Essay glo-up: how to get a first/A for your essays ft. marker comments
you’ve got your structure down, what’s next?
There are so many amazing essay tips posts: this by @caesarstudies, and this by @novanovelist, among so many others I’ve seen over the years, but I’ve never really seen one that assumes that you’ve got the basics down - now how to improve?
To change things up a bit, I’ve decided to borrow the feedback I’ve gotten for my essays in order to:
illustrate this better through the words of essay markers themselves
encourage everyone to really engage with the feedback you get!
This is a really long post because I’ve put in as much detail as I can (it’s literally 1700 words omg). Let me know if these have helped you/any additional content you’d like to see added/hear from me about.
Right. So how do you work towards something like this:
“This is an excellent exam response. You clearly have an understanding of Weber’s work. You show this by explicating his concepts carefully in the first two paragraphs…attention to detail here is superb. You show the work of others to help you to make the points you are making in a mature way, and do not overuse other scholars’ contributions…It is consistent with everything that you have produced this year, which has been excellent.”
First things first: there’s no cookie cutter format for a good essay. For example, in the above quote, I’ve used the “first two paragraphs” just to summarise Weber’s theory - in most situations, this might be classified as “overly descriptive”, but because the first part of the essay question specifically asked “what is Weber’s theory of Verstehen?”, I could do this.
A lot of it is skill and figuring out what works and what doesn’t, but as someone who overthinks what she does a lot, and has a rough 95% first essay rate for uni so far, I think I’m somewhat (?) qualified to give pointers I’ve figured out over the years. Here we go:
(1) Clear understanding of concepts, especially the important features and details.
This is where your notes come in. Make sure you know most/all the major claims the main theorist(s) make, all the bullet points, caveats, exceptions, assumptions, and rebuttals.
Most good lecturers and teachers would have already given you some, and your classes should have dealt with them as well. The rest you can get from google searches/thinking about these things yourself.
In the actual essay/exam, having about 3-4 points covering all of these would suffice. You know them as your topic sentences, but the key here is not to treat them as just topic sentences, but as points in the whole flow of your essay that are all interrelated in some way.
Some people say that each topic sentence should directly answer the question - to some extent yes, but in more complex essays it’s hard to structure it as such, e.g. when some of your paragraphs are in dialogue with one another and not necessarily the thesis statement. As long as you know why you’re arguing and what for at all times, it’s all good.
(2) Introducing and engaging with other literature.
Many profs warn against having too many references, but you have to understand why - a lot of them are tired of people just quoting 2 words from a vaguely related article and then slapping them into the bibliography. A lot of people take this warning and do maybe 3-5 sources for each essay; I use a minimum of 7-10 for 1500 word essays, and easily go above 20 for longer ones.
The key here is not to find as many as you can and insert them for the sake of having the numbers; I reach 20 by accident through comprehensive research and making sure that the sources are in dialogue with one another.
Have a controversial/famous source as an essential reading? Perfect - seek out who has something bad to say about this (a published scholar/article please). Find the key academics in opposition to each other, e.g. most Durkheim, Weberian and Marxist concepts can be pitted against each other. Find the theorists who defined a particular topic, even if the question doesn’t explicitly deal with them: e.g. you can’t talk about intersectionality without Kimberlé Crenshaw, or the sex/gender divide without Judith Butler.
Even within a particular theorist’s body of work, there is an evolution of ideas and writing, and you can chart that - this is easily 3-4 sources from a single writer. Pierre Bourdieu developed his theory of practice across a few works, and talking about this evolution is going to show sophisticated thinking and true engagement with the readings. Recognise the theorists as people with opinions, the academic world as a bunch of constantly evolving opinions being pitted against each other, and find the tension. Find the nuance.
“You not only cite an array of academic references, but also show a holistic comprehension and the capacity to articulate a dialogue between them.”
(3) Making sure it’s still an original response.
A perennial question - how do I cover as much theoretical ground and have many sources…and still have an original response? Two methods: use original examples, and coming up with interesting points and angles.
Use reputable news outlets as sources. A lot of my essays centre around contemporary issues, e.g. I once analysed Trump’s rise to power using Weber’s theory of legitimacy. Articles in the NYT, the Guardian, the Atlantic are terrific sources of modern examples to substantiate your otherwise purely theoretical arguments.
These are original examples that score higher points than using the examples from the sources themselves.
“Your summary of Rosa’s ideas is impressive, and demonstrates in-depth understanding of the reading, its concepts, and examples…my only recommendation would be for you to try to think of original examples to substantiate discussion in a creative fashion.”
Method two: coming up with interesting points/angles. Think about the basic points that most people will come up with (e.g. because they were mentioned in the lecture), and find your own spin on it. If you’re writing an essay on social class, for example, bring in intersectionality with race/gender theory.
Devote at least one point challenging your supporting arguments without directly contradicting them (or else that’s a whole other problem). Always find a qualification or a caveat. Challenge the dichotomies/the assumptions that are inherent in all questions.
“This essay is also enhanced by some subtle thinking - for example, the questions you raise in the latter part of the essay about the dichotomy the essay question establishes between social mobility and the reinforcement of class differences. As you point out, both processes can take place at the same time…this is original thinking, well argued.”
(4) Learn from people who do it well.
A lot of people know not to underestimate the power of feedback, but I feel that there are many who neglect the power of mentorship and learning through examples. Find people who are fantastic at essays, read their work, and see if you can learn their secret from just reading. It’ll be great if they tell you explicit tips, but honestly a lot of it is just learnt through practice and instinct.
I was - and still am - fortunate to be friends with a veritable essay goddess when I was 17-18 years old, and managed to shoot from 24/40 to 35/40 when I obsessively studied the “model essays” for my literature class (my teacher always scanned for us after each assignment).
E.g. when my teacher told me that I was being overly descriptive in my essays, I read my friend’s essay and figured out the trick between describing and using the book/poem/play quotations to make an argument. Find your weaknesses, then read their essays; you’ll get it. And once you get the hang of it, this skill will stick with you for life.
(5) Study the process, not the mark.
Sometimes, profs and teachers just aren’t in the habit of giving out high marks - I can quote one prof in particular who said “there’s no point” in asking her how to get an A.
In these situations, even the highest grade will still be a 2:1 or a B, so don’t be too demoralised. When you get your essay back, focus on these things in this order: reread your essay, read the comments, look at the essay criteria, and then finally the mark you got.
(Ha kidding, there’s nothing wrong with looking at your mark first, but you should be concentrating on it the least.)
Single out the things that you can improve on, and then figure out how to make it better, either through consultations with your teachers or googling.
I struggled with getting the top band for my conclusions for a few of my essays in first year, straight up asked my teacher why, and then found out that I didn’t devote enough space to talk about broader implications of my conclusions - that is, why should this argument even matter? After that, it was all smooth sailing.
That’s pretty much all for the first iteration of this guide! Just a few disclaimers:
I’m sorry that most of my examples are all sociology-related; it’s what I’m familiar with most since that’s my major, but these should definitely be apt for most other qualitative subjects. And if you find a way to adapt them, let me know in the replies/reblogs so everyone can see!
I hope I don’t come across as too cocky; there’s only so much editing that can downplay what I’m really saying. I’m proud of my skills so far, but I’m far from perfect, and I’m still improving. These are just things that have served me well all this while, and are things that I’ll continue to build on. And note that I’m cherrypicking the really important ones to take note of. What I really want is to be able to share what I’ve learnt so far, and hopefully help you guys - and also to get some feedback/additional tips if you guys have any!
Let me know what y’all think of this, and I hope it helps \o/
tangentwithtanner
origamiaround
kianamaiart
turnnoffyourmind
annaxmalina
theartofmadeline
vaporwave
areudirty
