ASU comp instructors' comments of "Should Prayer Be Brought Back Into The School Systems?"
Instructors pointed out some favorable characteristics:
1. The writer doesn't mince words. We see what he/she believes very early
in the paper.
2. The writer's intentions seem good (though the paper itself may undermine
them).
3. The writer attempts to provide reasons for the argument, though they
ultimately don't stand up very well.
4. The paper is, for the most part, coherent.
Instructors suggested room for improvement, including the following:
1. The writer tends to repeat the same points over and over.
2. There are numerous usage problems, namely lack
of agreement between subject and verb (the child's parent's [sic]/does); comma
splice ("fear, therefore"); lack of
agreement between pronoun and antecedent (the child/they); no
comma after introductory element ("If a child is taught . . .");
misplaced apostrophes; words not capitalized that should be (e.g., Bible); wrong
words ("than" for "then"); and so on.
3. The final sentence introduces a new idea that, of course, goes
unsupported.
4. Worst of all, the piece generalizes too much and simplifies too
recklessly. One instructor notes that the writer "made an assumption
that only Christian, God-fearing people are good people and that everyone else
is evil"--an idea that goes unproven (probably because it is not
provable). For example, the writer appears to state that all atheist (?)
children are thieves and drug users who have no problem shooting people.
Another instructor notes that "talking about God in school and reading the
Bible are separate issues from allowing prayer in school." The writer
believes passionately in his/her subject but quickly overruns logic
in the process.
Conclusion:
The instructors' comments should not be interpreted as an attack on the writer's
strongly held beliefs. (It is certainly feasible to argue that prayer
should be allowed in public schools.) Rather it is a wish to see the writer think more
carefully about how one goes about building an academic argument for a
wide-ranging audience. There is almost no consideration for an opposition
in this essay (never mind a discussion, all but required in a paper with this
topic, of the separation of church and state). While instructors should be
careful to not offend the writer or suggest that he/she is being graded on the
basis of religious belief, the essay is too cavalier in its pronouncements to be
effective to good readers (whether they share the writer's ultimate position or
not). While this is not a successful college paper, it does maintain some
coherence. According to the ten instructors, this paper earns a high
D.
Score: 68%