I evaluate all essays, both in-class and take-home, with the standard AP rubrics for poetry, prose and open-ended questions.  When essays are done in class as timed writings using a real AP prompt, the corresponding rubric published by ETS is used for grading. However, sometimes we use materials not directly related to an AP prompt and then use customized rubrics.  Below are samples of generic rubrics containing the general language and areas of concentration used to evaluate AP essays.  Sometimes additional criteria are added to make the rubric specific to the task.  The scoring is from 9 (highest) to 0 (lowest).  Most essays fall within the 6-4 range.
 

This is the generic rubric which will be used for grading prose analysis papers.

9-8 Clearly demonstrates an understanding of the passage.  Correctly identifies two tones or
 sides of the author's attitude toward the subject in a well-written thesis.  Recognizes
 complexity of passage.  Deals specifically with narrative techniques such as Point of
 View, Syntax, Diction, Detail, Organization.  Uses appropriate choices for quotation or
 reference and selects appropriate number of choices from throughout the passage.  May
 be flawed, but nevertheless displays consistent control over the elements of effective
 writing.  Reveals the student's ability to read with perception and to express ideas with
 clarity and skill.

7-6 Adequately demonstrates an understanding of the passage.  Tone identification may not
 be as precise or thesis as forcefully worded as a 9-8.  Is not as thorough, precise or aware
 of complexities as the top scoring papers.  May deal with fewer narrative techniques, and
 analysis may be less perceptive or less developed than that of the better essays.  Prose
 demonstrates ability to express ideas clearly but with less maturity and control than the
 top-scoring papers.  Generally, essays earning a score of 6 present a more limited analysis
 and less consistent command of the elements of effective writing than essays scored 7.

5 Often characterized by superficiality.  Responds to the question without important errors,
 but misses the complexity of the passage.  Thesis may not reveal clear understanding of
 author's tone(s).  Only a vague relationship between paragraphs’ discussions of Point of
 View, Syntax, Diction, Detail, Organization and how these relate to question.  Choices of
 proof may be less effective than those in 9-6 range or not from throughout the passage.
 Although adequate to convey the student's thoughts, the writing is not as well
 conceived, organized or developed as that of papers scoring in the upper half.

4-3 Attempts to explain the passage, but does so inaccurately or ineffectively.  May present
 misguided or underdeveloped analysis of Point of View, Syntax, Diction, Detail,
 Organization and/or fail to relate them to the thesis.  Mistakes examples of diction for
 detail or vice versa. May involve paraphrasing and omitting analysis altogether.  Generally
 prose reveals weak control over writer's own elements as diction, organization, syntax or
 grammar.  A typical essay earning a score of 3 exhibits more than one of these problems:
 it is flawed by weak writing skills, significant misinterpretations, inadequate
 developments, or serious omissions.

2-1 Compounds the weaknesses of essays in the 3-5 range.  Seriously misread the passage or
 fails to respond adequately to the question.  May be unacceptably brief or poorly written
 on several counts, and may contained many distracting errors in grammar and mechanics.
 Although the student may have attempted to answer the question, the views presented
 typically have little clarity or coherence.

0 Off topic

9-8 These well-organized and well-written essays clearly demonstrate an understanding of
 how------------------------------------ expresses the complex attitude of the speaker.  In their
 textual references they are apt and specific.  Although the writers may provide a range of
 interpretations, these papers will offer a convincing interpretation of
 ______________________ as well as consistent control over the elements of effective
 composition, including the language unique to the criticism of verse.  Though not
 without flaws, they demonstrate the writers’ ability to read poetry perceptively and to
 write with clarity and sophistication.

7-6 These essays reflect a sound grasp of ------------’s poem; but they are less sensitive to the
 complexities of ---------------- than the best essays, and their interpretation of the poem
 may falter in some particulars.  Though perhaps not as thorough or precise in their
 discussion of (how the speaker's tone) is revealed in the poem, their dependence on
 paraphrase, if any, should be in the service of analysis.  These essays demonstrate the
 writers’ ability to express ides clearly, but they do not exhibit the same level of master,
 maturity and/or control as the very best essays.  These essays are likely to be briefer, less
 incisive, and less well-supported than the 9-8 papers.
 

5 These essays are, at best, superficial.  They respond to the assigned task yet probably say little beyond the most easily-grasped observations. Their analysis of HOW the author creates meaning may be vague, formulaic, or inadequately supported.  They may suffer from the cumulative force of many minor misreadings.  They tend to rely on paraphrase but nonetheless paraphrase which contains some implicit analysis.  Composition skills are at a level sufficient to convey the writer's thoughts, and egregious mechanical errors do not constitute a distraction.  These essays are nonetheless not as well-conceived, organized, or developed as upper-half papers.

4-3  These lower-half essays reveal an incomplete understanding of the poem and perhaps an insufficient understanding of the prescribed task as well: they may emphasize literal description without discussing the deeper implications of the poem.  The analysis may be partial, unconvincing, or irrelevant or it may rely essentially on paraphrase.  Evidence from the text may be meager or misconstrued.  The writing demonstrates uncertain control over the elements of composition, often exhibiting recurrent stylistic flaws and/or inadequate development of ideas.  Essays scored 3 may contain significant misreadings and/or unusually inept writing.

2-1  These essays compound the weaknesses of the papers in the 4-3 range.  They may seriously misread the poem.  Frequently, they are unacceptably brief.  They are poorly written on several counts and may contain many distracting errors in grammar and mechanics.  Although some attempt may have been made to respond ot the question, the writer's assertions are presented with little clarity, organization, or support from the text of the poem.

0  A response with no more than a reference to the task.

-  A blank paper or completely off-topic response.
 

9-8  Superior papers specific in their references, cogent in their definitions, and free of plot summary that is not relevant to the question.  These essays need not be without flaws, but they demonstrate the writer's ability to discuss a literary work with insight and understanding and to control a wide range of the elements of effective composition.

7-6  These papers are less thorough, less perceptive or less specific than 9-8 papers.  These essays are well-written but with less maturity and control than the top papers.  They demonstrate the writer's ability to analyze a literary work, but they reveal a more limited understanding than do the papers in the 9-8 range.  Generally, 6 essays present a less sophisticated analysis and less consistent command of the elements of effective writing than essays scored 7.

5     Superficiality characterizes these 4 essays.  Discussion of meaning may be pedestrian, mechanical, or inadequately related to the chosen details.  Typically, these essays reveal simplistic thinking and/or immature writing.  They usually demonstrate inconsistent control over the elements of composition and are not as well conceived, organized, or developed as the upper-half papers.  On the other hand, the writing is sufficient to convey the writer's ideas.

4-3  Discussion is likely to be unpersuasive, perfunctory, underdeveloped or misguided.  The meaning they deduce may be inaccurate or insubstantial and not clearly related to the question.  Part of the question may be omitted altogether.  The writing may convey the writer's ideas, but it reveals weak control over such elements as diction, organization, syntax or grammar.  Typically, these essays contain significant misinterpretations of the question or the work they discuss; they may also contain little, if any, supporting evidence, and practice paraphrase and plot summary at the expense of analysis.

2-1  These essays compound the weakness of essays in the 4-3 range and are frequently unacceptably brief.  They are poorly written on several counts, including many distracting errors in grammar and mechanics.  Although the writer may have made some effort to answer the question, the views presented have little clarity or coherence.
 
 
  [Main] [Advanced Placement]