Colleges and universities should require all faculty to spend time working outside the academic

world in professions relevant to the courses they teach.

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for
the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the
possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape
your position.

Score 6
Essay Response
Requiring college and university faculty to spend time working outside the academic
world in professions relevant to the courses they teach would yield many extraordinary benefits
for students, for faculty members, and for the college or university at which they teach. Students
would gain invaluable insight into “real” world applications of what they are taught, faculty
would garner a new perspective on their research and create new professional relationships, and
colleges and universities would be able to build stronger relationships with the communities they
serve. The latter benefit is likely the most significant one: a faculty engaged in the community
not only prepares students for work in the real world, but also contributes to improving life for
all citizens of the community.
A common lament heard from students is that their teachers live in an "ivory tower"
disconnected from the “real world” and its practicalities. Many students feel that professors in all
fields, whether the humanities or the sciences, focus too narrowly on theoretical concerns rather
than on practical career matters. That is to say, students often find their teachers' pedagogy to be
esoteric and unrelated to the practicalities that they will face upon graduating from college and
launching their careers. For instance, a political science major might feel frustrated that her
professor devotes a significant number of class hours to elaborating the rational actor model but
little time to the particulars of actual statecraft. Requiring faculty to work in professions related
to their field of study would help chip away at the image of the professor living in an “ivory
tower;” their lessons would be more grounded in the "real world" and their in-class examples and
scenarios would reflect actual experience in the field. The political science professor, for
example, who had work experience in the government, whether local or at the state or national
level, could relate to students the strategies she used in advocating for or negotiating policies
with government officials. Faculty members would have greater first-hand experience in their
academic discipline, which they could then relate to their students, thereby better preparing
students for work in their field.
While yielding critical advantages for students, faculty members will also personally benefit
from such a requirement. The expertise acquired from the professor’s work experience would
complement her scholarly knowledge, thus providing her greater breadth of knowledge and also
bringing a new perspective to her scholarly endeavors. A practical perspective gained from work
in the field would give faculty fodder for research questions and provide new insights as to how
her subject matter applies to the everyday context of her field of study. To return to the example
of the political science professor, her theories and her research could now be more informed by
her experience working with governmental officials, perhaps increasing the likelihood that her
research would make relevant contributions to the field. More pragmatically, working in the field
would also allow faculty to network and to create relationships of professional import, now not
only with their peers in the academy, but also with those in the work sector. Faculty would
benefit from this by having a larger group of experts with whom to discuss research questions,
while this new and expanded network would also benefit students, since professors would be in a
position to create internship opportunities while in school and possibly even job opportunities
upon graduation.
Perhaps most tellingly, such a requirement would benefit colleges and universities, as well
as the communities they serve. A more practically savvy faculty is a faculty better equipped to
contribute research findings and products that have a direct application to the community and to
the greater context in which the academic institution exists. They are more likely to contribute to
important endeavors such as the development of green energy, urban planning projects, or
improving services for the community’s citizens. College and university administrators
constantly work to establish strong relationships with the communities in which they exist, with
the government and its programs, and with corporate and not-for-profit businesses. They do this,
not only to fund raise, but because they know that a college or university that teaches just for
teaching’s sake, or researches simply for research’s sake, without any sense of contributing to the
community or preparing their students to be informed, involved, contributing citizens of their
communities, is a college or university with no true animating purpose. Boasting a faculty that is
eagerly engaged in the work community, in a variety of ways, will only serve to demonstrate just
how relevant and "plugged in" the academic community really is.
While it is true that there would be practical challenges--including adjusting faculty teaching
loads and coordinating faculty leave time--that would need to be addressed, the overall benefits
of implementing this policy cannot be overstated. It is also true that some disciplines may lend
themselves more readily to direct work application than others; for those disciplines that do not,
more creative work opportunities will need to be devised. These issues, however, should not
deter colleges and universities from pursuing this otherwise promising idea, and are matters that
the deans and administrators could easily resolve with some creative thinking. For the reasons
cited above, students, faculty, and their colleges and universities would do well to require all
faculty to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses
they teach.
Rater Commentary
This response receives a 6 for its cogently reasoned and skillfully argued analysis of the policy
proposal stated in the prompt. The response follows the specific task instructions by explicitly
considering potential consequences of the policy’s implementation. Taking the position that
numerous benefits would accrue to students, faculty, and colleges and universities that support
and adopt the requirement that all faculty spend time working outside the academic world in
professions relevant to the courses they teach, the writer presents insightful descriptions of these
benefits. Students, for example, would receive instruction that relates abstract course content to
career matters in ways that equip as well as inform; while the faculty themselves would not only
acquire skill in providing “real” instruction of this sort, a “new and expanded network” of
professional contacts would also greatly improve the quality of career guidance they could offer
their students. These reasons are thoroughly developed and provide compelling support for the
claim that this policy is both necessary and workable. Particularly persuasive is the manner in
which the response addresses the interrelated ways that this policy would benefit students,
faculty, the academy and the community. Organization of these points is handled logically and
effectively, beginning with the career benefits to students, then moving to the practical benefits
to faculty instruction and research, and finally to the creation of strong relationships between the
academy and the community through an “engaged” faculty. Ideas are expressed with fluency and
precision throughout the essay. Superior facility with language is in evidence as well, as this
sentence demonstrates: “They do this, not only to fund raise, but because they know that a
college or university that teaches just for teaching’s sake, or researches simply for research’s
sake, without any sense of contributing to the community or preparing their students to be
informed, involved, contributing citizens of their communities, is a college or university with no
true animating purpose.”

Score 5
Essay Response
The question of balance between well-roundedness and expertise has received increased
attention in the recent decades. Educators, those who impart knowledge and skills, are especially
coming under greater scrutiny. The idea that educators should be well-educated in the field that
they teach but also able to impart knowledge gained from exposure to other fields and
professions is gaining increased support and validation. In the case of university professors, there
is the growing thought that it is not enough for them to impart 'textbook knowledge,' so to speak,
it should also be incumbent upon them to imapart the relevant experiences gained in the
professions related to their academic discipline. For them to be able to do this, it can be argued
that they need to spend some time in the relevant fields, since they are directly involved in
preparing young people to go out into the job market and other professions, academic or non-
academic. However, though there could be benefits to having a professors who are well-rounded
in this way, the requirement that they spend time working outside the academic world would be
unnecessarily burdensome.
Firstly, not every professor is going to have interest working outside the academic world. For
example, a professor of statistics might be very well-equipped and knowledgeable to work at a
business firm as a risk analysist or as a financial consultant of some kind. However, this does not
mean that he or she would have great enthusiasm for the profession, though her knowledge of
mathematics gives her the perspicacity to discern certain trends better and make better future
predictions. If such a professor is required to work outside the academic world, when her
interests are solely limited to the academic profession of professor of mathematics, this could
have the inadvertant effect of dissuading her from academia altogther. Here, there would be a
great risk of depriving young students of a great professor of mathematics who would help them
prepare for a mathematics-related field. Professorship is a profession in its own right, albeit an
academic one, but this does not mean that a professor would necessarily need to have worked in
a field related to his or her discipline to be an effective educator.
Secondly, given that professorship is a full-time job, and a particularly demanding one, it does
not at all seem reasonable to require professors to spend time working outside academia. In fact,
this could lead professors to give less attention to students and more attention to the second
profession, which would actually have the inadvertant effect of reducing the educational well-
being of his or her students. It is one thing to make the pedagogic requirment that professors be
informed about the profession outside of an academic discipline and that they try to instill in
students the sense that it is not enough to just have 'textbook knowledge.' It is quite another,
however, to ask professors to actually be immersed somewhat in a relevant profession itself. The
thought here might be that their teaching would be more 'genuine' but there is no reason to think
this. A professor could be a good educator in a field regardless of his experience in a non-
academic profession.
In conclusion, though it cannot be denied that professors' experience in a profession outside of
academia would have salutary effects on his or her students, the requirement thay they spend
time outside academia is burdensome. The requirment could have the inadvertant effect of
dissuading bright prospective professors away from academia due to the forseeable workload
that requirement means. And if current professors are made to work outside academica, this
could lead to thier being unable to give due academic attention to their students. It's benefits are
clearly outweighted by these disadvantages. For this reason, the recommendation of spending
time in a relevant profession should at best be an option that professors can choose to pursue, but
not a stringent requirement.
Rater Commentary
This response presents a thoughtful and well-considered position on the issue, arguing that to
require all college and university faculty to spend time working in professions outside the
academic world would not only impose an unnecessary burden on them, it could also lead to
certain “inadvertent effects,” or unintended negative consequences, for faculty and students
alike. The response develops this position with reasons and examples that provide solid support
for its conclusion that the policy’s advantages are “clearly outweighed” by its potential
disadvantages. This response is especially strong in maintaining focus on the specific task
direction that asks writers to consider and explain how possible consequences of implementing
the policy have shaped their views on it. In paragraph two, the writer uses the detailed example
of a “well-equipped and knowledgeable” math professor who is compelled to work “as a risk
analyst or as a financial consultant” at a business firm—performing with little enthusiasm tasks
that are relevant to her field but irrelevant to her real interests. This picture then leads to
thoughtful analysis of possible consequences: “This could have the inadvertent effect of
dissuading her from academia altogether. Here, there would be a great risk of depriving young
students of a great professor of mathematics who would help them prepare for a mathematics-
related field.” Other examples of “inadvertent effects” are linked to similarly negative
consequences, contributing both to the thoughtfulness of the response and its effective
organization. The response demonstrates facility with language throughout and vocabulary and
sentence types are appropriately varied (“However, this does not mean that he or she would have
great enthusiasm for the profession, though her knowledge of mathematics gives her the
perspicacity to discern certain trends better and make better future predictions”). For clarity of
expression and organization as well as quality of analysis, this response merits a 5.

Score 4
Essay Response
I agree with the position that colleges and universities should require all faculty to spend time
working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach. Although
this may be more necessary for some than for others, this would be important for every professor
to experience at least occasionally. Allowing faculty to take the time to experience the real world
applications of their subjects would be benficial not only to the professors, but it would also
benefit the students.
Faculty would maintain expertise in their fields and expands their views and knowledge in their
given areas. Just as those who are learning a subject need context and examples to solidify the
material in their minds, teachers should keep up to date with their subjects to keep the material
fresh in theirs. Having an experience first hand is drastically different from reading about it in an
academic journal. This would also allow professors to be the most accurate and helpful they can
be when they prepare students to enter a certain field. As disciplines change over time, it is
important for faculty to understand the new needs and aspects of a particualr profession. Their
students would have the opportunity to learn from someone who is currently experiencing the
profession which they are studying. This would give those anticipating a career in a given field
access to a better understanding and a more insightful view of what to expect.
Some might argue that this requirement of time and energy on the part of the faculty would
actually be detrimental. Professors would lose time that they might normally give to students in
order to fulfill this necessity. However, I think the benefits of learning from someone who
understands every aspect of the field outweigh the anticipated results of this fear. Working
outside the academic world may even afford professors more time to spend on their students as
they may now having a better grasp of what they are teaching, so they won't have to spend
countless hours researching their own field in articles and journals.
If schools of higher learning choose this approach I believe that it would improve the institutions
enormously. Having significant and relevant experience in a subject one teaches is an important
and necessary step toward a great education.
Rater Commentary
This response meets all the requirements of a the 4 score point. In response to the task directions,
it presents a clear position on the issue, arguing that “Allowing faculty to take the time to
experience the real world applications of their subjects would be beneficial not only to the
professors, but it would also benefit the students”. It supports this position with relevant reasons,
discussing anticipated benefits to faculty and students as possible consequences of the policy’s
adoption. Ideas progress logically as the response develops, moving from the benefits to faculty
to those they would pass on to students and then to a potential counterargument which it seeks to
rebut. This response highlights the scoring guide distinction between adequate and generally
thoughtful development. For instance, the writer’s initial endorsement of the policy includes a
caveat-- “Although this [policy] may be more necessary for some than for others…” -- but in
what ways and for whom this may be the case is not addressed further. The second paragraph
includes a similar lapse. In this instance, the response seems to argue that working outside the
university will allow faculty to update their knowledge and “maintain expertise in their fields”
because hands-on experience is a better way of acquiring knowledge than “reading about it in an
academic journal.” Rather than elaborate the benefits of hands-on experience, or offer an
example of “real world applications” to reinforce the claim and strengthen the analysis, the
writer simply reasserts the superiority of “currently experiencing the profession” and moves on.
The use of language in this response is also adequate. The conventions of standard written
English are sufficiently controlled; errors are incidental and do not interfere with the clarity of
the ideas expressed.

Score 3
Essay Response
Higher education is very important for today's youth to succeed in their lives; most of the
youngsters of this generation understand the value of a proper education, for the world is getting
more and more competetive by the minute. In order for the students to get the most out of their
college experience, it is a must for the faculty to work "outside the academic world in
professions relevant" to their respective discipline, so that they can guide their students to
achieve the right path that will add value to the student's professional life.
Faculty members who have been teaching in universities for a long period of time, usually
tend to focus tremendously on their course materials solely. Although they have adequate
experience in their discipline, they do not prepare the students to face the contemporary
corporate world. Most professors load their students with assignments and exams in the chemical
engineering department during the senior year, which takes about seven hours on a daily basis
for the average student to complete. Senior year is a very crucial year especially for engineering
students, for this is the prime time that students tend to look for job opportunities. Such behavior
hinders many opportunities such as the student's attendance in various career fairs held across the
country. Moreover, the fact that most faculty members repeat the same curriculum for their
respective courses year after year, makes the whole college experience less challenging, and
outdated. Most of the students in engineering programs tend to acquire exam materials from the
previous years, which makes a loop-hole for incompetent students. Furthermore, the fact that the
course materials are recycled through the years, indicate that the material is probably outdated.
Hence, it is important for a faculty member in a university to stay updated with the current
problems faced in their respective pr
Rater Commentary
This response shows some competence in presenting a position on the issue, but its overall
development is marked by an inconsistency of focus that gives undue attention to reasons and
examples that are not directly relevant to the task. The response does attempt to address the
specific task instructions, taking the position that requiring faculty to work outside the university
is essential: the experience will equip them to provide their students with valuable professional
guidance as they prepare for their own careers in a competitive work environment. However, the
development provided in support of this position is not clearly related to this claim. The point
that veteran teachers are so immersed in their own fields of study that they have lost touch with
the practical needs of their students is clearly relevant, and suggests a possible benefit of outside
work. However, instead of developing this point in a logically persuasive way, the writer shifts
attention to the daily work load of a chemical engineering major (“assignments and
exams…which takes about seven hours on a daily basis for the average student to complete”)
and how this can hinder the search for job opportunities during the student’s senior year.
Similarly, the response asserts the importance of faculty members “staying updated with the
current problems” in the discipline instead of recycling the same curriculum “year after year,”
but the accompanying discussion emphasizes the disservice done to students (“make the whole
college experience less challenging, and outdated”) rather than on how faculty working outside
the university may help to remedy this problem. This response, then, earns a score of 3 primarily
because of problems with focus and failure to provide relevant support for its claims.

Score 2
Essay Response
As colleges and universities role increase rapidly in those days due to the major effect on the
society , and in guiding the future student to lead the nation to the right way ; from this point
colleges are considered as the backbone to the society.
now adays the colleges are competing to reach the hieghest place in education so that it can
achieve the hieghest ranks around the world.
in modren countries like USA the colleges strated encourging students to participate in the
society activities for example the college made one day for the arts departement to share thier
skills and abilties of drwaing by making student who live in the same area or around each other
to make groups and start removing the bad sights on the wall and draw pictuers with nice view.
also phyiscs department started sharing thier projects with local community i.e the phyiscs
department started for example providing electricty through solar energy.
the colleges also started encourging thier stuff of lectuers to go to schools and give some lectuers
regards thier field.
The increased demands of life and economy require from the man to search for more than one
job so the profession which revelant to the courses the man can use that even to earn more
money as just hitting two birds by one stone,in one hand he can achieve something good to the
society by supportting issues that brings beinfits to all and in the other hand he can get some
more money.
Working outside the colleges aslo give chance to the lectuers to deal and interact with local
community and also to see the problems of other people and more than that to see by direct eye
which the society lacking and which the things it needs to get improved so that the can carry
those problems and issues to their academy and discuss it together and find sulotions for it for
example my uncle told me "one day when we were painting on the walls we found one teenager
one to share us drwaing i told him he can and once he finished i was shocked from his talent i
told him why dont you come and study in our college he said because my father dont have
enough money to let me study" from this by working outside our colleges we cand find talents
and skillfull student who need just support from us to achieve thier dreams.
conclusion is that i think its good from the colleges and universities to spend some time outside
thier offices so that not just they can find professions revelant to thier jobs but also to help the
soceity to improved and share the issues which tough all local community beacuse they are
considered the menors for current students..
the mentor who can guide the student to the right way by giving advices ,instruction so that he
can see the light from the dark sky.
Rater Commentary
The language is the feature most decisive in assigning a score of 2 to this essay, although focus
in the first half of the response also contributes to the score. While the first half makes references
to “students...participat[ing] in society,” “physics department...sharing their projects with local
community” and “colleges...encourging thier stuff of lectuers to go to schools and give some
lectuers,” the response’s position remains unclear and unfocused. There are moments of (dim)
clarity in the second half that provide evidence of the writer’s basic grasp of topic and task, but
here the essay continues to be weakened by serious errors of grammar, usage, and mechanics that
frequently interfere with meaning. For example, the penultimate paragraph of the response
addresses the prompt directly and attempts to describe benefits of the policy requiring college
faculty to work outside the academic world: “Working outside the colleges aslo give chance to to
the lectuers to deal and interact with local community and also to see the problems of other
people…to see by direct eye.” But errors accumulate at a rapid pace as the response loses control
of sentence boundaries, obscuring a reference to a practical consequence of implementing the
policy: “…the things it needs to get improved so that the can carry those problems and issues to
their academy and discuss it together and find sulotions for it for example my uncle told me ‘one
day when we were painting….’” Thus, in spite of some evidence of understanding the issue and
attempting to develop a response, poor focus and serious language problems keeps the score in
the 2 range.

Score 1
Essay Response
We are considered that everyone must live for other people. Many people thought surely that it is
correct something. However, everything of failere are happened for other people. I don"t agree to
spend time working outside the my acadimic world.
Consequently, in developed something, we cannot be developed until we get many knowledge.
We must take over many limits for developing. That is why this is needed, but it is not meaning
for us, unless we know limits of surraunding developed.
We must know limits before developing. I am not this side to spend time working outside the
academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach.

Rater Commentary
This response receives a score of 1. The response indicates it disagreement, but beyond that there
is no evidence that the writer has understood the policy issue addressed by the prompt or is able
to develop a response that presents a discernible position on it. In addition, the response shows
fundamental deficiencies in the use of language. Sentences do not cohere, and grammatical
errors are pervasive enough to interfere with meaning throughout the response: e.g.,
“Consequently, in developed something, we cannot be developed until we get many knowledge.
We must take over many limits for developing.”
A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter
college.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the
recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and
supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation
would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

Score 6
Essay Response
Nations should not require that all students study the same national curriculum. If every child
were presented with the same material, it would assume that all children learn the same and that
all teachers are capable of teaching the same material in the same way. In
addition to neglecting differences inlearning and teaching styles, it would also stifle creativity
and create a generation of drones. The uniformity would also lend itself to
governmental meddling in curriculum that could result in the destruction of democracy. If every
teacher is forced to teach a certain text, the government need only change that
text to misinform an entire generation. Lastly, a standardized curriculum would also adversely
affect students who come from lower income families or families who have
little education as they might not have as many resources for learning outside of school.
Children all learn in very different ways. If the curriculum is standardized completely, it leaves
little room for exploratory learning. One child may learn how to spell from
reading, another may learn from phonics. If the curriculum is standardized, suppose one
aspect is dropped, that may exclude certainchildren from learning adequately. This is
not to say of course that there shouldn’t be requirements, but they should be general
requirements, not something so specific as a curriculum. Especially at the high school level this
would be detrimental to the variety of subjects that a student can learn. Standards and the “No
Child Left Behind” act in America are already forcing the reduction in programs such as art
and music that have a less defineable curriculum. Additionally, education systems are
rarely funded well enough to achieve the general goal of educating
children. If a nationalcurriculum were implemented, would it come
with a significant increase in financial support? History suggests that it would not.
Teachers also have different methods of teaching; if say, the English curriculum of all
high schools were standardized, then a book that one teacherteaches excellently and therefore
inspires students to read more and learn on their own might be eliminated, and
although that teacher ought to becapable enough to teach the curriculum books, his or
her students will still be missing out on what might have been a great learning experience. It
also limits how much of the teacher’s unique knowledge he or she can
bring to the classroom. It is these inspirational books or experiences that allowteachers
to reach students; if they are put in a mold, the quality of teaching and learning will go down.
Learning should be enjoyable and children and adolescents should be taught not only the curricul
um in school, but that the body of knowledge thatexists in the world today is
enormous and that you can learn your whole life. Having a national curriculum implies
that there is a set group of thingsworth learning for every person. Maybe this is true, but for stude
nts, it sets up a world where there is a finite amount of knowledge to be acquired for the purpose
of regurgitating it on a test. Teaching a standard curriculum doesn’t
encourage inquiries; it doesn’t make students ask questions like, “Why?”and “How?”
School’s real purpose is teaching people to learn, not just teaching them a set group of facts. By
teaching them to learn, students cancontinue doing so, they can extend skills from one area of
knowledge to another. This type of learning fosters creativity that can
be used not only inmath or science or English, but in art or music or creative writing.
Teaching a brain to go beyond being a file cabinet for facts is the best way to teach
creativity. Creativity is too often assumed to be something only for the arts. It is creativity that
results in innovation and it is innovation that has resultedin the greatest achievements
of humanity in the sciences and humanities alike.
Finally, the education system of a country is designed to put all children on a level
playing field. Though this is only an ideal, it is a noble ideal. If the school curriculum becomes
standardized, children who have highly educated parents, or more money to buy books outside of
school, or more resources for tutors or private schools will immediately gain a foothold. Poorer
students from uneducated families in the current American school system are already at a
disadvantage, but at least now there is hope through variety that something can reach out to
them and inspire them. There is hope that they can find a class that interests them. If the
curriculum becomes rigid and standardized, it is these
disadvantaged students who fall through thecracks.
There are many reasons not to standardize the curriculum. The uniqueness of students and
teachers is the most obvious, but students from less educated backgrounds will suffer
the most. The creativity of a nation as a whole would fall with a standardized curriculum.
Most importantly though isthe question of who and what? Who chooses the curriculum? What is
important enough that it must be taught? These questions assume that there is some infallible
committee that can foresee all and know what knowledge will be
important in everyone’s lives. There is no person, no group, no comittee
capable of deciding what knowledge is necessary. Curriculum should have standards, not be
standardized and education should be as much aboutknowledge as it about learning to learn.
Rater Commentary
This outstanding response develops an articulate and insightful position rejecting the prompt’s
recommendation of a national curriculum. The writer understands a national curriculum to mean
both the material that is taught and the way it is taught. The essay offers a wide-ranging
discussion of the practical and theoretical implications of a national
curriculum for students, for teachers, and for a nation. For example, the response argues
that prescribing particular content and teaching methods might make it more difficult for
teachers to tailor lessons to students with different learning stylesand might also force
effective teachers to adopt teaching methods that are less effective for them and their
students. Although the essay clearly rejectsthe recommendation for a national curriculum, the
writer do
The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie
Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people
attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of
positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased
during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our
prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the
public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should
therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through
advertising."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to
decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be
sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

Score 6
Essay Response
The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie production company believes that increasing
the amount of advertising the company does will increase the amount of people attending Super
Screen produced movies. He believes this because during the past year fewer people than ever
before attended Super Screen produced movies, yet the percentage of positive reviews about
specific Super Screen produced movies increased over the past year. Ostensibly the extra
advertising would tout the good reviews written about Super Screen movies. Before this plan is
implemented, however, Super Screen needs to address some questions about its possible flaws.
First of all, the company needs to ask what the actual number of people attending its movies as
compared to the movies of other production companies is. The number of people going to
movies may have been in universal decline. If this is the case and more people are going to see
Super Screen Movies than the movies of any other production company, advertising about how
fun it is to go to the movie theater may do more to boost Super Screen viewership than
advertising promoting its own good reviews.
Secondly, the company needs to ask what the actual original number of positive reviews was. If
Super Screen movies recieved 1% positive reviews last year and this year they recieved 2%
positive reviews, getting that message to viewers is not going to increase Super Screen
attendence. Making better movies would be much more likely to increase attendence rates.
Finally, Super Screen needs to ask what the relationship is between its viewers and the movie
reviewers cited in the memo. Using a survey distributed to its target audience, Super Screen
could determine if movie reviews have an effect on their audience's decision to go see a movie,
whether movie reviewers tended to have the same taste as the target audience and exactly
whether or not movie reviews are reaching the audience. Super Screen also needs to consider
how its movie choices have affected the separate movie reviewer and audience populations. If
the studio has switched from making mega- blockbuster action movies to more nuanced dramas,
the general public may be less willing to go see their movies even though movie critics prefer the
dramas to the action movies.
Finally the studio must ask whether the percentage of positive reviews is really a relevant way to
measure the potential impact of movie reviews. There are dozens of movie reviewers but when
deciding whether to not to go to a movie, the general public will usually pick from among the 10
most popular movie reviews. These are the reviews that will impress the public if they are
included in advertising. If the most popular movie reviewers disliked Super Screen movies that a
larger number of small time film bloggers reviewed positively, Super Screen needs to think of a
new advertising strategy.
In conclusion, there are many questions Super Screen needs to answer before using this
advertising director's plan. They need to look carefully at actual numbers, both of viewership and
of positive reviews. The also need to identify the relationship that their target audience has with
movie reviewers and determine how their target audience feels about their movies. Fianlly they
need to take a nuanced look at the movie reviews that they use in their advertising.
Rater Commentary
This response clearly identifies aspects of the argument relevant to the assigned task and
provides insightful, thoroughly developed analysis. Thus, it earns a score of 6. The response is
clearly on task, examining the questions that would need to be answered in order to determine if
the recommendation is reasonable. In each case, the writer perceptively explores the nuances of
the question, showing different ways in which the answers to those questions might have an
impact on the recommendation. For example, the first body paragraph looks at the issue of
overall movie attendance, exploring the possibility that Super Screen might actually be doing
better than other production companies. If that is the case, perhaps Super Screen’s advertising is
already effective, and the proposed plan to increase advertising would not have the intended
effect. Throughout the response, the analysis is detailed and cogent, and the organization of the
response is logical both within paragraphs and between paragraphs. In addition, although there
are a few misspelled words, the response demonstrates facility with language, conveying ideas
fluently and precisely. Sentences like this one demonstrate the superior control of the
conventions of standard written English seen throughout this response: “If this is the case and
more people are going to see Super Screen Movies than the movies of any other production
company, advertising about how fun it is to go to the movie theater may do more to boost Super
Screen viewership than advertising promoting its own good reviews.” Because of its fluent
language and insightful analysis, this response earns a score of 6.

Score 5
Essay Response
While the advertising director clearly aims at relitalizing his production company and
ensuring that the public is well informed about the movies which are available, there are several
basic flaws to his argument . There remain some questions that need answering before any steps
can be taken with regard to advertising strategies for the Super Screen Movie Production
Company.
First among these questions is this; were ticket sales of the entire movie industry down?
This is an essential question because it helps to pinpoint thecause of the writer's problem. If the
industry as a whole is undergoing poor revenues, then perhaps the issue is not Super Screen's
advertising company but rather the country's economy. In times of
economic strife, it is only natural that people would be less willing to spend money on luxuries
such as movie tickets. If this is the case, it might better suit the production company to cut costs
rather than refunneling them into a different part of the company.
Second, the advertising director should ask himself this; what medium do the majority of
his most generous movie reviewers utilize? The writer statesthat movie reviews were generally
positive, but where were these reviews located? On television, newspapers, or the Internet? It is
possible that the medium used by the most positive reviewers of Super Screen's movies is one
that is not utilized by most of the company's target audiences. If Super Screen produces many
family films, but most of the good reviews are found in late
night television shows, then there is a good chance that the reviewsare not going to be
seen by the target audience. If this is the case, then the company would be better off
conducting research as to what medium is most likely to reach their audiences.
One last question would be this; what advertising is currently being used by the Super
Screen company? If the company advertises using only onemedium, such as in
newspapers, perhaps the solution is not to double the amount of newspaper space but to
branch out and try other forms ofadvertising. The writer fails to mention exactly how the
company currently advertises their movies, and this absence detracts from his argument.
In conclusion, the advertising director
would be better served by first answering these questions and evaluating the resulting answers be
fore pouring millions of dollars into his solution. It is possible that an alternative
solution exists, perhaps one that will not be as expensive nor as risky.
Rater Commentary
This response earns a score of 5 because it presents generally perceptive analysis and maintains
facility with language in spite of a few minor errors. The writer clearly identifies aspects of the
argument relevant to the assigned task, looking at how the various points raised might impact the
marketing director’s recommendation. However, the development of each point is not as
insightful as the development seen in the sample 6 (see, for example, the somewhat rudimentary
paragraph about Super Screen’s advertising media). In general, however, the development is
perceptive, as in the exploration of a potential disconnect between the target audience and the
media used by the reviewers, so the response rises above the adequate level. Language control in
this response is also at the 5 level, as seen in the effective use of sentence variety and appropriate
word choice. Take, for example, this sentence, which demonstrates effective control of
subordination and complex syntax: “If Super Screen produces many family films, but most of the
good reviews are found in late night television shows, then there is a good chance that the
reviews are not going to be seen by the target audience.” Because of its perceptive analysis and
strong control of language, then, this response earns a score of 5.

Score 4
Essay Response
In order to decide whether or not the advertising director's recommendation is reasonable
there are a lot more questions that need to be addressed.First of all it is important to look at the
bigger picture. Fundamentally,
has anything changed about Super Screen? Has new leadership come into thecompany? If
so, how has that changed business practices?
Leadership changes or other changes within the company might have led Super Screen to choose
to make different types of movies this year than ithas in the past. It is important to determine
whether or not
different movie subjects/topics have influenced audiences. Many times there arediscrepencies bet
ween how a reviewer rates a movie and how an
audience rates a movie. It is important to determine whether or not the audiences are pleased
with the products coming out of Super Screen, not just the movie reviewers.
Another question to ask is whether or not advertising has significantly changed over the past
year. Has there been any less
advertising this year thanyears before? If not, then again, the problem probably does not lie in ad
vertising alone. If there have been some
differences in the way movies wereadvertised, it would be important to look at some of those
decisions and determine how they affected movie audiences. Perhaps the
right audienceswere not targeted for the right movies. If a childrens movie was released and
all the advertising went into adult magazines, this would present anobvious problem.
In conclusion, it would not be a good idea
to only up the advertising budget next year in an attempt to reach audiences. It is important to loo
k atdifferences, if any, throughout the whole company and then determine the best course of
action.
Rater Commentary
This response does identify questions that need to be answered in order to determine if
the recommendation is reasonable, and the development of each point of analysis is adequate.
Take, for example, the discussion of how Super Screen might have started making different types
of movies this year. The writer notes, “It is important to determine
whether or not different movie subjects/topics have influenced audiences. Many times
there arediscrepencies between how a reviewer rates a movie and how an audience rates
a movie.” This discussion is certainly relevant, and it is developed enough to make the point that
positive reviews might not lead to more viewers. But the response does not
demonstrate the perceptive analysis or thethorough development required for a higher score. As
with the analysis, l
The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or
other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim.
In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons
and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

Score 6
Essay Response
Whenever people argue that history is a worthless subject or that there is nothing to be
gained by just “memorizing a bunch of stupid names and dates,” I simply hold my tongue and
smile to myself. What I’m thinking is that, as cliche as it sounds, you do learn a great
deal from history (and woe to thosewho fail to learn those lessons). It is remarkable to think of
the number of circumstances and situations in which even the most rudimentary knowledge of
history will turn out to be invaluable. Take, for example, the issue at hand here. Is it better for
society to instill in future leaders a sense of competition
or cooperation? Those who have not examined leaders throughout time and across a number
of fields might not have the ability to provide a thoroughand convincing answer to this
question, in spite of the fact that it is crucial to the future functioning of our society. Looking
closely at the question of leadership and how it has worked in the past, I would
have to agree that the best way to prepare young people for leadership roles is to instill in them a
sense of cooperation.
Let us look first at those leaders who have defined themselves based on their competitiveness.
Although at first glance it may appear that a leader must have a competitive edge in order to gain
and then maintain a leadership position, I will make two
points on this subject. First, the desire to compete is an inherent part of human nature;
that is, it is not something that needs to be “instilled” in young people. Is there anyone who does
not compete in some way or
another every single day? You try to do better than others in your school work or at the office, or
you just try to do better than yourself in some way, to push yourself. When societies
instill competitiveness in their leaders, it only leads to trouble. The most blatant example in this
case is Adolf Hitler, who took competition to the very extreme, trying to
prove that his race and his country were superior to all. We
do not, however, need to look thatfar to find less extreme examples
(i.e., Hitler is not the extreme example that disproves the rule). The recent
economic meltdown was caused in no largepart by the leaders of American banks and financial
institutions who were obsessed with competing for the almighty dollar. Tiger Woods, the
ultimatecompetitor in recent golfing history and in many ways a leader who brought the
sport of golf to an entirely new level, destroyed his personal life (and perhaps his career -
- still yet to be determined) by his overreaching sense that he could accomplish anything,
whether winning majors or sleeping with as many women as possible. His history of
competitiveness is well documented; his father pushed him froma very early age to be the
ultimate competitor. It served him wellin some respects, but it also proved to be
detrimental and ultimately quite destructive.
Leaders who value cooperation, on the other ahnd, have
historically been less prone to these overreaching, destructive tendencies. A good case inpoint w
ould be Abraham Lincoln. Now, I am sure at this point you are thinking that Lincoln, who served
as President during the Civil War and who refused to
compromise with the South or allow secession, could not possibly be my model
of cooperation! Think, however, of the way Lincoln structured
his Cabinet. He did not want a group of “yes men” who would agree
with every word he said, but instead he picked people who were more likely to
disagree with his ideas. And he respected their input, which allowed him to keep the government
together in the North during a very tumultuous period(to say the least). My point in
choosing the Lincoln example is that competitiveness and conflict may play better to the masses
and be more likely to be recorded in the history books, but it was his cooperative
nature that allowed him to govern effectively. Imagine if the CEO of a large company
werenever able to compromise and insisted that every single thing be done in exactly her
way. Very quickly she would lose the very people that a companyneeds in order to survive,
people with new ideas, people ready to make great advances. Without the ability
to work constructively with those who haveconflicting ideas, a leader will never be able to strike
deals, reach consensus, or keep an enterprise on track. Even if you are the
biggest fish in thepond, it is difficult to force your will on others forever; eventually a
bigger fish comes along (or the smaller fish team up against you!).
In the end, it seems most critical for
society to instill in young people a sense of cooperation. In part this is true because we seem to
come by our competitive side more naturally, but cooperation is more often something we
struggle to learn (just think of kids on the playground). And although competitive victory is more
showy, more often than not the real details of leadership come down to the ability to work with
other people, to compromiseand cooperate. Getting to be President of the United States or
the managing director of a corporation might require you to win some battles, but once you are
there you will need diplomacy and people-skills. Those can be difficult to learn, but if you do not
have them, you are likely to be a short-livedleader.
Rater Commentary
This outstanding response earns a score of 6 for presenting an insightful position on the
issue and supporting its analysis with compelling reasons and persuasive examples. The
response takes the insightful position that competition, though necessary to some aspects of
leadership, is less important for young people to learn because it is inherent in the
human condition and can lead to dangerous excesses, whereas cooperation is more
difficult to learnbut more essential. The response follows the task directions by using counterarg
uments in the development of its position. For example, the discussionof Lincoln explores
conflicting sides of his Presidency (the “competition” of the Civil War and the “cooperation”
within his Cabinet). In fact, the response skillfully explores the nuances of both cooperation and
competition, building its position of agreement with the prompt by looking closely at many sides
of both concepts. Additionally, the response demonstrates superior facility with language. There
are a few minor errors, mainly typos,
but in general theresponse demonstrates excellent sentence variety and diction. This
sentence is typical of the quality of the writing throughout the response: “My point in choosing t
he Lincoln example is that competitiveness and conflict may play better to the masses and
be more likely to be recorded in the history books,but it was his cooperative
nature that allowed him to govern effectively.” In this complex sentence, the writer makes
skillful use of parallel structure andsubordination. Because of its fluent writing and insightful
development, then, this response earns a score of 6.

Score 5
Essay Response
Cooperation, the act of working as a group to achieve a collective goal, is an important value for
young childern to learn. Another vital life lessonchildren can learn is how to be
competitive, which is a mindset in which a person feels the need to accomplish more than
another person. Both are necessary to become well rounded individuals, but concerning
preparing for a future in government, industry or various other fields, a sense of cooperation is m
uch more important.
While not all children are overly competitive in nature, every person has some level of
competitive drive inside them. This is a natural thing and isperfectly normal.
Unfortunately, if this competitive nature is emphasized, the child will have problems
relating socially to other children, and subsequently, will have issues interacting with adults later
in life. A fierce competitive drive will blind an individual, causing them to not see situations
where group effort will be more greatly rewarded than an individual
effort. Take for instance the many teams of people working for NASA. If the peoplethat make up
these teams were all out to prove that they were superior to others, our entire space program
would be jeapordized. One needs to look beyond the scope of what is best on an individual level
and learn to look at what will most benefit a broad group of people. This is where instilling a
sense of cooperation in young children is vital. Cooperation is
taught at an early age and must be emphasized throughout life to fully embrace the concept.
In the world of sports a competitive drive is vital; unfortunately, life is not a sports game that
simply leads to a winning or losing score. Life is far more complex than this simple
idea and there is no winner or loser designation to accompany it. We all have to work together
to come to a conclusion that willassist not just ourselves, but others and future
generations. In every scenario there will be individuals that have brilliant ideas, but those ideas r
equireother people to build upon, perfect and impliment. Take for instance Bill
Gates; Bill Gates is responsible for the Microsoft coorporation which he inventedin his garage.
His competitive drive assisted in building his idea, but it was the collaborative effort of many
people that helped propel his invention intothe world known product it is today. Without the
cooperation of others, his genius invention might never have made it out of his garage.
It may be true that an individual can change the world, but only so far as to say that an
individual can construct an idea that will inevitably change the world. Once an idea is
formulated, it then takes a team of people working collectively towards a common goal to make
sure that the brillant, life-altering idea makes it to furtuition. Without the cooperation of many,
an idea could simply
remain as a picture on a drawing board. It is because of this possibilitythat instilling a cooperativ
e demeanor in children is much more important than developing a
competivie attitude. Competition is a natural thing that will develop with or without
encouragement but the same cannot be said for a sense of cooperation.
Rater Commentary
Arguing that cooperation is less natural and more important for leadership, this response
develops a thoughtful position on the issue and conveysmeaning clearly and well. For these
reasons it earns a score of 5. Note that it does not develop its reasons and examples as thoroughly
as the sample 6 does, but it still presents thoughtful analysis using well chosen examples. For
example, the discussion of Bill Gates is thoughtful, exploring the ways that both competition
(the “competitive drive” that led him to found a company) and cooperation (the “collaborative
effort of many people” is what made the company work) were essential to his success as a
leader. Throughout the response, then,
counterarguments are used to create a nuanced position onthe issue. The writer looks at
conflicting aspects of competition, which is vital but insufficient for life because life is “more
complex” than a sporting event,and cooperation, which is critical but more
difficult to learn. In addition, the writer conveys meaning clearly, demonstrating sentence
variety and a facilitywith language that is more than adequate. There are a few minor
errors, mainly typos and misspelled words, but language control in this response ismore
than adequate (e.g., “One needs to look beyond the scope of what is best on an individual
level and learn to look at what will most benefit a broadgroup of people.”). Because of its facility
with language and its thoughtful position on the issue, this response earns a score of 5.

Score 4
Essay Response
When the generation of today matures, it is important for them to succeed and become the
successful
leaders in government, industry and other fields.There are many traits that leaders must possess,
and cooperation is one of these very important characters.
Nonetheless it is important for leaders tohave a sense of competition, so as to prevent themselves
from being complacent with their position.
Cooperation is needed in order to be a functional person in society, while still adhering to
social standards. Most leaders in society, did not start out assuch. A person cannot isolate
themselves from others with demeanor and attitude and expect to become an
executive. While there may be leaders thathave developed this ill attitude towards
others, they did not get there by being that way. A person who is able to effectively cooperate
with others, will
subsequently develop a nexus of supporters. Through collaboration, people are able to develop th
eir studies further and better themselves.
However, it is still important for there to be a sense of competition. Competition is the root
of motivation for most. It drives us to become stronger, smarter, and to want more.
Nonetheless, the spirit of competition must also be reigned in, and not be allowed to run
wild. Competitiveness can lead toabuse of power and distasteful actions, which is quite the
opposite of someone who displays cooperativeness.
Some may argue that competition is not needed. That those that are meant to be leaders will
not become complacent, because they have their own internal drive to lead. If there was no
competition, there would be no world records. Michael Phelps may not be a leader of
government or industry, but he is certainly educated on the technique of swimming, and leader in
his field. Would he be as good as he is today if there was not competition? Would the leaders
of Microsoft have been motivated to create Bing if there was no Google?
Cooperation helped many leaders get where they are today, and will continue to do so in
the future. But leaders, as well as those that aspire to be one, all
need to have a sense of competition as well.
Rater Commentary
This adequate response presents a clear position on the issue in accordance with the
assigned task, arguing that both competition and cooperation areimportant for leaders. The
response uses counterarguments both in the construction of its overall position (comparing the
value of both competition and cooperation) and in its discussion of the
positive and negative aspects of competition. However, the development of ideas in this
response is not asthorough or as persuasive as one would expect to see in a response that earns a
score of 5 or 6. For instance, the example of Microsoft inventing Bingto compete
with Google is certainly relevant, but it is not developed with any thoughtfulness. It is simply
stated. Other examples are somewhat morefully developed, but there is also some
tangential material (e.g., even the writer seems to understand that Michael Phelps does
not quite fit into adiscussion of leadership). In addition to its adequate development, this
response displays adequate control of language. This response does not havethe sentence
variety or the skillful diction seen in a response that earns a higher score. There are some minor
errors present, but nothing that interfereswith clarity. Because this response
presents a clear position on the issue, expressing meaning with adequate clarity, it earns a score
of 4.

Score 3
Essay Response
Leadership is a tough task to master.To be a leader means you must be better than a bunch of
folks and work with them to accomplise a greatergoal.Leadership in any feild
needs cooperarive effort and a leader must be able to inspire and make the
human resourse at hand to work better.In doingso there is a far cry of an immense responsibility.I
therefore stand by taking help from inmates to do the same.
Like the say 'when going gets tough the tough gets going'.So there is no point of getting bogged
down rather plan more ways to get the work done andone of the sureshot
approach is by working together.I believe to the core of my heart that there can be
nothing equal to cooperation and unity in a work field.As simple as it sounds if one can do a
work in hermit atmosphere at certain efficiency, a number of brains working toghether can
be more efficient.An atmosphere where everyone works holding hands and
when someone falls there are people to make him stand again makes a much better picture
in my mind everytime.
Compitition is not a evil it can inspire some one to work better and looking to do
better can be considered good.But am afraid what fear here is thatwhen you compete with
someone you set you limits to that person.So once you do better than him/her you
tend to be relaxed and that is where whenthe real evil creeps in.
With cooperation you have a goal and associated effort to work for the same.Rather than
individual petty and competition to be better placed than an friend it would be far
more appreciable to keep working for the common goal.That way even the goal gets more
defined at some level.So lets all drop allthis boundaries of indivisualism and keep working for a
common goal,and if you want to compete then
compete with yourself and get better than whatyou were yesterday.
Rater Commentary
This response displays some competence in presenting a position according to the task
directions, but it earns a score of 3 because frequent minor errors do interfere with clarity.
The writer agrees with the prompt that cooperation is more important, and it explores some
counterarguments in its assertion that competition “can inspire some one to work
better and looking to do better can be considered good.” However, almost every sentence
inthis response has at least one minor error. Some of the errors are typos or minor mechanical
problems like missing spaces after punctuation. But other errors have more impact on meaning.
Missing words, incorrect sentence boundaries, and improper verb
forms contribute to a lack of clarity throughoutthe response. This sentence is typical of the
limited language control seen throughout this response: “So there is no point of getting bogged
down rather plan more ways to get the work done and one of the sureshot
approach is by working together.” Because of its limited clarity, then, this response earns a score
of 3.

Score 2
Essay Response
Both a sense of cooperation and competition is needed to be a good leader. If one is
focused on competition and ignores or refuse to work with othersthen there would be problems
for that leader. A leader needs to be able to get along, cooperate and know how to interact with
others and allies. Treaties and allies require cooperation. Trade agreements and aid as well. A
leader cannot achieve much alone.
Competition is also needed to encourage people to be the best. If no one does there best
to obtain a goal how would a leader be chosen. What kind ofleader would that make? The best
way for a society to prepare its young is to instill a sense of both competition and cooperation.
Rater Commentary
This response earns a score of 2 for its seriously limited development. There is a clear
position on the issue, as the writer argues
that the “best way fora society to prepare its young is to instill a sense of both competition and co
operation.” However, the writer provides few, if any, relevant reasons or
examples to support and develop this position.
The discussion of cooperation is supported only by very generic assertions like the notion that “tr
eaties and allies require cooperation.” And there is even less development in the
discussion of competition. In order to receive a higher score, the response would need to
provide more support for its position. Language control in this response is adequate, but the
response earns a score of 2 because of its seriously limited development.
Score 1
Essay Response
Best way for a socity to prepare it’s young people for leadership in government, industry,
or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of coopertion, not competition. This statement is
very true, whether we mean leadership in government, industry, or any other fields.
For leadership in government, industry, or other fields some
people argue that the best way for society to prepare it’s young people is by instilling inthem a se
nse of cooperation. Other people argue that the best way is through competition. It can be
difficult for many people to decide between thesetwo choices. There are many arguments
that support both sides. I fully agree that the best way is to instilling in them a sense of
cooperation, not competition.
Rater Commentary
This response earns a score of 1 because it demonstrates little evidence of the ability to
develop a position on the issue. Instead of developing a position, the response simply
repeats the language of the prompt, adding some generic language that could be applied to any
Issue prompt. For example, consider these sentences: “It can be difficult for many people to
decide between these two choices. There are many arguments that support both sides.” This is a
totally generic analytical framework that has not been filled in with any specific exploration
related to this prompt. The writer is clearly making an attempt to
respond to the prompt, and the final sentence does seem to indicate a position on the
issue. So the response does notmerit a score of 0. However, the vast majority of the
response is simply repetition of language from the prompt and/or generic material. Thus, it earns
a score of 1.
Colleges and universities should require all faculty to spend time working outside the academic
world in professions relevant to the courses they teach.

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for
the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the
possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape
your position.

Score 6
Essay Response
Requiring college and university faculty to spend time working outside the academic
world in professions relevant to the courses they teach would yield many extraordinary benefits
for students, for faculty members, and for the college or university at which they teach. Students
would gain invaluable insight into “real” world applications of what they are taught, faculty
would garner a new perspective on their research and create new professional relationships, and
colleges and universities would be able to build stronger relationships with the communities they
serve. The latter benefit is likely the most significant one: a faculty engaged in the community
not only prepares students for work in the real world, but also contributes to improving life for
all citizens of the community.
A common lament heard from students is that their teachers live in an "ivory tower"
disconnected from the “real world” and its practicalities. Many students feel that professors in all
fields, whether the humanities or the sciences, focus too narrowly on theoretical concerns rather
than on practical career matters. That is to say, students often find their teachers' pedagogy to be
esoteric and unrelated to the practicalities that they will face upon graduating from college and
launching their careers. For instance, a political science major might feel frustrated that her
professor devotes a significant number of class hours to elaborating the rational actor model but
little time to the particulars of actual statecraft. Requiring faculty to work in professions related
to their field of study would help chip away at the image of the professor living in an “ivory
tower;” their lessons would be more grounded in the "real world" and their in-class examples and
scenarios would reflect actual experience in the field. The political science professor, for
example, who had work experience in the government, whether local or at the state or national
level, could relate to students the strategies she used in advocating for or negotiating policies
with government officials. Faculty members would have greater first-hand experience in their
academic discipline, which they could then relate to their students, thereby better preparing
students for work in their field.
While yielding critical advantages for students, faculty members will also personally benefit
from such a requirement. The expertise acquired from the professor’s work experience would
complement her scholarly knowledge, thus providing her greater breadth of knowledge and also
bringing a new perspective to her scholarly endeavors. A practical perspective gained from work
in the field would give faculty fodder for research questions and provide new insights as to how
her subject matter applies to the everyday context of her field of study. To return to the example
of the political science professor, her theories and her research could now be more informed by
her experience working with governmental officials, perhaps increasing the likelihood that her
research would make relevant contributions to the field. More pragmatically, working in the field
would also allow faculty to network and to create relationships of professional import, now not
only with their peers in the academy, but also with those in the work sector. Faculty would
benefit from this by having a larger group of experts with whom to discuss research questions,
while this new and expanded network would also benefit students, since professors would be in a
position to create internship opportunities while in school and possibly even job opportunities
upon graduation.
Perhaps most tellingly, such a requirement would benefit colleges and universities, as well
as the communities they serve. A more practically savvy faculty is a faculty better equipped to
contribute research findings and products that have a direct application to the community and to
the greater context in which the academic institution exists. They are more likely to contribute to
important endeavors such as the development of green energy, urban planning projects, or
improving services for the community’s citizens. College and university administrators
constantly work to establish strong relationships with the communities in which they exist, with
the government and its programs, and with corporate and not-for-profit businesses. They do this,
not only to fund raise, but because they know that a college or university that teaches just for
teaching’s sake, or researches simply for research’s sake, without any sense of contributing to the
community or preparing their students to be informed, involved, contributing citizens of their
communities, is a college or university with no true animating purpose. Boasting a faculty that is
eagerly engaged in the work community, in a variety of ways, will only serve to demonstrate just
how relevant and "plugged in" the academic community really is.
While it is true that there would be practical challenges--including adjusting faculty teaching
loads and coordinating faculty leave time--that would need to be addressed, the overall benefits
of implementing this policy cannot be overstated. It is also true that some disciplines may lend
themselves more readily to direct work application than others; for those disciplines that do not,
more creative work opportunities will need to be devised. These issues, however, should not
deter colleges and universities from pursuing this otherwise promising idea, and are matters that
the deans and administrators could easily resolve with some creative thinking. For the reasons
cited above, students, faculty, and their colleges and universities would do well to require all
faculty to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses
they teach.
Rater Commentary
This response receives a 6 for its cogently reasoned and skillfully argued analysis of the policy
proposal stated in the prompt. The response follows the specific task instructions by explicitly
considering potential consequences of the policy’s implementation. Taking the position that
numerous benefits would accrue to students, faculty, and colleges and universities that support
and adopt the requirement that all faculty spend time working outside the academic world in
professions relevant to the courses they teach, the writer presents insightful descriptions of these
benefits. Students, for example, would receive instruction that relates abstract course content to
career matters in ways that equip as well as inform; while the faculty themselves would not only
acquire skill in providing “real” instruction of this sort, a “new and expanded network” of
professional contacts would also greatly improve the quality of career guidance they could offer
their students. These reasons are thoroughly developed and provide compelling support for the
claim that this policy is both necessary and workable. Particularly persuasive is the manner in
which the response addresses the interrelated ways that this policy would benefit students,
faculty, the academy and the community. Organization of these points is handled logically and
effectively, beginning with the career benefits to students, then moving to the practical benefits
to faculty instruction and research, and finally to the creation of strong relationships between the
academy and the community through an “engaged” faculty. Ideas are expressed with fluency and
precision throughout the essay. Superior facility with language is in evidence as well, as this
sentence demonstrates: “They do this, not only to fund raise, but because they know that a
college or university that teaches just for teaching’s sake, or researches simply for research’s
sake, without any sense of contributing to the community or preparing their students to be
informed, involved, contributing citizens of their communities, is a college or university with no
true animating purpose.”

Score 5
Essay Response
The question of balance between well-roundedness and expertise has received increased
attention in the recent decades. Educators, those who impart knowledge and skills, are especially
coming under greater scrutiny. The idea that educators should be well-educated in the field that
they teach but also able to impart knowledge gained from exposure to other fields and
professions is gaining increased support and validation. In the case of university professors, there
is the growing thought that it is not enough for them to impart 'textbook knowledge,' so to speak,
it should also be incumbent upon them to imapart the relevant experiences gained in the
professions related to their academic discipline. For them to be able to do this, it can be argued
that they need to spend some time in the relevant fields, since they are directly involved in
preparing young people to go out into the job market and other professions, academic or non-
academic. However, though there could be benefits to having a professors who are well-rounded
in this way, the requirement that they spend time working outside the academic world would be
unnecessarily burdensome.
Firstly, not every professor is going to have interest working outside the academic world. For
example, a professor of statistics might be very well-equipped and knowledgeable to work at a
business firm as a risk analysist or as a financial consultant of some kind. However, this does not
mean that he or she would have great enthusiasm for the profession, though her knowledge of
mathematics gives her the perspicacity to discern certain trends better and make better future
predictions. If such a professor is required to work outside the academic world, when her
interests are solely limited to the academic profession of professor of mathematics, this could
have the inadvertant effect of dissuading her from academia altogther. Here, there would be a
great risk of depriving young students of a great professor of mathematics who would help them
prepare for a mathematics-related field. Professorship is a profession in its own right, albeit an
academic one, but this does not mean that a professor would necessarily need to have worked in
a field related to his or her discipline to be an effective educator.
Secondly, given that professorship is a full-time job, and a particularly demanding one, it does
not at all seem reasonable to require professors to spend time working outside academia. In fact,
this could lead professors to give less attention to students and more attention to the second
profession, which would actually have the inadvertant effect of reducing the educational well-
being of his or her students. It is one thing to make the pedagogic requirment that professors be
informed about the profession outside of an academic discipline and that they try to instill in
students the sense that it is not enough to just have 'textbook knowledge.' It is quite another,
however, to ask professors to actually be immersed somewhat in a relevant profession itself. The
thought here might be that their teaching would be more 'genuine' but there is no reason to think
this. A professor could be a good educator in a field regardless of his experience in a non-
academic profession.
In conclusion, though it cannot be denied that professors' experience in a profession outside of
academia would have salutary effects on his or her students, the requirement thay they spend
time outside academia is burdensome. The requirment could have the inadvertant effect of
dissuading bright prospective professors away from academia due to the forseeable workload
that requirement means. And if current professors are made to work outside academica, this
could lead to thier being unable to give due academic attention to their students. It's benefits are
clearly outweighted by these disadvantages. For this reason, the recommendation of spending
time in a relevant profession should at best be an option that professors can choose to pursue, but
not a stringent requirement.
Rater Commentary
This response presents a thoughtful and well-considered position on the issue, arguing that to
require all college and university faculty to spend time working in professions outside the
academic world would not only impose an unnecessary burden on them, it could also lead to
certain “inadvertent effects,” or unintended negative consequences, for faculty and students
alike. The response develops this position with reasons and examples that provide solid support
for its conclusion that the policy’s advantages are “clearly outweighed” by its potential
disadvantages. This response is especially strong in maintaining focus on the specific task
direction that asks writers to consider and explain how possible consequences of implementing
the policy have shaped their views on it. In paragraph two, the writer uses the detailed example
of a “well-equipped and knowledgeable” math professor who is compelled to work “as a risk
analyst or as a financial consultant” at a business firm—performing with little enthusiasm tasks
that are relevant to her field but irrelevant to her real interests. This picture then leads to
thoughtful analysis of possible consequences: “This could have the inadvertent effect of
dissuading her from academia altogether. Here, there would be a great risk of depriving young
students of a great professor of mathematics who would help them prepare for a mathematics-
related field.” Other examples of “inadvertent effects” are linked to similarly negative
consequences, contributing both to the thoughtfulness of the response and its effective
organization. The response demonstrates facility with language throughout and vocabulary and
sentence types are appropriately varied (“However, this does not mean that he or she would have
great enthusiasm for the profession, though her knowledge of mathematics gives her the
perspicacity to discern certain trends better and make better future predictions”). For clarity of
expression and organization as well as quality of analysis, this response merits a 5.

Score 4
Essay Response
I agree with the position that colleges and universities should require all faculty to spend time
working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach. Although
this may be more necessary for some than for others, this would be important for every professor
to experience at least occasionally. Allowing faculty to take the time to experience the real world
applications of their subjects would be benficial not only to the professors, but it would also
benefit the students.
Faculty would maintain expertise in their fields and expands their views and knowledge in their
given areas. Just as those who are learning a subject need context and examples to solidify the
material in their minds, teachers should keep up to date with their subjects to keep the material
fresh in theirs. Having an experience first hand is drastically different from reading about it in an
academic journal. This would also allow professors to be the most accurate and helpful they can
be when they prepare students to enter a certain field. As disciplines change over time, it is
important for faculty to understand the new needs and aspects of a particualr profession. Their
students would have the opportunity to learn from someone who is currently experiencing the
profession which they are studying. This would give those anticipating a career in a given field
access to a better understanding and a more insightful view of what to expect.
Some might argue that this requirement of time and energy on the part of the faculty would
actually be detrimental. Professors would lose time that they might normally give to students in
order to fulfill this necessity. However, I think the benefits of learning from someone who
understands every aspect of the field outweigh the anticipated results of this fear. Working
outside the academic world may even afford professors more time to spend on their students as
they may now having a better grasp of what they are teaching, so they won't have to spend
countless hours researching their own field in articles and journals.
If schools of higher learning choose this approach I believe that it would improve the institutions
enormously. Having significant and relevant experience in a subject one teaches is an important
and necessary step toward a great education.
Rater Commentary
This response meets all the requirements of a the 4 score point. In response to the task directions,
it presents a clear position on the issue, arguing that “Allowing faculty to take the time to
experience the real world applications of their subjects would be beneficial not only to the
professors, but it would also benefit the students”. It supports this position with relevant reasons,
discussing anticipated benefits to faculty and students as possible consequences of the policy’s
adoption. Ideas progress logically as the response develops, moving from the benefits to faculty
to those they would pass on to students and then to a potential counterargument which it seeks to
rebut. This response highlights the scoring guide distinction between adequate and generally
thoughtful development. For instance, the writer’s initial endorsement of the policy includes a
caveat-- “Although this [policy] may be more necessary for some than for others…” -- but in
what ways and for whom this may be the case is not addressed further. The second paragraph
includes a similar lapse. In this instance, the response seems to argue that working outside the
university will allow faculty to update their knowledge and “maintain expertise in their fields”
because hands-on experience is a better way of acquiring knowledge than “reading about it in an
academic journal.” Rather than elaborate the benefits of hands-on experience, or offer an
example of “real world applications” to reinforce the claim and strengthen the analysis, the
writer simply reasserts the superiority of “currently experiencing the profession” and moves on.
The use of language in this response is also adequate. The conventions of standard written
English are sufficiently controlled; errors are incidental and do not interfere with the clarity of
the ideas expressed.

Score 3
Essay Response
Higher education is very important for today's youth to succeed in their lives; most of the
youngsters of this generation understand the value of a proper education, for the world is getting
more and more competetive by the minute. In order for the students to get the most out of their
college experience, it is a must for the faculty to work "outside the academic world in
professions relevant" to their respective discipline, so that they can guide their students to
achieve the right path that will add value to the student's professional life.
Faculty members who have been teaching in universities for a long period of time, usually
tend to focus tremendously on their course materials solely. Although they have adequate
experience in their discipline, they do not prepare the students to face the contemporary
corporate world. Most professors load their students with assignments and exams in the chemical
engineering department during the senior year, which takes about seven hours on a daily basis
for the average student to complete. Senior year is a very crucial year especially for engineering
students, for this is the prime time that students tend to look for job opportunities. Such behavior
hinders many opportunities such as the student's attendance in various career fairs held across the
country. Moreover, the fact that most faculty members repeat the same curriculum for their
respective courses year after year, makes the whole college experience less challenging, and
outdated. Most of the students in engineering programs tend to acquire exam materials from the
previous years, which makes a loop-hole for incompetent students. Furthermore, the fact that the
course materials are recycled through the years, indicate that the material is probably outdated.
Hence, it is important for a faculty member in a university to stay updated with the current
problems faced in their respective pr
Rater Commentary
This response shows some competence in presenting a position on the issue, but its overall
development is marked by an inconsistency of focus that gives undue attention to reasons and
examples that are not directly relevant to the task. The response does attempt to address the
specific task instructions, taking the position that requiring faculty to work outside the university
is essential: the experience will equip them to provide their students with valuable professional
guidance as they prepare for their own careers in a competitive work environment. However, the
development provided in support of this position is not clearly related to this claim. The point
that veteran teachers are so immersed in their own fields of study that they have lost touch with
the practical needs of their students is clearly relevant, and suggests a possible benefit of outside
work. However, instead of developing this point in a logically persuasive way, the writer shifts
attention to the daily work load of a chemical engineering major (“assignments and
exams…which takes about seven hours on a daily basis for the average student to complete”)
and how this can hinder the search for job opportunities during the student’s senior year.
Similarly, the response asserts the importance of faculty members “staying updated with the
current problems” in the discipline instead of recycling the same curriculum “year after year,”
but the accompanying discussion emphasizes the disservice done to students (“make the whole
college experience less challenging, and outdated”) rather than on how faculty working outside
the university may help to remedy this problem. This response, then, earns a score of 3 primarily
because of problems with focus and failure to provide relevant support for its claims.

Score 2
Essay Response
As colleges and universities role increase rapidly in those days due to the major effect on the
society , and in guiding the future student to lead the nation to the right way ; from this point
colleges are considered as the backbone to the society.
now adays the colleges are competing to reach the hieghest place in education so that it can
achieve the hieghest ranks around the world.
in modren countries like USA the colleges strated encourging students to participate in the
society activities for example the college made one day for the arts departement to share thier
skills and abilties of drwaing by making student who live in the same area or around each other
to make groups and start removing the bad sights on the wall and draw pictuers with nice view.
also phyiscs department started sharing thier projects with local community i.e the phyiscs
department started for example providing electricty through solar energy.
the colleges also started encourging thier stuff of lectuers to go to schools and give some lectuers
regards thier field.
The increased demands of life and economy require from the man to search for more than one
job so the profession which revelant to the courses the man can use that even to earn more
money as just hitting two birds by one stone,in one hand he can achieve something good to the
society by supportting issues that brings beinfits to all and in the other hand he can get some
more money.
Working outside the colleges aslo give chance to the lectuers to deal and interact with local
community and also to see the problems of other people and more than that to see by direct eye
which the society lacking and which the things it needs to get improved so that the can carry
those problems and issues to their academy and discuss it together and find sulotions for it for
example my uncle told me "one day when we were painting on the walls we found one teenager
one to share us drwaing i told him he can and once he finished i was shocked from his talent i
told him why dont you come and study in our college he said because my father dont have
enough money to let me study" from this by working outside our colleges we cand find talents
and skillfull student who need just support from us to achieve thier dreams.
conclusion is that i think its good from the colleges and universities to spend some time outside
thier offices so that not just they can find professions revelant to thier jobs but also to help the
soceity to improved and share the issues which tough all local community beacuse they are
considered the menors for current students..
the mentor who can guide the student to the right way by giving advices ,instruction so that he
can see the light from the dark sky.
Rater Commentary
The language is the feature most decisive in assigning a score of 2 to this essay, although focus
in the first half of the response also contributes to the score. While the first half makes references
to “students...participat[ing] in society,” “physics department...sharing their projects with local
community” and “colleges...encourging thier stuff of lectuers to go to schools and give some
lectuers,” the response’s position remains unclear and unfocused. There are moments of (dim)
clarity in the second half that provide evidence of the writer’s basic grasp of topic and task, but
here the essay continues to be weakened by serious errors of grammar, usage, and mechanics that
frequently interfere with meaning. For example, the penultimate paragraph of the response
addresses the prompt directly and attempts to describe benefits of the policy requiring college
faculty to work outside the academic world: “Working outside the colleges aslo give chance to to
the lectuers to deal and interact with local community and also to see the problems of other
people…to see by direct eye.” But errors accumulate at a rapid pace as the response loses control
of sentence boundaries, obscuring a reference to a practical consequence of implementing the
policy: “…the things it needs to get improved so that the can carry those problems and issues to
their academy and discuss it together and find sulotions for it for example my uncle told me ‘one
day when we were painting….’” Thus, in spite of some evidence of understanding the issue and
attempting to develop a response, poor focus and serious language problems keeps the score in
the 2 range.

Score 1
Essay Response
We are considered that everyone must live for other people. Many people thought surely that it is
correct something. However, everything of failere are happened for other people. I don"t agree to
spend time working outside the my acadimic world.
Consequently, in developed something, we cannot be developed until we get many knowledge.
We must take over many limits for developing. That is why this is needed, but it is not meaning
for us, unless we know limits of surraunding developed.
We must know limits before developing. I am not this side to spend time working outside the
academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach.

Rater Commentary
This response receives a score of 1. The response indicates it disagreement, but beyond that there
is no evidence that the writer has understood the policy issue addressed by the prompt or is able
to develop a response that presents a discernible position on it. In addition, the response shows
fundamental deficiencies in the use of language. Sentences do not cohere, and grammatical
errors are pervasive enough to interfere with meaning throughout the response: e.g.,
“Consequently, in developed something, we cannot be developed until we get many knowledge.
We must take over many limits for developing.”
Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve.
Others believe that officials should base their decisions on their own judgment.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position
and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position,
you should address both of the views presented.

Score 6
Essay Response
Government officials have a responsibility to carry out the will of the people, but only to the
extent that they still maintain the established principles of the state. In some cases, the will of the
people stands solely on ideological grounds, and in these cases the representatives and officials
in question must remember that they do not only serve the people that elected them, but also the
populace as a whole. When an official finds themselves in the unenviable position of having to
make the choice between the will of the people and their own personal beliefs, officials must rely
on their own good judgement to find the most prudent alternative. While I agree that a
government official should be held accountable for decisions made against the will of the people,
the more serious infraction against the people occurs when the official undermines the rule of
law.
An example of the dichotomy between these two positions has been observed in recent years in
the United States. In the years since the attack on the World Trade Center, a backlash against the
Muslim community has occurred. When a Muslim group attempted to build an Islamic
community center near the former site of the World Trade Center, a vocal piece of the population
sought to block the group from establishing their presence so close to the site. The resistance to
this community center by this fervent group was clearly based on prejudice that equated all
Muslims, even law-abiding American citizens, with terrorists. Had the government officials in
charge of permitting the cultural center been swayed by the will of the people, the cultural center
may not have been built, allowing irrational racism to form public policy. However, the officials,
ignoring outraged public sentiment, made a prudent decision to allow the center to be built,
supporting the core American belief that freedom of religion is a more important principle than
the ebb and flow of public opinion.
Perhaps a more potent example of government officials relying on their own judgement over the
opinions of the people they serve could be observed during the recent financial crisis. When the
overall risk to the economy was great, government officials, even those who opposed
government intervention, voted to fund private organizations like General Motors to keep them
afloat. While many citizens and representatives alike stood on the principle of free markets and
on the prevention of government interference, some representatives voted against their
ideological views and against the will of their constituents because they made the judgement that
the economy of the United States was at risk, and that letting General Motors fail would have
had a catastrophic impact on the very people they serve. In this case, self-sacrifice was made by
a number of representatives, who made a risky decision regardless of the cost to their own
personal interests. Some of these courageous representatives lost their re-election campaigns
based in part on the fact that they cast these votes. While this shows that a representative who
acts against the will of the people may have to suffer their consequences at the voting booth, it
also demonstrates the need for representatives to use their own best judgement at times, even if it
puts them in a perilous position.
The larger point to make is that government officials, particularly those who are elected, are in
their positions because they promised to support the will of the people. This is a core tenet of
why representative democracy works. The people vote an official into office with the
understanding that they will faithfully represent the will of the people who elected them. If the
officials do not represent the will of their constituents, they may be voted out of office. This may
occur even in the case of the General Motors scenario, where the decision was, in hindsight,
viewed as the prudent step for the economy. The representatives who lost their office didn't
represent the will of their constituents, but their own better judgement prevented them from
making a popular yet destructive decision. This is something of a conundrum for our
representative officials who must sometimes act on their own judgement, principles, and/or
research to make unpopular decisions that protect and/or advance society and commerce. In
cases like these, representatives cannot compromise, otherwise they may cause harm to the
populace as a whole. Perhaps the best they can do is try to communicate with their constituents
the need to balance their own personal views and interests with what is good for society as a
whole. If successful, then the will of the people truly becomes the will of the people rather than
the will of a group of disconnected individuals.
Elected representatives are, indeed, expected to serve the will of the people; when they act
against that will they do so at their own peril – even when in the right. This is the plight of the
democratic politician. Given this dilemma, it takes great courage for a representative to make
unpopular but prudent decisions. Those who do so often succeed in crafting policy that advances
the greater good of society, making any sacrifice worth it, in my opinion. And if the
representative does, in fact, contribute to the greater good, perhaps his constituency will
recognize that and reward her or him on the ballet during the next election.
Rater Commentary
This response receives a 6 for its insightful and cogent analysis of competing views on the proper
basis of decision-making in the public sector. The response seeks an alternative to the prompt’s
simplistic dichotomy, arguing that commitment to “established principles of the state,” “core
American beliefs” (like freedom of religion), and respect for the “tenets of representative
democracy” constitute a higher law that is not reducible to ideology or party loyalty. Nuanced
examples are skillfully employed to make the case that government officials are effective
representatives only when they are wise enough to recognize the difference between the will of
the people and what is good for the people; prudent enough to make unpopular choices when the
need arises, and courageous enough to do so even when the political and personal cost is high.
The analysis is organized logically and transitions smoothly from the provocative and intriguing
case of the Islamic Community center near Ground Zero (paragraph two), to the “more potent”
example of the role (and price) of bi-partisan cooperation in the Federal Government’s bailout of
General Motors (paragraph three), and concluding with a summary statement of “the larger
point” about the kind of public servant needed to make representative democracy work. While
this response is marked by effective organization and its concise but thorough development of
ideas, the writing also satisfies all requirements of the 6 score point. Superior facility is in
evidence throughout the response: vocabulary is precise and sentences are effective in their
variety and complexity (e.g., “While many citizens and representatives alike stood on the
principle of free markets and on the prevention of government interference, some representatives
voted against their ideological views and against the will of their constituents because they made
the judgement that the economy of the United States was at risk, and that letting General Motors
fail would have had a catastrophic impact on the very people they serve”).

Score 5
Essay Response
The role of the government official is a very important one, and it is important that we have
some of our best and brightest serve in these positions since they must make important decisions
on a daily basis. My position on this issue is that government officials should be elected because
they reflect my feelings and opinions on key issues and that I exercise my right to vote in
selecting the right officials. They should also be well-educated on a variety of topics, have a
world view, and have a sense of empathy for people. When they are aligned with my own values
as a constituent and have the educational background to know and understand the "big picture"
surrounding issues, then I can be assured that they will make decisions that would be similar to
mine and are for the good of the people. I realize that not all government officials are elected, but
in most cases the ones that are not elected are appointed by higher officials that have been
selected through elections of the people and the role of government in general is to serve the
good of the people AND the city, county, state and country as a whole.
I believe that it is imperative for government officials to take into account the multiple
perspectives and variety of needs of the populations they are serving. They must have their staff
do research particularly within groups with which they are least familiar, so they have a true
picture of what those groups' needs are. After doing this kind of research, they can then make
reasoned and logical decisions about issues that will impact those populations.
I understand the desire of people to make their own decisions and have that feeling of autonomy
that we value highly in the U.S. Most times, however, the individual is thinking of just that, the
individual. We each live in our own small worlds and care most about what impacts us
personally, not giving a great deal of thought to the issues that don't have personal impact. Most
individuals don't try to see things from multiple perspectives. Some individuals are also
concerned about the impact of lobbying groups on public officals, and that is a valid concern.
However, there are many laws regulating lobbying and campaign contributions to try to lessen
the influence of those forces. That leads me back to the idea that it is important for the
government officials to listen to their constituents, but they still may make a decision that
contradicts what those citizens want for themselves.
An example that goes along with this position would be the following: we all know that the rates
of obesity in the U.S. are rising, for both children and adults. We all also know that something
should be done about it, we all should eat more healthfully and exercise more. However, people
have been in charge of their own health for years, and it isn't getting better. If you believe in the
"government officals must carry out the will of the people they serve" school of thought, then for
the most part, we would be bringing out more big tasty desserts, fried Twinkies and buy 5
chicken nuggets, get 5 free, and possibly even giving the businesses that offer those deals tax
breaks. In the opposite school of thought, the "officials should base their decisions on their own
judgement," we had Mayor Bloomberg (a government official in New York City) declaring that
he wanted to limit the size of soda pop being sold in the city to 16 ounces, with the hope that if
they limited the size of soda, then people wouldn't drink so much of it and it would help in the
fight against obesity. There was a huge backlash against this, with people saying they should be
able to make their own decisions, and they can drink as much soda as they want. "Government
can't regulate that" was their opinion. However, through research and recommendations from the
experts, this seemed to be the most logical decision for the government officials to make, with
the best interest of their citizens at the heart of the decision making. People that are impacted by
the decisions being made tend to get overly emotional about it and emotional decision making
isn't always logical decision making. I believe that the soda pop and many other examples like it
would help everyone see that it makes much more sense for government officals to make good
decisions based on their own judgement, not just carrying out the will of the people they serve.
Rater Commentary
This strong 5 presents a clear and well-considered position on the issue, addressing the reader
from a position as a responsible and informed “constituent” who values the democratic process,
and who understands that the role of elected and appointed officials in relation to the public good
is essentially a matter of representation. The response is especially thoughtful in its recognition
that representation is more than simply striking a balance between one’s own will and the will of
the people: it requires genuine empathy for others, a mind attuned to “multiple perspectives,” and
a sober, rational approach to decision-making that recognizes the dangers of individualism,
emotionalism, and pandering to special interests. The response is focused and well-organized, as
the analysis moves from a general description of the role of a government official to focus on
specific qualities necessary to function effectively in this role, and concludes with practical
scenarios that illustrate the utility of the recommended view. Detailed descriptions and
contrasting examples provide ample support for the conclusion that officials who possess the
necessary qualities are obliged to use their own judgment to make decisions “with the best
interest of their citizens at heart.” For instance, paragraph three affirms the “high value”
Americans place on personal autonomy while acknowledging the reality of social isolation and
the narrow self-interest it fosters. The response thus gives concreteness to the aforementioned
quality of empathy which challenges cherished notions of autonomy (“We each live in our own
small worlds and care most about what impacts us personally”). This leads to thoughtful
analysis: the need to regulate or “lessen the influence of” rampant self-interest may occasionally
require a “decision that contradicts what those citizens want for themselves.” The final paragraph
makes the same case from another angle, setting a caricature of unhealthy eating habits alongside
a description of the emotional reaction to NYC’s soda policy to highlight the impracticality (and
even absurdity) of an official response to public policy that let’s “the people” decide. As for the
writing, the response demonstrates facility with language, employing appropriate sentence
variety and vocabulary throughout. A few awkwardly composed sentences (e.g., the last
paragraph, “If you believe in…”) do not detract from the response’s overall clarity of expression.

Score 4
Essay Response
I believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve as opposed to
basing their decisions on their own judgement. American democracy is based on the policy of
“of the people, for the people, by the people.” Everyone has their own personal beliefs that may
not align with the general population, and it is the job of the people-elected government official
to have the population's best interest in mind as opposed to their own. A politician can’t do what
he or she thinks best when it goes against the population. They must do what the population
thinks best even if it goes against their moral or religious beliefs. Sometimes, a politician must
go against the will of the people, but those cases are very rare and can be dealt with case by case.
An example of this is Vice President Joe Biden, who is Catholic. The Catholic religion does not
approve of gay marriage, and view gay people as sinners who are going to hell. He is a devoute
Catholic, yet his stance on gay marriage and equal rights for gays does not align with his
personal religion...it aligns with the general population's stance that they deserve to be treated as
equals and not as something against the law. They are people, too. He also touts himself as being
pro-choice, although his religion says that abortons are morally wrong and should never be done.
The general population agrees with this stance as well. There are many reasons for having an
abortion, and if Biden aligned with his religion, women who were raped and became pregnant
would have to have the child that was conceived not out of love, but out of fear and hate.
Sometimes, though, it is important for politicians to not follow to views of the people the
represent. When the remaining living Boston Marathon bomber was captured, there was a poll
done to show how much of the American population wanted him to be killed. 49 of the 50 states
wanted his death. Although he killed many innocent lives and destroyed hundreds more, he
should have a fair trial. If we make exceptions based on something like this, it opens the door for
other precedents to be laid out that were not intended or fair. It is a slippery slope, so it is
important for government officials to remember that they cannot always follow everything their
people believe in. Luckily, there are many checks and balances in the government to prevent
something like this from happening.
In conclusion, politicials should keep the beliefs of their people on the forefront of their decision-
making. They should put aside their own beliefs and align their beliefs with the general
population. This is important to keep our democracy a democracy and to keep politicians from
gaining too much power over our lives. Imagine what would happen if politicians like Joe Biden
didn’t listen to what the general population wanted for women. Of course, there are times when a
politician shouldn’t listen to the general population, like when what they want would not be fair
or maybe even constitutional. Politicians may not agree with everything their body of people
believes, but it is important to keep their best interest in mind for a happy, safe and healthy
population.
Rater Commentary
This response clearly follows the directions for the assigned task, arguing that the “people-
elected government official” should act in the “population’s best interest” without regard to their
own beliefs, but must also be ready to defend the legal rights of all citizens, even those whose
beliefs and actions may not be respected by the majority. This position is adequately developed
and relevant support is drawn from recent political situations and societal events. In the second
paragraph, the former Vice President is offered as an example of an elected official whose public
policy positions (on gay marriage and abortion rights) faithfully represent the views of his
constituents, even though they conflict with positions officially endorsed by the Catholic Church
(“his religion”). The analysis is competent and meets the expectations of the 4 score-point. (A
more thoughtful response may ask whether convictions privately held—by the Vice President or
any government official—influence decision-making more powerfully than the pressures of
institutional affiliation). Paragraph three makes the basic point that even the surviving Boston
Marathon bomber should be guaranteed “a fair trial” despite popular support for his death. The
argument stumbles a bit at this point, with only vague assertions offered as support (e.g., “If we
make exceptions based on something like this, it opens the door for other precedents that were
not intended or fair;” and “Luckily there are many checks and balances” in place “to prevent
something like this”). Use of language in this response is also adequate and writing conventions
are sufficiently controlled. This response meets all requirements for a score of 4.

Score 3
Essay Response
I would like to go with the second half of the statemant made by the author that government
officials should should make decesions on the basis of their own judgement. I have certain
reasons to support my view point.
First, as government officilas are qualified and experienced citizens; thus, they can have a
broader perspective over the issues of the nation. They can understand the situations better than
the general public. They have the responsibility of the manitaning peace and the development of
the whole nation. For instance; scientists have put all their efforts in the development of the high-
tech clone of sheep dolly which is considered as the remarkable invention in the field of genetic -
engineering. Nonetheless, this technology can be used by the public in various ways and because
of this has been restricted by the goverment. For instance, if this will be used to engender a clone
of a philanthropist, like great personality, Mahatma Gandhi then probably govenment would not
have banned this outstanding and laudable achievement of scientists. However, if the same clone
technology is used for the delopment of a milathropist such as notorious terrorist Bin Laden then
there would be again be a serious threat to the lives innocent people.
Second, govenment officials have to make decisions for the whole nation.This can be illustrated
by the example of China which is one of the major power in the world. Chinese govermnent has
imposed a rule of not having more than one child per couple. However; if govermwnt will just
think for every individual they serve, then probably, Chinese goverment would not have been be
able to do. As a result fo this, China has succeeded so far in the field of technology because its
govenment is not facing the dearth of the funds beacuse of grandiose population. However, this
is not the case with the underdeveloped countries like India, Pakistan, Bangaldesh and the like.
There people are superstitious and think that children are the gift of God and hence, it is good to
have as many as possible. In these countries govenmnet officilas are not able to impose the
family planning rule as China. As a result of which, these countries are suffering form the
problems of hunger and poverty andn thus, are not able to contribute effectively in the
devlopment of the technology.
Thus, in conclusion, it can be said that it is a wise step for the goverment of any country if its
officials will think legisbly and make their own decisions for the devlopment of a balanced and
strong economy.
Rater Commentary
This 3-level response agrees that government officials should base decisions on their own
judgment, as superior qualifications and experience equips them to grasp issues of national and
international importance and then act in the interests of the “general public,” who depend upon
their leaders to carry this out in a responsible manner. The examples chosen to clarify and
support this view, however, are only partly effective, and are applied in a way that seems to
weaken rather than strengthen the position taken. For example, genetic engineering technologies
like cloning are regulated by the government to prevent their misuse “by the public.” The point is
undermined somewhat by the implication that the restrictions currently in place reflect the
arbitrary preferences of those who govern (“[I]f this will be used to engender a clone of a
philanthropist, like…Mahatma Gandhi then probably government would not have banned this
laudable and outstanding achievement of scientists…”). Similarly, economic and social benefits
associated with China’s “one child per couple” policy are presented as the result, not of leaders
making informed decisions on the basis of superior qualifications and experience, but of a
powerful government “impos[ing] a rule” upon the population. Countries “are suffering” where
“government officials are not able to impose the family planning rule as China.” These
observations are relevant but are only vaguely linked to the contrary viewpoint (“if government
will just think for every individual they serve, then probably, Chinese government would not
have been be able to do”). Finally, frequent errors in writing conventions leave meaning mostly
intact but limit overall clarity of the course of the response (“high-tech clone of sheep dolly,”
“used for the delopment of a milathropist,” “grandiose population,” “if its officials will think
legisbly”). Thus, this response merits a score of 3.

Score 2
Essay Response
The main purpose of the establishment of a government is to provide an ideal living environment
for its people. Thus these two perspectives are only partially correct for me. In the following, I
will disscuss the correct side and the incorrect side of each view.
First, on the incorrect side of fisrt statement, it is impossible for goverment officials to carry out
the will of the people, since, I can say, there is no even two people can have same opions all the
time, and then how government officials decide what is the will of the people? Even the officials
are elected, and follow the majority, might lead to terrible consequence for sometimes majosity
does not mean correct. People choose you to make the decisions, believe you know what is
better, but you should take the responsity. However, on the correct side government officials
have to know what is the will of the people they serve, and which sometimes is against the
officials will for officials may be seduced by some temptations in their position, and therefore,
some will of the people might threaten their personal profits.
Second the correct side of second statement is that this is the main purpose of the establish of a
government. The incorrect side of second statement is that official might be sedused by some
temptations which leads to decisions inproper and harmful to the people.
Thus only part of each statement is correct.
Rater Commentary
This response attempts to discuss points of agreement and disagreement with each of the two
views addressed by the prompt, but is seriously limited in developing a position on the issue.
Problems with development are evident from the outset: Claims about the “incorrect side” of the
“first statement” are largely unsupported or elaborated upon (government officials cannot
determine the will of the people, since “no even two people can have same opions all the time”
and if elected officials “follow the majority, might lead to terrible consequence”). As the
response proceeds, comments on “the correct side” become confusing (“for officials may be
seduced by some temptations in their position, and therefore, some will of the people might
threaten their personal profits”). Discussion of the “second statement” is incomplete; points from
previous paragraphs are repeated and inserted at random. In addition, problems with
development are compounded by errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics that obscure meaning
in key spots (“believe you know what is better, but you should take the responsity,” as well as
the last quoted material). For these reasons, the response receives a score of 2.

Score 1
Essay Response
The govenment officials provide some serves to people . This serves will be assesment by
persons who will use it. some people thghout what the government officials had to be good
enuogh to taloraet that what the people serve , in this case the serves will depened on the staf
who worked in that offices and on the people how they deal with serves . The people different
from each other ,some of them can be flixeble and can be accepte the serves as it provaid but
other may they did not to accept any serves unless be perfect .On other hand the officials should
be know its objects and aims for its serves and what they want to produced . The decisions and
judgement very important which have a big influance on the official serves . In some official
serves such in idenftefication offices they arrainge ther web saite to scadual the customers in
certain dates and spacific time to gaine more time with high level of serves ,also it learn the
people how to respect the time and they achive a good serves .The mentaining time and people
serves it the most important things which the persons looking for

Rater Commentary
This response demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing. Though seeming to
address in a general sense the idea of government officials and the importance of the service
(“serves”) they provide, severe problems with language and sentence structure pervade the
response and defeat any attempt to present these ideas coherently in ways suggested by the task
directions (“The people different from each other ,some of them can be flixeble and can be
accepte the serves as it provaid but other may they did not to accept any serves unless be perfect
.On other hand the officials should be know its objects and aims for its serves and what they
want to produced”). Even when read supportively, fragments describing online customer service
scenarios offer little evidence that the issue or the assigned task have been understood (“they
arrange ther web saite to scadual the customers in certain dates and spacific time”). Errors in
grammar, usage, and mechanics persistently interfere with whatever meaning the writer intends
to convey. Hence, this response merits a score of 1.
Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to
solve the anticipated problems of the future.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the
recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and
supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation
would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

Score 6
Essay Response
Author of the Constitution, James Madison once stated, "If men were angels, no government
would be necessary." I think that this quote aptly sums up why government officials should
balance their own judgment and expertise with the will of the people they serve. This is the best
way for the system to work because there are problems with the other forms of government, no
one has perfect judgment, and it is the best way to ensure that quality policies are being carried
out.
The founders of the United States set out to create a system like no other because they saw the
problems that arose for other kinds of governments. They rebelled against a cruel and foreign
monarchy which either didn't know the will of the people under its rule or didn't care. They knew
from firsthand experience that the judgment of people in power was not always the best.
However, at the same time, they saw the collapse of a pure form of democracy in ancient Greece
where the people's whims were always carried out. Democracy was a dirty word, and equated to
"mob rule." The majority always got its way even at the expense of the minority's rights.
Therefore, they decided it best for the people to have some say in the policies and laws that
affected them, but to ultimately put the power in the hands of representatives who were qualified
and could use their expertise to make the tough decisions about what is best for the country.
Since its inception, the representative form of government has been successful in the United
States and when it is duplicated abroad.
It should be apparent that it would be dangerous to give lawmakers or the people complete power
over what laws are made in the country. No one has perfect judgment all of the time, whether it
be an expert policymaker or the general citizenry. There are a great many examples of this in the
United States. For instance, the issue of same-sex marriage was put to a popular vote in many
states. The more liberal and open minded state populations voted to allow it, while other more
conservative and traditional state populations created added amendments to their state
constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. This created problems when married couples moved to a
new state with a ban and could not get divorced because their new state of residence did not
recognize their union. Ultimately, it the judges appointed to the Supreme Court that decided this
complex issue. These experts on Constitutional law took the rights of all citizens into account,
and using their years of accumulated wisdom and experience, while also taking into account the
changing nature of public opinion regarding same-sex unions, decided that it best served the
nation’s interest to guarantee and protect the rights of same-sex couples.
However, it is also true that the representative form of government is far from perfect. Far too
often, policymakers tend to lose touch with what their citizenry wants, especially those in
Congress and the Senate, who spend much of their time in Washington, DC, far from the
everyday lives and concerns of their constituents. This day and age, politicians at the national
level may be influenced more by lobbyists than by their constituents. For instance, the recent
debate about gun control. The vast majority of American citizens would like for their to be some
new laws regarding purchasing guns, specifically related to background checks for gun buyers.
Yet, even though bills related to this have been introduced in the Congress, they have either
failed to pass them or failed to even schedule a vote on the particular bill. In theory, lawmakers
should be held accountable (by citizens voting them out of office if they are unhappy) by the
citizens they serve. However, in practice, this is not always the case. If government officials no
longer even had the threat of being held accountable for their voting records by citizens, they
could just pursue the policies that benefit themselves and the special interests that donate money
to them for every issue, without regard to what would happen to the people they serve. In my
opinion, this is a very flawed way to govern.
Thus, for a representative government to be effective and result in the best policies, it is
imperative that a combination of the judgment of government officials and the will of the people
is in place. It is impossible for the general public to be knowledgeable about every governmental
issue. This could be for a variety of reasons: they don't have the education or the time to study
the issues, or certain areas of policy should not be made known to a large number of people (i.e.
information that might impact national security). On more technical issues ( which also tend to
coincide with things people do not care about), government officials should use their judgment
and expertise to make policy. But when it comes to issues that their citizenry care greatly about,
they should also take into consideration the will of the people they serve. The United States
government was set up in such a way to ensure that the best policies are made. This involved the
two chamber system, where the House could be more responsive to the citizens as they were
directly elected by citizens every couple of years. The Senate is more deliberative (though now
they are also elected by the people). But, the idea is to have a diverstiy of people and procedural
steps involved to ensure that everyone's voice is heard and that policies that are being created can
actually solve the problems they are meant to address. With some exceptions, I would say that
this process has worked out astonishingly well. So, in summation, it has been shown throughout
time that no men (or women) are angels, which is why it is vital that both the personal judgment
and expertise of government officials and the will of the people are necessary are consulted when
making policy.
Rater Commentary
This 6-level response presents a nuanced position on the importance of respecting both the
personal judgment of elected officials and the will of the people (e.g., paragraph 5). Compelling
reasons are offered in support: given insufficient education or access to information or concern
over the issues, the general public is compelled to rely on the judgment of the qualified few. But
since the few are in power at the behest of the people, they must take steps to "ensure that
everyone's voice is heard and that policies that are being created can actually solve the problems
they are meant to. With some exceptions . . . this process has worked out fairly well" (paragraph
5). The response also shows superior facility with English writing conventions, although minor
errors place the response at the lower end of the 6 range (e.g., "This day and age,”; "The vast
majority of American citizens would like for their to be some new laws regarding purchasing
guns . . .").

Score 5
Essay Response
At first glance, the claim that government officials ought to rely on their own judgement rather
than that of their constituents seems dubious. Certainly, the democratic process by which
candidates are elected for office suggests that these candidates owe their supporters due
obedience. Once voted to represent the people, a politican must surely work to represent those
same people who elected him or her. Yet upon closer examination, the statement rings true for
many successful and well-liked politicians, and is in fact integral to the political process. That is
to say, a politican's own judgement must be weighed with the favor of his/her constituents,
before making a decision.
It must be said that a democratically elected congressman or politician holds an important
obligation to his/her constituents. For example, a US state senator typically works to enact policy
decisions that benefit the people of his/her own state. Politicians must appease their supporters in
order to win future elections, and maintain their integrity with their voters. While this may
appear to be bias, it is part of the democratic process by which politicans are elected, and how
these politicans can speak for the people. This process cannot be understated in its importance. In
a democracy, the people elect their congressman and government officials to truly represent their
interests. At a society-wide scale, the voices of the people must be heard, and they will not be if
politicans ignore their constituents, and vote with their heart (or wallet) alone. It is through
representation, and the fair portrayal of the people's voice that the democracy formula does not
fall apart.
Despite the obligation politicans have towards their constituents, they must make decisions that
align with their values. Striking a balance between what the people want, and what the elected
official feels is best is a key relationship that few politicians have mastered. Surely, elected
politicians are not intended to mindlessly follow the wishes of their constituents. Individuals
working in government must make the best decisions they can, after weighing all possible
options. If biases towards home-state voters or corporate sponsors drive the decision-making for
a politican, corruption can easily take place in the political hemisphere.
In addition to avoiding corruption, politicans must be trusted to vote with their own judgement.
Politicians are professionals who understand the key issues and controversies better than the
average citizen (or so one hopes). In addition, no politican can successfully please everyone
100% of the time. It would be therefore dangerous to assume that the majority voice is always
the moral or rational one. A politican abandoning his/her best judgement to the at times
whimsical desires of the uninformed public can create lasting damage. For this reason, it makes
sense for a politician to use his or her own judgement to make decisions, even where his/her
constituents might disagree.
Integral to the democratic process is a relationship of trust between the people and their elected
officials. It is certainly the politicans job to speak for the people, and represent their best
interests. Yet, politicans must also avoid the system that forms them into malleable puppets,
poster boys and girls for whichever corporation speaks the loudest, or pays the highest. Politicans
must rely on their better judgement, and make the tough decisions that will inevitably create
divide between their citizens and constituents. The people must place their trust in elected
officials to do what is right, and the politicans must also respond to the needs of the people. This
balance of trust is the cornerstone of democracy.
Rater Commentary
This response is a solid 5, arguing that "a politician's own judgement must be weighed with the
favor of his/her constituents," who trust their leaders to represent their interests. This mutual trust
between elected officials and the people they serve is "the cornerstone of democracy." These
points are reinforced with sounds reasons: obligations to constituents must be fulfilled in ways
that are consistent with leaders' own values. Comments on obligations (paragraph 2) exemplify
the general thoughtfulness of the analysis and the facility and clarity of expression in evidence
throughout ("At a society-wide scale, the voices of the people must be heard, and they will not be
if politicians ignore their constituents, and vote with their heart (or wallet) alone. It is through
representation, and the fair portrayal of the people's voice that the democracy formula does not
fall apart").

Score 4
Essay Response
The recommendation or statement - that "government officials should rely on their own
judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people" seemingly paints the
scenario as having only two options: the good option of government officials "using their own
judgment", and the bad option of government officials carrying out "the will of the people".
Unfortunately, real life is not so cut and dry; government officials may not always have great
judgment, nor is the will of the people always misguided or bad. For such a recommendation to
be valid for every scenario, it requires government officials to be absolutely objective and
perfectly fair in their judgment.
An example of the recommendation - in which a government official relies solely on their own
judgment - can be observed in the infamous first emperor of Qin. At the top of his government
heirarchy, his decree and judgment were carried out without question - and most certainly
without considering the will of the people. As a result, he was able to complete such milestones
as uniting all of China and constructing the Great Wall of China, however his military and
architectural campaigns left great numbers of death in their wake. This is an extreme example in
which the government official was rather tyrannical. In the perfect world where government
officials have absolutely perfect judgement free of any greed, the recommendation becomes
valid, however it is evident that not every government official is an angel of lucid judgment and
therefore capable of causing extreme misery.
An antithesis example of the recommendation - in which the will of the people is carried out -
can be observed in the French Revolution. This revolution was centered around plebians ousting
out the ruling class in favor removing the social caste system and achieve equality. However, it
was unclear on how the masses wanted to replace the ousted government, and much of the
revolution devolved into anarchy in which the current governing figure head would be beheaded.
This is an extreme example of the will of the people running uncontrollably rampant. However it
shows that the masses may sometimes be misguided on how they carry out their task to achieve a
certain ideal. Evidently, relying on the masses may also result in calamity.
It is evident that the statement to rely on gvernment officials' judgment and it's antithesis of
relying on the people are both not ideal. It is perhaps better to choose a middle route, in which
government officials rely on their jugdment while also considering the will of the people. Such a
case is evident in the U.S. government, which has had a history of success thus far.
Rater Commentary
This basic 4 offers a clear position and is organized in a straightforward manner. The response
provides two types of examples--an "example of the recommendation, in which a government
official relies solely on their own judgment" and an "antithesis example of the recommendation,
in which the will of the people is carried out"--in order to argue that neither extreme is ideal (rule
by decree as in Imperial China, or mob rule as in the French Revolution): "It is perhaps better to
choose a middle route . . . as is evident in the U.S. government." Development of ideas is
adequate; the writing, likewise, is acceptably clear throughout.

Score 3
Essay Response
I disagree with the statement made that, government officials should not consider the will of
people and take decisions based on their judgements only.
Government officials should take decisions based on their own judgements as they have
knowledge of the work they are assigned to do but, considering public's opinion is also crucial.
Government officials are servents of the society, it is their duty to consider will of public.
Consider for example President of India, Mr. Narendra Modi came up with the decision of
"Demonetizing" recently. This led to an acopalyse in the whole nation as suddenly he announced
that, some of the higher value of notes are banned. Due to this decision, the amount of cash in
market tremendously decreased. Many people suffered in their bussiness, people of lower class
are able to sustain their daily needs even though they have money in their bank accounts. Thus,
such decision taken without thinking how it might affect common people's lives is not a good
move.
People working in banks are also government officials. If, suppose, a person approaches bank
with urgent withdrawal of large amount of money and the bank policies do not allow such large
withdrawal. Considering the need of that person bank should be flexible with rules, allowing him
the withdrawal with some application submitting that he is soley responsible if any mishaps
happens.
If the people are not happy and satisfied with the service provided by the government
organizations then they are not doing the work they are assigned to do. If the decision of the
President does not bring relief even after 90 days of announcement then in next election people
will hesistate electing his party.
As, government officials are trained to be in that position, they have knowldege of what they are
doing and what can be its consequences. So, we cannot say that the decisions take by him won't
bring good to the society. People might notice its advantages later. So relying on self judgement
can be considered as primary and people's will can be consider on secondary basis to that.
Thus, I believe, as government officials are meant to serve the people of nation, considering their
will is equally important as their own judgement.
Rater Commentary
This response only partially agrees with the recommendation, arguing that government officials
should use their own judgment to carry out "the work they are assigned to do," but since they
remain "servents of the society, it is their duty to consider will of the public." Relevant support
includes discussions of how changes in monetary policy should consider possible effects on
"common people" and how bank policies should be flexible enough to accommodate "mishaps"
and situations of urgent need. Problems in language and sentence structure tend to interfere with
clarity throughout (e.g., "[W]e cannot say that the decisions take by him won't bring good to the
society . . . So relying on self judgment can be considered as primary and people's will can be
consider on secondary basis to that"). For this reason, the response is scored a 3.

Score 2
Essay Response
 In this statement, the author claims that government officials should depend on "their own
judgment". I partially concede this statement that they should rely on their judgment in
sometimes. I do not espouse that they should ignore the others' opinion. They should accept and
evaluate the people's opinion who lives in their country.
First of all, I partially concord that they should hearken "their own judgment" in case of
confidential situation. Personalize of transportaion (train) in Republic of Korea, for instance, is
strongly objected by their nation. If officials personalize with ignorance to their nation, the bill
might be passed. In case of such like this, government officials can ignore others' voices.
Nonetheless, I disagree that they ignore "the will of the people they serve". Because, that
people are lives in their country. There is the following statement : "for the people, of the people,
by the people" by Abraham Lincoln. The officials must admit their people's opinions. I think that
the people constitute their country rather than their officials.
Furthermore, they shoud not accept "unquistioningly carry out the will of the people they
serve". Government officials' duty is to judge their nation. Therefore, they should appraise their
people's opinion.
In concusion, the government officials should have dependent on both their own judgment
and the people's opinion. They should not ignore both of them.
Rater Commentary
This response takes the position that government officials should rely on their own judgment, but
only as they carefully "accept and evaluate" the opinions of the people they govern. The writer
attempts to support assertions with examples, but serious problems with language and sentence
structure frequently interfere with meaning. For instance, the second paragraph mentions that
government officials can "ignore others' voices" in particular cases, but the example of pending
transportation legislation in South Korea is unclear and incomplete: "Personalize of transportaion
(train) in Republic of Korea . . . is strongly objected by their nation. If officials personalize with
ignorance to their nation, the bill might be passed." For this and similarly unclear examples, the
response is scored a 2.

Score 1
Essay Response
although, some people agree that goverment should considers to the unguestioninguly carry
out the will of the people they serve, I strongly agree that government should rely on their own
judgment, because of rules applicate on all people and peole have change openions.
first, the goverment have a strong rules that are studeid and applicated in many different
countries so the people will be under specific and fair rules. for example, all the peple will have
specific rules any where no one can break the rules, if they do they will have a panchiment ,thus
all the people will be same and save under specicific rules.
Anathor reasons is that people have different kinds of openins and usuallay depend on their
emotion so it will be change. Furthermore, they people willbe under un fair decissions that is not
peoven and studed.
 In conclusion, Government official should rely on their own judment becuse the people will
be specific proven rules and not on their changed un constant peop if the people follow
government rules, they will be under fair.
Rater Commentary
This response attempts to address the topic and task, but severe errors persistently interfere with
meaning (e.g., "Furthermore, they people willbe under un fair decissions that is not peoven and
studed"). The response is scored a 1.
Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who
is an expert in that field.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim.
In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons
and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

Score 6
Essay Response
It is difficult to disagree completely with the assertion put forth for us: "Critical judgment of
work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that
field." As somebody who has spent the bulk of my undergraduate education in the theatre, I have
often found myself exasperated when non-theatre people have given intense critiques related to
acting, directing, or any number of technical design positions. That being said, this is perhaps a
good example of the differences between critical judgment and the offering of opinions. Many
people assert that opinions are never wrong; honestly, this is another assertion that it is difficult
to disagree with; however, no matter how firmly one holds opinions, the most unpopular among
them can often be a cause for immense controversy. I return to my theatrical example, as it is the
example most familiar to me: when many critics praise a certain production, (whether it be on
Broadway, regionally, or even at a local high school) any dissenting opinion is often called out as
unnecessary or angry. Oftentimes this dissenter is accused of having some kind of issue with the
creative team or actors involved. More often than I would like, I have seen those whose opinions
are different than the norm simply accused of being "jealous." This creates a frustrating arena of
opinion -- what is the point of expressing opinion if it is simply going to be dismissed unless the
critiqued party in question is happy with it? I doubt this is a purely theatrical issue -- I am sure
those who participate in the sciences, math, other liberal arts, and more politically minded fields
experience the same things every day.
Critical judgment, on the other hand, seems to me another animal entirely. While a large
section of critical judgment is the giving of a person's subjective opinion, (perhaps this is
redundant -- surely all opinion is subjective, if some more influenced by fact or reason than
others) the phrase "critical judgment" implies, in my opinion, a form of analysis and a strong
mulling over of the material that can really only be achieved effectively by someone whose
opinions on the matter they are critiquing are rooted more in previous knowledge of the field
than in simple experience alone. To be an "expert" in a field such as theatre is an extremely
general term. Perhaps being an "expert" simply means you have acted in several productions,
served as creative director for a company, majored in Theatre in some way in college; or,
perhaps, you have simply seen a wealth of theatre that has allowed you to experience a wide
variety of theatrical qualities and choices. Being an "expert," in this case, is almost as subjective
as opinion itself. However, I must admit, that any type of critical judgment I have received in the
theatre has meant much more coming from somebody who I consider an "expert" in the field.
For example: if my mother tells me I did an excellent job acting in a production, it is
certainly a prideful moment for myself and her, and I am more than happy to accept her support.
However, there is something much more innately valuable if New York Times critic Ben
Brantley praises my acting, or even if a local director I hope to work with in the future takes time
out of his or her day to express their happiness with my performance. This does not make my
mother's opinion less valuable in general, but I do believe that it makes it less valuable in terms
of my theatrical worth. My mother will think I'm great no matter how horribly I do, because she
is a good and supportive woman; New York Times critic Ben Brantley has little to no regard for
my feelings, and will only praise me because his vast knowledge of theatre and experience
critiquing shows has led him to believe that I am a head above the rest. Though my chosen
example was a lengthy one, I believe it accurately reflects my opinion on this issue.. However, I
also understand that I have only covered one part of the assertion given to us. While I agree that
critical judgment certainly has more value when it comes from an "expert," I do not necessarily
agree with the section of the assertion that claims that critical judgment has NO value UNLESS
it comes from an expert. To take us back to my previous example, my mother's opinion certainly
HAS value -- particularly if it is an honest, articulate, and well-meaning opinion, whether
positive or negative. Her opinion is not of "little value" simply because she is not an expert in
theatre. However, I do agree that it has less value, in terms of a person career-oriented in the
theatre, than the opinion of an expert. Therefore, I think the best way I can answer whether I
agree or disagree with this claim, is to say that I mostly agree with it, but allow for the possibility
of observations or opinions of value coming from people who are far from "experts" just as often
as they come from the "experts" themselves.
Rater Commentary
This 6-level response shows compelling, thorough development through the use of an extended
example drawn from the writer's experience in the theatrical field. In this well-focused, insightful
discussion, the response argues that while an expert's critical judgment is often more valuable
than the non-expert's "subjective opinion," it cannot be said that the latter has no value. The
writer offers compelling, persuasive support, effectively contrasting the praise and criticism
offered by professional journalists and theatre critics on the one hand, and by "non-experts"
(including the author's mother) on the other. The task is skillfully addressed, and implicit
counterarguments are given due attention. The response complicates the issue further by showing
the nebulousness of the term "expert": "Perhaps being an ‘expert’ simply means you have acted
in several productions, served as creative director for a company, majored in Theatre in some
way in college; or, perhaps, you have simply seen a wealth of theatre that has allowed you to
experience a wide variety of theatrical qualities and choices. Being an ‘expert,’ in this case, is
almost as subjective as opinion itself." Finally, as shown in the preceding quote, the writing
shows superior facility throughout. For these reasons, this response merits a score of 6.

Score 5
Essay Response
The issue claims that judging work harshly in whichever should not be done by those who are
not highly knowledgeable and studied in that particular area. This is a complex issue indeed. It is
sometimes true that expert opinions should be valued over others. However, at times this point
could also be invalid. In order to form a well-reasoned opinion on the matter, it is essential to
analyze the questionable assumptions that this claim makes. Support in favor as well as
compelling evidence against this particular issue and examples of each will be provided.
One example in favor of the claim is that field experts have particular knowledge likely garnered
from years of experience and education. Therefore, their counsel on any topic within their ken
can be considered supported. One anecdote from today's political rhetoric supports this. Climate
change has been a debated topic, and many scientists researching the subject have published
research with clear evidence that proves it exists. However, in the political arena, certain
politicians reject the notion of climate change as a hoax and negate the evidence presented by
researchers in their rhetoric. It is much more difficult for some to believe politicians who do not
understand the science behind the global temperature shift. Sound evidence provided by experts
on climate change is much more plausible.
However, one example against the claim is that opinions and input from individuals outside the
field can still be valid. They bring different views and interpretations that perhaps those within
the field are blind to. For example, there are many cross cultural differences when it comes to
beliefs about illness. A doctor, an expert in curing and diagnosing illness, might not have the
cultural competence to help someone from a different belief system. For that reason, a member
from that community would be better apt to help understand the differences that are perhaps lost
in translation.
A third example against this claim is that judgment is valuable to a specific person and his or her
belief system throughout a lifetime. Solely because an expert argues that a certain lifestyle is
better or healthier does not hold true for every individual. In this sense, each person has the right
to choose what path to follow and what information to accept. For example, an expert nutritionist
could claim that a vegetarian lifestyle is the best option because it reduces our footprint and the
amount of hormones we ingest. However, those with certain illnesses, many fruit allergies, or
even mothers with finicky children would find this advice difficult to follow. The judgment of
the individual in this case, although not an expert in the field of nutrition, is valid because they
are an expert in their own lives and needs.
In conclusion, this is a complex issue. As the evidence presented clearly shows, there are
compelling reasons for judgment of any field by an expert. It is sometimes true that experts can
provide necessary information and judgment within their area of expertise. On the other hand,
their opinions and knowledge may not be applicable in all instances. In drawing from both sides
of the argument, it seems more valid to assume that experts are not always right. Their merit in
whichever field is not law, and individuals are also free to judge whatever they say or claim. In
the future, it would be more beneficial to evaluate both expert and lay opinions alike in order to
properly judge an issue for its worth. In this way, a more multi-faceted progression could be
achieved and promote the growth of mankind.
Rater Commentary
This response is a solid 5, arguing that while expert opinion represents the accumulation of
knowledge and experience in a given field, this opinion is not uniformly valued within the field
or by outsiders, and should not preclude new evidence or the reasonable contributions of non-
experts. Thoughtfulness is achieved by contrasting the benefits of a "multi-faceted" perspective:
advantages of the "experts only" position are highlighted with well-chosen examples (e.g.,
plausible scientific evidence on climate change is preferable to contentious political rhetoric),
while the importance of individual discretion is noted in the discussion on nutritional advice. The
writing demonstrates facility and clarity of expression throughout.

Score 4
Essay Response
Critical judgment of a work in any given field does not necessarily have to come from one
whom is an expert in that field. In situaitons in which music, movies, or paintings are up for
judgment, every valid opinion does not come from a musician, a director, or an artist. However,
there are also cases in which a critic who is an expert in that field is the only person qualified to
judge a certain work. For example, a nuclear engineer would not necessarily be qualified to
review a dissertation from a clinical psychology phD student. That nuclear engineer is obviously
not without vast amounts of knowledge but not the knowledge needed to critically review a
psychology work.
As previously mentioned, works from the entertainment and arts category do not require an
expert in the field to form a critical and reliable opinion of the subject. Whenever a new movie
comes, it is immediately subject to countless reviews. Consumers do not just trust reviews of
directors, actors, and professional critics. Consumers turn to sites such a Rotten Tomatoes and
Google to look for reviews from ordinary people who took in the movie in a couple hours of
their free time. In many cases, those novice reviews hold just as much value as a professional's
opinion. In even more scenarios, people will trust the opinions of their close friends over any
others. People are going to trust those that are most like themselves. They think that if a friend or
someone like them likes a certain movie, they will probably like it themselves.
However, on the opposite end of the spectrum there will be cases in which the only qualified
person to review a work is a person that is an expert in that field. In graduate school, students are
required to write a dissertation in order to be awarded their phD. The people that review their
dissertation are experts. Most of those experts have their phD in the same field as the student.
Some of those experts have studied what the student has been studying for the past five years of
theirs lives so are uniquely qualified to pass a reliable judgment. There would never be a
scenario in which a review board would bring in a food critic or a wildlife expert to pass
judgment unless the subject of the dissertation was pertaining to teaching animals language or
how food makes humans feel.
Obviously, these two scenarios are just a small example of the millions out there. There are
many situations in which a critical judgment of work does not need to come from an expert to
have a valuable argument. However, there are just as many cases in which an expert is the only
one with the knowledge, experience, training and skills to review a work.
Rater Commentary
With a clear position ("Critical judgment of work does not need to come from an expert to have a
valuable argument") and satisfactory development, this response is an example of a standard 4.
The position is supported with examples of situations in which expert judgment is not needed
(like reviews of new movies, when "people are going to trust those that are most like
themselves"), followed by situations in which "an expert is the only one with the knowledge,
experience, training and skills to review a work" (e.g., those who hold PhDs or graduate degrees
in a field are most qualified to evaluate the work of PhD students). Ideas are adequately
organized throughout and expressed with acceptable clarity.

Score 3
Essay Response
The value to the work is given when it is judged by the person who excels in that field. I agree
with the claim, it is true that an expert in the particular field may judge the work as he would be
well versed in that field and can easily identify the pros and cons of the work.
One thing which i experienced personally in my college days is that when i submitted my
thesis work on a project related to Cardiology department, i reported the final copy based on it to
my professor who monitors me during project to suggest me if any corrections . She did not
make any corrections and returned me as such but when i gave to the head of the department i
was surprised when i found many red marks on my copy. He told me all my mistakes and
corrected me. As he was a perfectionist than my professor he helped me and i scored good
marks.
The other example which i came across is my brother published an article on his own
without help from anyone. It was really a good article related to biomarker but as he published it
without any professor's name it was not approved by many. Later he republished the article again
with the help of a doctor who is excelled in research work and his article was approved to be
published. He was praised by all his college faculty regarding his work.
I partially disagree with the claim as for instance in a company an empyolee may have more
knowledge when compared to his boss . All the work in a company is done by the employees and
the boss just allot them work who might not be knowing about it but the work would be
approved.
With the certain examples explained above i conclude by saying that i most agree with the
claim which states that a judgement to a work given by a person who excels in that particular
field is more acceptable and applauded.

Rater Commentary
This response demonstrates some competence in responding to the task directions, but earns a 3
because it is weak in the use of relevant examples, and because language errors impede clarity.
The second paragraph seems to imply that the department chair marks more errors on a student's
assignment than a professor due to being more qualified to judge the work (though, presumably,
the professor would be an "expert," too). The example in the subsequent paragraph of the writer's
brother has a vague connection to the issue. Language control is also limited, since errors impede
clarity ("As he was a perfectionist than my professor he helped me and i scored good marks";
"All the work in a company is done by the employees and the boss just allot them work who
might not be knowing about it but the work would be approved"). A score of 3 is appropriate.

Score 2
Essay Response
I agree that critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from
someone who is an expert in the field. Many people like their voices to be heard, so giving
critical judgement serves as reinforcement. The problem is, many people have numerous biases
that affect their critical judgement. Generally, experts in the field have the education credentials
and work experience to be well versed in the area. For example; if an artist is working on a
canvas and needs someone to critique his or her work, seeking advice from someone who has
little knowledge of art is not be beneficial. An unexperienced critic may say the canvas looks
good or can use some improvement, but an expert will be able to tell the artist what is
specifically wrong and how it can be improved.
Rater Commentary
Although the language control is fairly strong, this response still satisfies more than one criterion
for a score of 2. It is seriously limited in presenting and developing a position on the issue,
offering simple assertions without relevant supporting reasons or examples, such as "many
people have numerous biases that affect their critical judgement" and "experts in the field have
the education credentials and work experience to be well versed in the area." While these
assertions appear reasonable, little to no effort is made to develop them into an analytical
position.

Score 1
Essay Response
the statement critical judjement of wirk in any given field has a complex statement ,the
judjement is one of the most important thing in the modern days , its depending on the situation
and pocessition , if any time we provide the sollutions we can observe the truue values. iprovide
soutable examples and reasons in suporting of my point of you.
the first reason why i agrre with the statement is that, sinciority is th e and no relations ,in
that time we cannot use any type of relationship ,why because in my village some people are
beated each other ,after one day those all are come to the judjement in respected people in village
, the judge has emotioned and given the judjement one side ,ehy because one batch is his cast
mates ,so he given one side judjement.
the second reason why i accept the above statement is that, truist and humanity , this is main
important in the judjement time ,it can be the using in the critical decession times .so we can
extrely trust eac one in the problem.in my i have seen directly one sittuations .in america the
decessions are taken quickly in few days . at the same time some countries the judjement is come
several days.
another reason why agree with then above statement is that,in the decessins are taking is one
impotrant skill .our totally eork is depending on the our work.in businessmens are coumplsary
having this one and taking the belivable decessions, after the sittuation it is not in our hands,so
business mens are definetely imroving their skill in decession making .
finally in the conclussion the judjement and decession making is the very simple thing and at
the same time very hard thing .the persons was to be the improving his skill on the public areas
,and we can see and follow the old people mentality and observed thei judjements.so the
judjement skills is come from natural society and live sittuations from the law and order.so we
can be the improving his skills in the judjement,this is much more important in the competetive
world.
Rater Commentary
Despite its length and the use of transitional language, this response demonstrates fundamental
deficiencies in the control of language and writing conventions. Throughout the response, severe
errors persistently interfere with meaning (e.g., ". . . the judge has emotioned and given the
judjement one side ,ehy because one batch is his cast mates ,so he given one side
judjement").The response is scored a 1.