Writing: Three Edits in the Last Twelve Minutes
A candidate has 30 minutes and a 250-word argumentative response to the prompt: 'Should universities publish student evaluations of teaching online?' The prompt requires discussion of both sides. With twelve minutes left she has 268 words. Her introduction spends two sentences on the growth of online ratings sites, then states in sentence four: 'So I think the rule is not good for everyone.' Her body gives one anecdote about a lecturer she knows and one unsourced claim: 'Around 80% of students prefer private feedback.' Her closing line reads: 'In conclusion, this is a big problem.' The marking criteria are task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy. She can make three targeted edits before the timer stops, and she is tempted to spend the remaining time hunting for spelling errors.
1. Which three edits should she prioritise, and why those rather than proofreading?
Read the worked answer
1. Rewrite and reposition the thesis (task achievement). 'Not good for everyone' is a vague, under-specified position that does not answer the prompt, and the prompt demands both sides. Task achievement is the criterion that caps all the others: an examiner who cannot find a clear position cannot award a high band no matter how clean the spelling is.
2. Fix the '80%' statistic. An invented precise figure is worse than no figure - it is unverifiable and reads as fabricated. Replace it with a hedged, defensible claim ('many students say they would give franker feedback if it were confidential') or delete it.
3. Replace the conclusion. 'This is a big problem' has no clear referent and no restatement of position.
Proofreading comes last because accuracy is one sub-score, and remaining spelling slips are likely minor next to a missing position. Also: do not add a brand-new argument with twelve minutes left - an undeveloped fourth idea costs more in coherence than it gains in content.
2. Write the replacement thesis sentence and explain what each part of it is doing.
Read the worked answer
Model: 'Although public evaluations can help prospective students choose courses, publishing them without context punishes lecturers for rigorous marking and discourages candid feedback, so universities should release summary results only to academic committees.'
What each part does:
- 'Although public evaluations can help…' - a concession. It proves the candidate has considered the other side, which the prompt explicitly demands.
- 'publishing them without context punishes… discourages…' - the position plus its reasons, so the body paragraphs are already previewed.
- 'should release summary results only to academic committees' - a specific, arguable recommendation rather than 'it is not good'.
Placement: the last sentence of the introduction. The opening two sentences on ratings sites can stay as a hook, but they must be cut to one sentence so the introduction does not exceed roughly 50 words. A thesis should be identifiable by a reader skimming only the first paragraph and the last.
3. Explain why 'In conclusion, this is a big problem' weakens the response, and give a replacement.
Read the worked answer
Three problems, each penalised under a different criterion:
- 'This' has no clear referent. The previous sentence was about student preferences, not about a problem, so cohesion breaks exactly where the reader expects a summary.
- No restatement. A conclusion in this genre should signal the end and restate the position in fresh wording; 'in conclusion' alone is a label with nothing behind it.
- 'Big problem' is empty evaluative filler and shifts the frame - the essay argued about a policy, not about a 'problem'. It also drops register into the informal.
Replacement: 'Publishing raw evaluations therefore trades honest marking for popularity, which is why a restricted release to academic committees is the better compromise.'
That sentence signals the end, restates the position, and echoes the concession from the introduction without introducing new material.