Dwyer 1

Brianna Dwyer

Mrs. Pacuk

English 2H Period 1

6 April 2018

The Fight to Provide for the People Who Fight for Us

Throughout this project, in order for a fulfilled and impactful paper, I had done multiple

revisions over the course of approximately two months. After having written the rough draft I

found that my paper was lacking in reaffirmation of my thesis throughout. Therefore, I decided

to focus on connecting each body paragraph back to my thesis and highlighting the contrast

between the issue, and what needs to be done for progression towards a solution. Additionally, I

ineffectively transitioned from each body paragraph and section contributing to a confusing

construction and organization of ideas. To fix this I made sure to focus on the introduction and

concluding sentences of each paragraph. Lastly, for the best possible paper, I revisited each of

my quotes and evidence. By doing this I recognized that certain quotes were unnecessary or

more meaningful if paraphrased.

The U.S military recruits approximately

175,000 Americans annually with a reported

2,266,883 troops serving in 2010 (Carter). As

each of these soldiers symbolize the pride of

America by working symbiotically to achieve

peace, the hope of a safe return is enshrined as

one of their motivations to persist and

 Dwyer 2

persevere. Of those that experience active-duty and are lucky enough to survive, it is believed

that their battle would be over once having returned; however, the biggest barrier and struggle

they face is cultivated in what is speculated as their safe place: home. As time has progressed

from the 20th century to the present, policies and reforms have been constituted as a compromise

for Veterans who need assistance in the transition to civilization from a military atmosphere.

Additionally, agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs tries to fulfil the same

promise granted by the American people with a nationally provided budget, but fail in the

facilitation for veterans after they return. ​Stereotypes, stigma, and logistical barriers created by

an ill equipped society and aging bureaucracies have isolated Veterans causing them to not

receive adequate care. These obstacles and current policies are defective and need to be resolved

by initiating social and political change, such as increasing education and adapting policies, in

order to stop negatively affecting soldiers mentally and physically.

In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt constituted the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act,

also known as the GI Bill, and professed the bill gave ​"emphatic notice to the men and women in

our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down” (Leepson). ​This

promise was relied on by veterans in order to feel a newfound sense of belonging in society, and

have an adept transition back into civilization. But the three provisions of the bill

which“...included 52 weeks of unemployment compensation, a home loan program, and

subsidies for higher education”, as well as supplied $500 million for new VA hospitals” (Carter)

did not fulfill this hope. It can be understood that the government was beginning to understand

the needs of former military personnel, but the supplementary policies did not generate a

meaningful impact on all veterans, and rather only succeeded in aiding minorities.
 Dwyer 3

Overarchingly, the addition of the GI Bill to the already existent social welfare programs created

a new approach at rehabilitation, and was the basis of an expanded role of American

government. For instance, with the intention of providing a more accommodating society and

aiding Veterans, also came an ulterior motive: “one congressional study from 1988 estimated

that for every $1 the government spent on educational benefits, veterans returned nearly $7 to

public coffers in increased tax revenue or added economic output” (Carter). This economical

boom recognizes the GI bill as a transformative moment during this time period, but also reveals

how the objective of the bill was disregarded by the manifestation of American greed. This

conflict of interest results in an inadequate policy at addressing veterans and their quality of care.

Overall, this bill may be comprised with wholehearted intents and good aspects, but has become

unreliable today because it did not evolve with society and is not accustomed to subsequent

veterans. A veteran explains its disintegration and says, “My personal problems are not

psychiatric... I’m going to college. I’m getting benefits I already earned, but it feels like I got to

beg for them. I’m almost homeless. And every month, the bit I get from the GI Bill, it’s not

enough to make it out there in the real world. And every year, the GI Bill is going down. It

already dropped like $300.00, $400.00 a month” (Rozanova). The GI Bill was defined as a

moment of reinvention for America, but now is only considered as a step in the right direction.

Despite the multiple benefits it provides, it is still an unrealistic accomodation for veterans in

their integration back into society.

In addition to reform and policies, such as the GI bill, new agencies were created as a

more adaptational approach at providing health care for veterans, and facilitating their transition.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, created in 1930, is an agency utilized for health care,
 Dwyer 4

benefits programs, and burial or memorial assistance for Veterans. With a federally provided

budget “larger than those of the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and

the entire U.S. intelligence community combined” (Carter), the organization prides itself on its

easily accessible resources and the ability to fulfil veterans’ american dream. Although this

organization can compensate for surface-level injuries and hardships they fail to recognize the

personal connection that is required for veterans to thrive. A veteran concludes: ​“I honestly don’t

think there is much they [psychiatrists at the VA Hospital] can do to help, they can only give you

pills [when] I need more money and full time work, [and] someone to fall in love with and have

a family with” (Rozanova). Although extensive valuable resources are allocated for the

reintegration of veterans, they do not sustain individual veterans personal needs or understand

individualized struggles. Specifically, ​“aging bureaucracies struggle to meet the needs of a

diverse and dispersed population. Educational and economic support programs fail to keep pace

with the changing needs of veterans and their families” (Carter).

 Dwyer 5

This inefficient agency is a result of systematic composition and incompetent employees or

defective hiring. In recent news, these issues were exposed at a VA hospital in Washington D.C

where patients administered anesthesia had underwent a prolonged procedure due to surgical

instruments that were unavailable after the start of the procedure (CBS news). Other deficiencies

can be described as “​doctors and nurses forced to make do by borrowing supplies from a nearby

hospital, while 500,000 items sat unused at a warehouse” as well as “the government rented

items like three home hospital beds for nearly $875,000, that would have only cost $21,000 to

buy” (CBS news). Employees and government officials are crediting these systematic errors to a

failure of leadership: David Shulkin took no action in fixing prolonged problems even with three

VA program offices aware of this issue under his supervision. This disconnection resulting in

poor care for veterans is just one of the most recent examples of how the government is

disrupting the transition for veterans, instead of helping. In recognition of these issues the

government has passed the VA Accountability Act which ​ “will enable the VA Secretary to do

everything necessary to improve veterans’ care to a standard that appropriately reflects the

sacrifices endured by our heroes” (Parkinson). This act is a promise to do better and break a

cycle of reform and failure; however, even though this new legislation will hold employees

accountable it does not address other issues and thus can only act as an ongoing compromise,

rather than a solution.

Of these existing agencies, veterans mainly access care or treatment through the DOD’s

Military Health System (MHS) and the VA’s Health Care System, both of which have the

resources to aid veterans, but are not easily allocated or given (Institute of Medicine). These
 Dwyer 6

organizations pose logistical and institutional-level barriers that result in inaccessible treatment

for veterans; veterans cannot

accommodate their lifestyle for

treatment when they have other

priorities. A substantial barrier is

that they cannot allocate time, or

accustom to a doctors strict

schedule for treatment when they

have to explore for or maintain a

job, making it virtually impossible

to experience desired support

(Rozanova). With an introduction

into a newly formed society, veterans must prioritize finding a job, knowingly putting financial

stability over their own health. Although this may seem like the most logical option for veterans

at the time, doctors have the duty to recognize that this will adversely affect veterans’ health later

in life, and thus need to adjust their schedules accordingly. Without the prioritization of veterans,

doctors are disrupting veterans’ transition by not facilitating their recovery, damaging their

health further. Additionally, once having returned, veterans find themselves without the

necessary resources to access the provided treatment such as “for those who did not have a car, it

took a very long time to use the public transportation system in getting to appointments”

(Rozanova). This reflects how even though treatment and institutions are present, they are

physically unreachable and thus inadequate at fulfilling their promise of recovery. These
 Dwyer 7

programs are also emotionally absent when dealing and treating veterans in need. Distinctly,

studies report that veterans are being unheard and misunderstood because they perceived the

doctors as “too busy, too haughty, or just too unavailable for them” (Rozanova). Veterans who

should be benefiting from these programs are feeling as though they being set aside, and not of

concern resulting in a feeling of unworthiness. A primary reason that the United States of

America cannot provide for veterans in their transition back into society is because they do not

truly comprehend the intensity of their struggles. This includes both barriers that prevent

veterans from getting treatment, and those that cause an insufficient recovery process altogether.

In modernized society, coexisting with these physical barriers is an imaginative blockade

known as stereotypes, which categorize veterans and set unrealistic expectations for their

self-image. This social stigma and lack of support has set basis for an unachievable standard,

ultimately influencing their quality of care. Collaterally, due to the strong expectation of veterans

to exhibit masculine qualities, veterans may never seek or halt treatment with the fear of being

perceived as weak (Stana). This is

because a veteran, who is perceived as

heroic, a leader, or successful career

builder, is transformed into an

unpredictable and violent person with

elevated killing skills after having

received a mental health diagnosis

(Rozanova). Specifically, mental illness is more likely to be overlooked internally and disguised

in response to the prominent social stigma created by society (Fletcher and St. George, 2011). It
 Dwyer 8

can be argued that this divide is created by veterans themselves since it is their decision to not

take advantage of the various resources; however, veterans cannot adapt to societal norms, and as

a result would rather hide their struggles than seek help. Through the unintended creation of

these barriers, society has inflicted unforeseen struggling on veterans because they are or feel

that their not truly able to access care. This prevents veterans from escaping the struggles of their

service, and ultimately commits them into a cycle of suffering.The dismissing of ill veterans is a

custom that has been adopted throughout history, and clearly defies the American promise to

provide for veterans after having sacrificed their lives. For example, in World War I soldiers that

were classified as “psychologically unable” would be killed for perceived cowardness, and could

even be “tied to the barb wire lines that protected the trenches” (Saperstein). History, and long

crude isolation of soldiers has set the basis for today’s society and is yet another reason for why

veterans believe seeking treatment may not be an option; soldiers believe that the exposure of

their illness will affect their career. This association with masculinity has only intensified the

issue causing increasing exploration; in fact, many “...studies suggest that admitting to mental

illness is often interpreted as malingering and may derail one’s military career” (Stana).

Stereotypes and stigma have enshrined the idea in veterans that mental instability will impair

how they are perceived, and thus their everyday life, whereas actually confronting the issue

would prevent further damage. This reveals how society has a moral obligation to omit these

stereotypes, and focus on emphasizing the importance of care so that veterans can ameliorate

from a deteriorating health status.

Although there are many policies in place to address the needs of veterans by assisting

their insertion back into civilization, the lack understanding from surrounding peers causes for an
 Dwyer 9

insufficient transition due to a feeling of alienation. Once having returned from war, veterans

may experience either a lack or influx of social comfort and support, both of which prove to be

useless in aiding veterans. This is due to a misinterpretation of one's experiences, and not being

able to relate to veterans, thus making the veterans feel alone or isolated. “Veterans felt that

those who had not served in the war could not truly understand them or their experiences during

service… Most families were making major efforts to provide support to veterans, but due to this

feeling of disconnection, veterans faced difficulties in accessing the support offered” (​Ahern​).

Due to misunderstandings and misconceptions, veterans feel that their inability to relate to

everyday citizens prevents them from accepting the help that is offered. Additionally, it is

prevalent that citizens might appraise the morality of veterans with the established societal

stigma which can contribute to uninviting treatment. Therefore, society and families have

amended social support forums so that veterans can receive necessary help, however, the policies

or social support itself have proved to be inadequate. Because of this, even though veterans may

recognize the help that is available, they may never pursue the different programs. A study

suggests that “while social support has many beneficial outcomes, those who experience greater

mental health symptom severity are less likely to seek support from others. Identifying contexts

in which social support is beneficial for Veterans with PTSD and depression will help to inform

Veterans Affairs (VA) patient care and caregiver programming” (Painter). Overall, it is not just

our duty to provide support, but also to recognize when it is needed and actually beneficial. By

developing and conducting additional studies, corrupt and mishandeling facilities can increase

their quality of care, which will conclude that maturing interpretation of veterans is needed. It

can also be supported that immediately succeeding veterans’ return is the time at which concerns
 Dwyer 10

regarding health must be immediately addressed in order to prevent future complications. A

study conducted by Lewandowski, Rosenberg, Parks, and Siegel affirmed that social support can

regulate the outcome of a traumatic event a veteran experienced. Ultimately, Brewins, Andrew,

and Valentine concluded that “lack of social support as a major posttraumatic predictor of the

onset of PTSD” (Stana). In turn, social support doesn't just address disruptive events during

service, but is also essential for a full recovery and prevention of further undoings. As a result,

social support is crucial in the readjustment for soldiers but a lack of understanding has inverted

its success as a recovery method; therefore, society needs to recognize when excess social

support is favorable for treatment, and understand its long lasting effect.

In recognition of this misunderstanding from surrounding society, in order to create a

smoother transition for these veterans, health care providers and other important figures such as

teachers and closely related family need to be educated on these health issues. There are two

main forums that veterans utilize for health care: the VA health care system, and common

civilian medical care facilities. The

VA health care system has proved to

be inadequate, which ultimately

reflects on how more than half of

America’s veteran population uses

alternate mechanisms of recovery

(Olenick). Concludingly, the colossal

use of civilian medical care facilities

 Dwyer 11

is “stressing the need for health care providers to be well versed in veteran-specific health issues,

war eras, and reintegration issues veterans face; in order to provide excellent veteran care and

outcomes” (Olenick). There is a direct relationship between the intelligence of those who provide

for veterans and their overall quality of care. In turn, for a more adequate transition back into

civilization the root of the problem must be addressed: those who are personally involved in their

recovery, but misinformed on how to actually provide tender care. Ultimately, “Preparing health

care providers to meet the complex needs of a vast veteran population can be facilitated by

implementing veteran content into curricula that includes veteran patient simulations and case

studies, and utilizes veteran clinical faculty” (Olenick). Veteran facilities need to utilize every

past and present resource in order to strengthen the intensity of care, and need to use past forms

of transgression and malpractice as opportunities to learn and adapt. Even if full education on the

issue cannot be provided for those who help facilitate veterans transition, they should at least be

exposed to material that will deepen their views on what veterans are truly experiencing.

“Transparent presentation of the veteran circumstance can facilitate an interdisciplinary approach

to care incorporating nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, mental health, pain

management, nutrition, psychosocial, and social support services to ensure positive health care

outcomes for this population” (Olenick). In turn, by prioritizing health care facilities to address

the imaginative cause of the issue, misinterpretation and absence of education on specialized

needs of veterans, veterans will finally receive quality and adequate care. Additionally, the innate

nature of society to dismiss the issue and misinterpret it has caused a gap resulting in a less

effective care system for Veterans. Society needs to cultivate the particular struggles that

veterans face by increasing their understanding on the issue. As a result, “...we must not deny
 Dwyer 12

the continued potential for emotional wounds and PTSD. In this sense, prevention issues for

PTSD are no different than for any health- related issue; the first step is education and

demystification” (Saperstein). By dismissing Veterans and categorizing care for veterans as

inferior to other issues, society is degrading how we address and provide for veterans when, in

reality, it should be regarded as an extrusive problem. Increasing education possibilities for

everyday citizens and those who are directly involved in veterans’ care will create a more equipt

rehabilitation process because it will eliminate restricting barriers and social stigma.

Following an illefectual society, American government and policymakers have created

long term policies and advocating agencies in an attempt to solve mistreatment of veterans;

however, they are not adapted to today’s society, further stressing the need to improve our

nation's engagement by updating resources to make them more accessible. Once having returned

from service, veterans are in search of an occupation that can accommodate to their newly

formed lifestyle. With little support from the government it is hard for veterans to pursue their

wants or dreams, therefore, the government needs to provide different programs that don’t just

address their mental standing. The government should offer vocational programs which may

introduce the donation of a loan for startup business, with the consideration that not all veterans

prioritize education (Carter). By subsidizing these programs and new training methods veterans

will lead a more stable lifestyle. It can be concluded: ​“successful veteran reintegration into

civilian life rests upon providing veterans with training that builds on their military knowledge

and skill, employment post-separation from service, homelessness prevention, and mental health

programs that promote civilian transition” (Olenick). In addition, policies and reforms that are

already legislated are incomplete when addressing the root of the problem: bureaucracy in the
 Dwyer 13

VA. This is because if the

government is going to create one

agency and ensure that it will

provide for veterans, it must face

no corruption. However, multiple

case studies and current events

have exposed the injustices within the organization, which subsequently adversely affect

veterans. Therefore, in order for a more just system, which will more effectively treat veterans,

the government needs to create effective solutions, policies, and reforms to prevent further

endurance of conflict.

An increasing amount of maltreatment has been observed in the aiding of veterans in

their transition back into civilization. By not giving them appropriate or suitable methods for

encompassing a normal lifestyle, society and the government are selfishly isolating veterans who

sacrificed their lives for ours. The government has created many policies and reforms in

confrontation of this issue, which both succeed and fail; however, they can only be addressed as

provisional compromises reflecting that change and reform is needed. Society has also

participated in this isolation by creating a stigma which affects the willingness of soldiers to seek

care, ruining their chance at reintegration in an unaccepting society. As a result, to move forward

America needs to spark change by addressing these issues, and creating a more suitable

environment for Veterans. Ultimately, we must call upon our government to extend their promise

of a safe return to a promise of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” for all veterans.
 Dwyer 14

Works Cited
Abramson, Larry. “VA Struggles To Provide Vets With Mental Health Care.” ​NPR,
National Public Radio, 25 Apr. 2012,
www.npr.org/2012/04/25/151319599/va-struggles-to-provide-vets-with-mental-healt
h-care.
Bennett, Geoff. “Congress Passes Bill To Increase Accountability Among VA Employees.”
NPR, National Public Radio, 13 June 2017,
www.npr.org/2017/06/13/531810565/congress-passes-bill-to-increase-accountability-
among-va-employees.
Committee on the Assessment of the Readjustment Needs of Military Personnel, et al.
“Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Assessment of Readjustment Needs of
Veterans, Service Members, and Their Families.” ​Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, U.S. National
Library of Medicine, 12 Mar. 2013, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206856/.
Connie Cone Sexton, The Arizona Republic. “As Suicides Rise among Veterans, Outreach
Increases.” ​USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 20 Mar. 2013,
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/19/veterans-outreach-increases/20015
71/.
Ifill, Gwen. “Why Is It so Hard for Some Veterans to Get Care from the VA?” ​PBS, Public
Broadcasting Service, 21 May 2014,
www.pbs.org/newshour/show/veterans-administration.
McVeigh, Karen. “US Military Veterans Face Inadequate Care after Returning from War –
Report.” ​The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 26 Mar. 2013,
www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/26/us-veterans-inadequate-care-war.
National Veterans Foundation. “Troubling Veteran Mental Health Facts and Statistics That
Need to Be Addressed.” ​Nvf.org, National Veterans Foundation, 12 Sept. 2016,
nvf.org/veteran-mental-health-facts-statistics/.
VA Office of Inspector General. “Review of Veterans' Access to Mental Health Care.”
Veterans Health Administration, 23 Apr. 2012,
doi:​https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-12-00900-168.pdf​.
Saperstein, Robert, and Dana Saperstein. "The Emotional Wounds of War."​ Military
Review, Jan, 1992, pp. 54-61​, SIRS Issues Researcher, ​https://sks.sirs.com​.
Patoine, Brenda. "The Hidden Cost of War: PTSD and the Combat Veteran."​ Brain Work
Vol.14, No.6, 2004, pp. 1-3​, SIRS Issues Researcher, ​https://sks.sirs.com​.
Stana, Alexandru, et al. "Battling the Stigma: Combat Veterans' Use of Social Support in
an Online PTSD Forum." ​International Journal of Men's Health, vol. 16, no. 1,
Spring 2017, pp. 20-36. EBSCO​host, doi:10.3149/jmh.1601.20.
Ahern, Jennifer, et al. "The Challenges of Afghanistan and Iraq Veterans’ Transition from
Military to Civilian Life and Approaches to Reconnection." ​Plos ONE, vol. 10, no. 7,
7/1/2015, pp. 1-13. EBSCO​host, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128599.
 Dwyer 15

Rozanova, Julia, et al. "'I'm Coming Home, Tell the World I'm Coming Home'. The Long
Homecoming and Mental Health Treatment of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans."
Psychiatric Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 3, Sept. 2016, pp. 427-443. EBSCO​host,
doi:10.1007/s11126-015-9398-7.
Kirchner, Michael J. "Supporting Student Veteran Transition to College and Academic
Success." ​Adult Learning, vol. 26, no. 3, Aug. 2015, p. 116. EBSCO​host,
doi:10.1177/1045159515583813.
Carter, Phillip. "What America Owes Its Veterans: A Better System of Care and Support."
["Foreign Affairs"]. ​Foreign Affairs, vol. 96, no. 5, Sep/Oct2017, pp. 115-127.
EBSCO​host,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=khh&AN=125669833&site=eds-li
ve.
Olenick, Maria, Monica Flowers, and Valerie J Diaz. “US Veterans and Their Unique
Issues: Enhancing Health Care Professional Awareness.” ​Advances in Medical
Education and Practice 6 (2015): 635–639. ​PMC. Web. 20 Mar. 2018.
Leepson, Mark, and Edward Humes. "How WWII Vets Reinvented America."​ World War
II Vol.22 No.1, Apr, 2007, pp. 19-20​, SIRS Issues Researcher, ​https://sks.sirs.com​.
“Deteriorating Working Conditions in the VA Hospital System: Insights from Federal
Employees at...” ​Medium, 16 Aug. 2017,
medium.com/@workingonempty/deteriorating-working-conditions-in-the-va-hospital
-system-insights-from-federal-employees-at-5e7df07fadca.
Institute of Medicine. “Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Military and Veteran
Populations: Initial Assessment.” ​The National Academics of Sciences Engineering
Medicine, 2012, www.nap.edu/read/13364/chapter/1.
Kliff, Sarah. “One in 10 Veterans Lacks Health Insurance. Obamacare Could Change
That.” ​The Washington Post, WP Company, 11 Nov. 2013,
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/11/one-in-10-veterans-lacks-healt
h-insurance-obamacare-could-change-that/?utm_term=.c9565443bcb4.
News, CBS. “Report Reveals Staggering Deficiencies at VA Hospital in D.C.” ​CBS News,
Columbia Broadcasting System, 8 Mar. 2018,
www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-dc-va-hospital-watchdog-says-failure-of-leader
ship/.
Parkinson, Scott. “RSC Chairman Walker: VA Accountability Act Will Improve Veterans'
Care.” ​Republican Study Committee, 15 Dec. 2017,
rsc-walker.house.gov/news/press-releases/rsc-chairman-walker-va-accountability-act-
will-improve-veterans-care.

RESEARCH Exceeds
RUBRIC Expectations
● Thesis is clear, complex,
includes the “so what” &
solution needed.
Critical & ● The paper has a specific,
Creative original, unobvious
Thinking perspective on the issue.
● The writing explores the
complexity of the question or
topic thoroughly and
maintains focus on the central
purpose
● Ideas and perspectives
proceed from an honest
analysis of the research.
Development ● Ideas and their ramifications
of Ideas are explored deeply and
carefully.
● The paper demonstrates
development and polish
consistent with deep,
thoughtful revision.
● Ideas connect together
coherently, and points
proceed logically from each
to the next in support of the
Organization thesis.
and Structure ● The introduction and the
conclusion provide clear
structure to the ideas by
engaging the reader’s
attention and leaving the
reader thinking.
● Transitions make smooth,
connections between ideas/
paragraphs/sections.
● Sources are credible, relevant,
& accurately cited.
Research ● Cited information is
(Note that this incisively analyzed in order to
section weighs support and deepen the
more than the argument.
other sections) ● The essay synthesizes
information & perspectives
from multiple sources into a
whole that uniquely belongs
to the author.
● The paper meets or exceeds
assignment requirements
Meets
Expectations
● Thesis is clear, includes the “so
what” & solution needed.
● The paper’s perspective is clear
and sustained throughout the
essay but may need more
development to be truly
specific and unobvious.
● The paper remains carefully
focused on its central purpose
and explores the issues in
significant depth.
● The research clearly supports
the central purpose of the
paper.
● Ideas are stated clearly if
somewhat generally, and they
are explored in some depth.
● The paper demonstrates
development and polish
consistent with careful
revision.
● Ideas have some level of
connection from one to the
next in support of the thesis.
● The introduction and
conclusion have a clear role in
structuring the essay by
somewhat engaging the
reader’s attention and leaving
the reader thinking.
● Transitions are employed
effectively to connect
ideas/paragraphs/sections
● Sources are well-chosen and
accurately cited.
● Cited information is analyzed
directly and effectively.
● The essay expresses a
coherent, evidence-based point
of view.
● The paper meets the
requirements laid out in the
assignment.
Dwyer 16
Approaching Does Not Meet Expectations
Expectations
● Thesis is somewhat clear, ● Thesis is unclear and
may include the “so what”, missing elements (the “so
but missing solution needed. what” & solution needed).
● The paper lacks a clear and ● There is no clear purpose
specific perspective on the to the paper.
issue, or the paper fails to ● The paper does not
maintain focus on its central maintain focus on the
purpose. topic.
● The paper makes a cursory
examination of the issue or
wanders away from it.
● The research does not clearly ● The paper lacks sufficient
support the central purpose research or the evidence
of the paper. has little/no purpose
● Ideas are stated without ● Ideas are unclear, lack
being developed or explored, development, or the paper
or parts of the paper simply simply states facts or
state facts. ideas.
● The paper demonstrates ● The paper does not appear
development and polish to have benefitted from
consistent with some level of any significant level of
revision. revision.
● Ideas don’t have clear ● Ideas have little or no
connections to each other and discernible relationship to
may not support the thesis. each other and do not
● The introduction and support the thesis.
conclusion don’t provide the ● The introduction and
paper with a clear structure conclusion fail to provide
and/or do not engage the a clear purpose to the
reader’s attention or leave the paper.
reader thinking. ● The paper lacks
● Transitions are ineffective or transitions.
missing to connect
ideas/paragraphs/sections
● Some sources are ● The essay lacks a
misinterpreted or lack sufficient number or
credibility. breadth of sources or cites
● Information is presented with them improperly.
some effective analysis. ● Analysis is thin or absent.
● The essay has a purpose, but ● The author fails to present
a substantial portion simply a discernible perspective
repeats the ideas of cited on the research.
material. ● The paper does not meet
● The paper does not meet one several of the key
or more of the requirements requirements laid out in
laid out in the assignment. the assignment.

● The language adheres to
standard English and MLA
Language Use format.
and ● The essay evidences creative
Conventions word choice and sentence
structure.
● The paper is carefully
proofread & avoids errors.
*Will be included in the final draft*
MultiMedia ~There are a variety of digital
features all of which add value
Digital Features to the paper, offering more
clarity, expanding on evidence,
support of thesis, etc.
Dwyer 17
● The language mostly adheres ● Frequent errors interfere with ~Errors are frequent and
to the conventions of standard readability and clarity, but severe and often obscure the
English and MLA format. essential points are still essential points.
● The paper has been proofread discernible. ● The frequency of errors
and largely avoids errors. ● The paper has not been demonstrates a lack of
carefully proofread. proofreading.
~There is some variety of digital ~There is no variety of digital ~There are no digital
features and/or some of the features and/or little to no value is features.
features add value to the paper, added to the paper.
offering more clarity, expanding
on evidence, support of thesis, etc.