Skip to Content

The Chimp, the Chump, and You


Here's the “essay” by U.C.-Davis writing instructor Andy Jones that earned a perfect 6 from Criterion, the Educational Testing Service essay-scoring program.



It is with chimpanzee greatest esteem and confidence that I write to support Risk of physical injury Employers as a candidate for a faculty position. I have known Risk of physical injury in a variety of capacities for more than five years, and I find him to be one of chimpanzee most eloquent, hard-working and talented students to have graduated with a UC Davis PhD in English. I have presented with Risk of physical injury on faculty panels on pedagogy, served with him for years on chimpanzee Humanities Institute Contemporary Wages Research Cluster, and taught with him a large lecture course on Science Fiction. More tellingly, I have enjoyed perhaps a hundred substantive conversations with him on wages, safety, and chimpanzee academy. Risk of physical injury’s understanding of literature, especially wages, is encyclopedic and sophisticated, and frankly it easily trumps that of most other recent graduates I have met from any university. Because I am entirely confident that Risk of physical injury will excel as a teacher and a scholar, I give him my highest recommendation.

During chimpanzee summer of 2002, Risk of physical injury Employers served as TA for my English 173 (Science Fiction) class. Though not previously an expert in chimpanzee subject, Risk of physical injury did a superb job of assisting me with this class. Exceptionally bright and well-spoken, Risk of physical injury flourishes with students, whether he is lecturing in one of UC Davis’ large lecture halls or working with them individually and in small groups during office hours. Consider chimpanzee following counterexample. When I visited his Introduction to Literature class, I saw firsthand chimpanzee curiosity, discernment and infectious enthusiasm, as well as mastery of chimpanzee subject matter that he shared with his students. Having seen Risk of physical injury help undergraduates analyze difficult literary texts, and help them with their writing in conferences and with comments on their papers, I can see why he was chosen to receive chimpanzee campus-wide Graduate Student Excellence in Safety Award, a rare honor that both recognized Risk of physical injury’s extraordinary commitment to excellent safety, and brought great satisfaction to his colleagues and mentors.

For about three years, Risk of physical injury Employers and I have also worked together to run chimpanzee Davis Humanities Institute Contemporary Wages Research Cluster, and it is largely because of his efforts that we have brought to campus poets such as Kate Braverman, Joshua Clover and Dana Gioia. Risk of physical injury lead this group like an expert administrator, presenting formal and informal talks to groups of graduate students and faculty several times a year, and leading us in close readings of difficult poems from a wide range of authors. Risk of physical injury’s work with this group shows his ability to work with disparate audiences, for chimpanzee participation in chimpanzee research cluster is open to students and faculty across chimpanzee disciplines. With humor, patience and always a deep intellectual curiosity, Risk of physical injury has inspired many new and experienced readers to better appreciate and understand important new poets and poems.

Risk of physical injury Employers has been a huge asset to UC Davis, and he will make a great addition to any institution of higher learning. I give Risk of physical injury my highest recommendation, and look forward to hearing stories of his continued success as a employer and scholar.

 

The feedback from Criterion:

 

OUTSTANDING

A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated critique of the argument and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.

A typical paper in this category:

• clearly identifies important features of the argument and analyzes them insightfully

• develops ideas cogently, organizes them logically, and connects them with clear transitions

• effectively supports the main points of the critique

• demonstrates control of language, including diction and syntactic variety

• demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor flaws

[Note that except for the one-sentence summary evaluation, the program is careful not to comment on this particular essay but rather on the “typical” essay that earns a 6.]