integrated seamlessly. Sources cited correctly.
Fails Completely
No effort to construct a logical argument. Thesis unsupported.
Unsatisfactory
Little support for key claims. Evidence not clearly connected to thesis. Little engagement with alternative views.
Needs Improvement
Weak or underdeveloped reasons. Counterarguments mentioned but not rebutted.
Competent
Argument is clear and generally logical. Counterarguments acknowledged, though not fully developed.
Exemplary
Arguments are clear, reasonable and well supported. Strong reasons offered for key claims. Counterarguments anticipated and addressed effectively.
Fails Completely
Significant problems with sentence structure, grammar, punctuation or spelling.
Unsatisfactory
Several problems with sentence structure, grammar, punctuation or spelling.
Needs Improvement
Some problems with sentence structure, grammar, punctuation or spelling.
Competent
Strong sentence structure and mechanics with occasional minor lapses.
Exemplary
Correct and polished sentence structure, grammar, punctuation and spelling.
Short-answer and essay exam responses are assessed using three performance levels:
Unsatisfactory
Fails to address the question or demonstrates an inadequate or partial grasp of the issue.
Competent
Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the question.
Exemplary
Demonstrates an accurate and complete understanding of the question.
Unsatisfactory
Answer lacks clarity, may be confused, omit significant facts or remain incomplete.
Competent
Displays basic knowledge of the issue.
Exemplary
Displays clarity of thought, depth of reflection and insight.
Unsatisfactory
Does not incorporate pertinent information from lectures or assigned readings.
Competent
Incorporates some information from lectures and assigned readings but not thoroughly.
Exemplary
Incorporates pertinent details from lectures and assigned readings, providing evidence for key claims when needed.
Unsatisfactory
Substantially digresses from the central issue.
Competent
Usually maintains focus but may occasionally digress.
Exemplary
Maintains focus and avoids being sidetracked.
Unsatisfactory
Significant problems with clarity, concision or organization that make the response difficult to understand.
Competent
Presents information fairly clearly and concisely, with only minor organization problems.
Exemplary
Presents the answer clearly, concisely and in an organized manner.
Unsatisfactory
Merely restates the question or offers an irrelevant or undeveloped response.
Competent
Does more than restate the question and provides a basic response.
Exemplary
Develops a thoughtful and substantive response beyond restating the question.
Contains enough distracting grammar or spelling errors to make the response difficult to understand.
Competent
Uses acceptable grammar and style, with only minor errors.
Exemplary
Uses grammar and style effectively and correctly.