Evaluation Rubric for Comps (added 9/2011)
Rubric for comps evaluation
Linguistics Department
August 2011
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|
| choice of topic | topic is overly cautious | a good topic, but one less likely to lead to new insight | topic is very challenging but somewhat distant from the department mainstream | topic is very challenging, has a bearing on a fundamental question of linguistic theory, and aligns with the department mainstream |
| level of linguistic expertise displayed | fails to significantly engage theory | displays good understanding of relevant theory | displays mastery of relevant theory | project displays very high level of insight into the nature of the relevant aspect of linguistic theory |
| originality of the proposal | proposal only minimally extends current thinking on the topic | proposal is a good idea, but tracks ideas of others rather closely | proposal is clever, and is an extension of ideas in the current literature | proposal is imaginative and goes well beyond anything available in the current literature |
|
degree of engagement with scholarly literature
|
paper largely ignores relevant scholarly work | paper invokes some relevant scholarly work, but discussion is at times superficial | paper engages meaningfully with relevant scholarly work | paper is clearly situated within the extant literature and explicitly discusses its contribution to this body of work |
| organization of the paper | paper is not well organized; prose awkward in spots | some sections not relevant to thesis; occasional opaque passage | good organization, with very few redundant, irrelevant, or unclear sections | thesis is very clear, and developed efficiently and convincingly |
| delivery of the defense | somewhat confused presentation; poor response to questions | some obscurity in the presentation, but the point emerges | good, successful defense; some problems managing questions | defense is well-organized and graceful; responses to questions display understanding and an ability to think ‘on one’s feet’ |