Professor Keck’s Paper Expectations
Department of Political Science
Syracuse University
While the specific assignments will vary from course to course, I describe here some general expectations for student papers in all of my undergraduate courses. These guidelines may be helpful for classes with other professors as well.
Why am I making you write a paper?
The goal of undergraduate writing assignments is not document production. Why on earth would I need 100 more 5-page papers about Marbury v. Madison lol? The goal has more to do with process than product. Composing coherent sentences and paragraphs about Marbury v. Madison is hard because it requires you to crystallize your own thoughts about the famous case. What do you find interesting or significant about Marbury v. Madison? Unlike those of us who have been studying the case for a million years, you may not already have an answer to that question. But writing about it can help you get there.
If you’ve never thought about writing in this way, I recommend this brief essay by historian Lynn Hunt. As Hunt notes, “writing is not the transcription of thoughts already consciously present in my mind.” I don’t think of something to say about Marbury v. Madison, then write it down. To the contrary, it is in the process of writing that I figure out what I’m trying to say. For this to work, you have to have some faith (i.e., trust the process): “You have to believe that clarity is going to come, not all at once, and certainly not before you write, but eventually, if you work at it hard enough, it will come. Thought does emerge from writing. Something ineffable happens when you write down a thought. You think something you did not know you could or would think and it leads you to another thought almost unbidden.” On a related note, Hunt emphasizes that much bad writing “come[s] from not being yourself, not saying what you think, or being afraid to figure out what you really think.” Don’t be afraid. Start typing some words about Marbury v. Madison, and see where it takes you.
Don’t bring your robot to the gym
If you offload some or all of this writing process to a bot, you are of course saving time and effort, but you are sacrificing basically all of the intended benefits of the process. Teaching and learning scholars call it cognitive offloading. It’s like bringing your robot to the gym to lift some of the weights for you. “I’m pressed for time and kind of tired today, so I just need a bit of assistance.” Fair enough, but the goal is not for some weights to be up in the air; the goal is to build your muscles, and the robot isn’t helping.
What the paper should do
In every paper, I expect you to carefully develop an argument. The goal is to persuade the reader to conform to your position on a subject that invites dispute. In other words, you’re trying to advance a claim that might be wrong–indeed, ideally one where you can and have identified specific people who have clearly said that your claim is wrong. I’ll say more about what counts as a good argument in the next section.
First, I want to emphasize that when you sit down to begin your paper, you need not already have a clear argument in mind. It helps to have some hunches, and you should write them down as soon as they occur to you. Then try writing about some specific details that seem important. What part of Chief Justice Warren’s opinion in Brown v. Board of Education jumped out at you? Quote it, then write a couple sentences about it. Then stop and think again about your initial hunches. Take a stab at writing a thesis statement. Then write about some more details.
Repeat this process as many times as you can.
Once your thesis starts to take shape, think about the logical structure of your argument. Do you have multiple sources of evidence in support? Have you presented them in a sequence that seems compelling? Have you considered alternative takes? Is there evidence that cuts against you? Can you figure out a way to acknowledge that evidence without undermining your own argument?
Once you’ve gotten this far, at the very end, when it’s almost time to submit your paper, go back to the introduction again. Is your thesis stated in a clear and compelling way? Simple and direct is often best: “In this paper, I will argue that …” Does it still fit with the evidence you’ve developed throughout the draft? I.e., are you still convinced that it’s correct as stated, or do you need to tweak it one last time?
Your paper should generally not be structured as a mystery novel. In other words, it should clearly indicate to the reader where things are going. In the finished paper, that clarity should be provided from the beginning (often the very first sentence). But in the writing process, that clarity often won’t emerge until the end (which is why you should often finalize the introduction as your last step).
One final note here: In advancing your argument, you may assume an audience composed of people who have already read all the required reading for the course. (This essay by Michael Berube helpfully elaborates this point.) If you’re discussing a book or article or Supreme Court decision that we’ve read in class, you don’t have to summarize that material, because your audience has already read it. We have not, however, “read it in quite the way you’re reading it,” which is the point of your paper. Only you can provide your own distinctive take on the subject at hand.
What counts as a good argument
In the previous section, I indicated that each paper should try to convince the reader to conform to your position on a subject that invites dispute. In other words, your paper should advance and defend a contestable claim. Consider some potential examples:
- “In this paper, I will argue that the Warren Court decided Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.” (No, that’s just a statement of fact, not an argument.)
- “In this paper, I will argue that the Warren Court expanded constitutional rights.” (Getting there, but this is still just a statement of fact; no one disagrees with this claim.)
- “In this paper, I will argue that the Warren Court expanded a variety of constitutional protections against racial discrimination, but did little to tackle the deep-seated economic inequalities that served as barriers to equal citizenship for many people of color.” (This is better. The argument now includes two dimensions–i.e., it’s more nuanced. The first part is still pretty clearly true, but some people might disagree with the second part.)
- “In this paper, I will argue that the direct action protest tactics of the civil rights movement forced the Warren Court to confront racial inequalities that the justices had long ignored, but the absence of any similar broad-based movement on behalf of the working class allowed the Court to continue ignoring deep-seated economic inequalities that served as barriers to equal citizenship for many people of color.” (Even better. The argument now has at least three dimensions–i.e., more nuanced still. The new dimension is definitely contestable–i.e., lots of well-informed people disagree with it, which is a good thing.)
In short, one of your tasks is to come up with a claim that you very much believe to be true (based on your reading and thinking about the course material), but that some other well-informed people (e.g., your classmates) might disagree with. If no one disagrees with your key claim (e.g., “the Warren Court expanded rights”), then it’s not really worth the trouble to articulate an elaborate defense.
To reiterate, you should get started with writing whether or not you have figured out a coherent thesis yet. And even if you think you’ve got your thesis fully figured out already, you should be open to it evolving as the writing unfolds.
The grading process
My grading process is a holistic one. In other words, rather than assigning separate points for your thesis, evidence, style, etc., I read the paper as a whole and assign a grade based on the extent to which it achieves the goals described above. (In cases where the paper is graded by a teaching assistant, I will instruct her to undertake the same process, though her judgment may always be appealed to me.) I want all students to understand why their paper earned an A, a B, or whatever the case may be, so I encourage you to talk with me about your papers once you get them back.
Berube writes about his professor who, when asked, “What did you take points off for?”, would reply: “Your paper was not born with an A. Your paper was born with a ‘nothing,’ and I made up my mind about it as I read it.” I’ll try not to be this curmudgeonly, but I share the sentiment. In making up my mind about your paper, I am generally looking for a series of things that are not easily quantified: “[M]astery of the material. Cogency of supporting evidence. Ability to imagine and rebut salient counterarguments. Extra points for wit and style.”
Principles of style and composition
Each writer should have a style of her own, but the following tips should be helpful for everyone. (Most of them are borrowed from The Elements of Style, by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White):
- Choose an organizational design that makes sense, and then stick with it throughout.
- Write in a way that comes naturally, but with a tone that is appropriate to the setting. I.e., the paper’s voice should be your own, but perhaps not quite the same voice you would use in conversing with your friends. If your language is too conversational or colloquial, it may look like you’re not taking the assignment seriously.
- When you use the passive voice, it is often unclear who is responsible for the action you’re describing. (E.g., “the Communications Decency Act was declared unconstitutional.”) Use the active voice whenever possible. (E.g., “the Supreme Court declared the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional.”)
- Use definite, specific, concrete language. (E.g., “in Reno v. ACLU (1997), an ideologically mixed, seven-justice majority of the Supreme Court declared the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional.”) Omit needless words. Avoid the overuse of qualifiers (e.g., rather, very, pretty). Avoid unnecessarily fancy words.
- I’m a big fan of direct quotations as a way to provide concrete & specific support for your arguments. That said, I sometimes receive papers in which students have made excessive use of long quotes, such that there isn’t enough space remaining for the student’s own arguments. So if you spot a really good quote that’s on the long side, use it, but be judicious. (I.e., not too many of them.) When you do have a quotation longer than two full lines, please block quote (double indent and single space). Do not place quotation marks at either end of a block quote. An example of a block quote from O’Hare and Kline appears below.
- Revise and rewrite. Then revise and rewrite again.
In addition to the book by Strunk and White, The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers, 15th edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003) has a helpful chapter on grammar and usage.
Formatting, Citations, and Plagiarism
Avoiding plagiarism
To avoid committing plagiarism, you must provide complete citations for any references which you make to someone else’s words or ideas. This applies whether you are paraphrasing or providing a direct quotation. As Frank O’Hare and Edward A. Kline note:
Plagiarism falls into two categories: using someone else’s words or using someone else’s ideas as if they were your own. You must be scrupulous in avoiding both categories of plagiarism in your writing. Properly cite all quotations, paraphrases, and summaries of information from other sources. The only exception to this rule is common knowledge, or information commonly known and accessible to your audience. . . . If you are unsure whether certain information constitutes common knowledge, document it. . . . For any individual writing assignment, the idea and the organization of ideas in your paper must be your own. . . . You can incorporate into your writing ideas that have arisen from class discussion [and] lectures. . . . You may revise and edit your writing with other people [at the Writing Center, e.g.,] . . . but you should not have others do your writing or revising for you (O’Hare and Kline, The Modern Writer’s Handbook, Fourth Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996, pp. 447-450).
If you have any questions about this definition, please talk to me before turning in the assignment. Plagiarism is a serious example of academic misconduct, so you should err on the side of caution. When I find evidence of plagiarism, my policy is to assign an appropriate grade penalty (up to and including an “F” for the course) and to refer the matter to the relevant administrative office for any further sanctions.
Citation formats
There are a variety of standard citation formats, and they are all acceptable for use in my courses. The most important things are to make sure that you (a) provide all relevant bibliographic information; and (b) use a consistent format throughout your paper. The best source for answering questions about citation formats is The Chicago Manual of Style.
Citations for internet sources
The 15th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style includes everything you need to know about citing electronic sources, but here are a few general guidelines:
To direct readers to an entire Web site (but not a specific document on the site), it’s sufficient to give the address of the site in the text. For example,
Kidspsych is a wonderful interactive Web site for children (http://www.kidspsych.org).
No reference entry is needed.
To create a reference for a specific document on a web site, however, a more detailed citation is necessary. Web documents share many of the same elements found in a print document (e.g., authors, titles, dates). Therefore, the citation for a Web document often follows a format similar to that for print, with some information omitted and some added. Here are some examples:
An action alert posted by APA’s Public Policy Office:
American Psychological Association. 1995. “APA public policy action alert: Legislation would affect grant recipients” (Announcement, September 15). Washington, DC. Available on line, http://www.apa.org/ppo/istook.html (last accessed January 25, 1996).
An article from the journal American Psychologist:
Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. 1995. “A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience: Science working group on facilitated communication.” American Psychologist, 50, 750–765. Available on line,http://www.apa.org/journals/jacobson.html (last accessed January 25, 1996).
All references begin with the same information that would be provided for a printed source (or as much of that information as is available). If no publication date is available for a document, use “n.d.” (stands for “no date”) in its place. The internet information is then placed in a retrieval statement at the end of the reference. It is important to give the date of retrieval because online documents may change in content, move, or be removed from a site altogether.
In addition to the Chicago Manual of Style, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition) is also a helpful resource.
Format
All papers should be typed and double-spaced with a standard margin on all four sides. A separate title page is not necessary, but the first page should include your name, a title for the paper, your email address, the current date, and my name (Prof. Keck).
I generally use electronic submission these days, but if you are submitting a hard copy, please use a staple or paper clip in the upper left-hand corner. Be sure to keep a backup copy of your paper (either electronic or hard copy) until your grade has been posted; if the submission is lost before we grade it, you will then be able to resubmit. I also recommend that you keep a file of all of your papers once they have been handed back; you never know when you, or I, might need to refer to them.
Last updated: 20 August 2026