ENGLISH COMPETENCY EXAMS
AT COLLEGE OF THE REDWOODS

English 150

English 150 Sample Student Essays with Scores & Comments

(Note: In the following essays, you will find both the thesis and topic sentence underlined. Also, student errors have been left in so that you may evaluate mechanical and structural issues as they were written.)

Score of 5

In Walter Scanlon's article "It's Time I Shed My Ex-Convict Status," he writes how, after being released from prison thirty years ago, he decided to turn his life around. After ten years in and out of prison, Scanlon found it within himself to "turn his life around," find a job, and enroll in school. His story is truly an impressive one. Today he is a professional drug counselor living a healthy life. He is still an ex-convict, however, and he argues that former offenders should be able to shed their ex-convict status, particularly when applying for jobs. Granted, in Scanlon's situation it is understandable that he should want a "clean slate," and sure he deserves it. Unfortunately, however, there are no laws or guidelines that can clearly separate the rehabilitated ex-convicts from the harmful ones. Until our justice system can create this differentiation fairly, employers should maintain the right to ask the criminal history of potential employees.

The first reason that this right of employers should be protected is because prison is not rehabilitation and many ex-convicts commit crimes again once they are released. In a 1989 survey conducted by the US Department of Justice, an overwhelming two-thirds of felons convicted both of violent and property crimes in California said that they would commit crimes again. All inmates interviewed had been incarcerated for a minimum of five years at the time of this survey. If this is the attitude of inmates after serving a significant sentence in prison, it is clear that incarceration serves no purpose of rehabilitating inmates. Housing criminals together for various lengths of time does not teach them how to change their lives around. The few programs available to inmates, mostly education and church, vary from state to state and participation if completely voluntary. Many of those convicted come from backgrounds of poverty and abuse, and crime is the only life they know. Once released from prison, many offenders fall right back into committing crimes, often knowing better how to get away with them. It is unfortunately a rare case that ex-convicts take it upon themselves to change their lives after release, as Scanlon did. Because of this risk of re-offense, employers should be able to know a job applicant's criminal background. If this status is known, the community can better protect itself and the ex-convict by taking steps to support the rehabilitation of that person.

Secondly, employers should maintain the right to ask the criminal history of potential employees so that jobholders can be placed into the right positions. Correct job placement for ex-convicts is vital to their protection, as well as to the protection of others. For example, much of the workforce involves jobs working with children and in schools. It is a fact that sex offenders, in specific, have the highest rate of re-offense. Many surveys have shown that sex offenders claim to be unable to control their urges, even when they know what they are doing is wrong. If it was not required that they disclose their former convictions on job applications, sex offenders could end up being placed into positions that could tempt them to violate again. This is also the case of more "white collar" and embezzlement criminals. If it is not required that they disclose the nature of their former offenses, they could be placed into jobs involving money and account handling. Even if ex-convicts have good intentions and want to turn their lives around, if they are placed into the wrong job positions, they may be tempted to break the law again, harming themselves and others.

It is unfortunate that all persons convicted of a crime, specifically those who are rehabilitated, must always legally disclose their former offenses. But until we can improve our prison systems and set fair guidelines to protect those ex-convicts who hold only good intentions, employers' right to ask this information is vital to the safety of themselves and others.

Comment: As stated on the rubric, this essay fully and thoughtfully addresses the topic. The student writer shows that s/he has correctly identified the main point of Scanlon's essay, and s/he takes a definite stand on that issue. The topic sentences then advance that stand in well developed paragraph. For instance, after initially opposing Scanlon, the writer makes some excellent points about sex offenders in workplaces, as well as the rights of the community and employers. The transitions are clear, and the word choice is excellent in this essay. Very few errors are present, and none of them major.

Score of 4

In this imperfect world, not every criminal gets punished for their criminal acts. Instead legislature tries to rehabilitate them by imprisoning them. Fortunately, some ex-convicts become rehabilitated, but some don't. Some ex-convict become more violent acts because they know and understand the law; therefore, they tend to abuse it. With my friend being a Police Officer, I've heard dozens of stories about how ex-convicts commit more violent acts, i.e., armed robbery and murder, than what they originally went to prison for. In the article "It's Time I Shed My Ex-Convict Status" the author, Walter Scanlon, told his readers about how his ex-convict status affected his career in life. Scanlon mentioned that with the ex-convict status, it doesn't matter how good of an education he obtained, he chances of getting a good job was less. Scanlon argued that when employers asked him the question "Have you ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor or denied bond in any state?" he believed he was being discriminated, but its a right that employers should be able to ask any questions pertaining to the job, including personal questions.

The first reason why employers should have the right to ask any job related or personal questions is because employers not only want an educated employee, but also an honest employee too. For example, Scanlon was educated enough to get a job as a substance-abuse specialist, but in his job application he purposely "left the question about past arrests and convictions blank." For not answering that question, Scanlon left a doubt in the employer's mind, which made the employer think twice about hiring a person with something to hide. To further illustrate, an applicant who was qualified for the job, but lacks honesty, was my cousin Sam. Sam was a cashier, a gambling addict who stole money from his previous employer to satisfy his habits. However, he lied in his job application on the "Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor?" question. He managed to get the job as a cashier in a grocery store. Within three months of employment, Sam stole over $2300.00 If applicants were honest in their job applications, the work-related problems shouldn't have happened.

The second reason why employers should have the right to ask any job related or personal question is because employers don't want to hire an applicant with a criminal record. Not all criminal offenders are bad, but the majority of them are and the chances of hiring one are pretty big. According to my friend, criminal offenders are known to commit the same offense over and over again. My friend also told me about a forgery case he handled in San Francisco. An applicant was caught on the videotape; this person had been convicted of the same offense in another store. It turned out that after a customer made a monthly payment to her credit card, the employee kept the receipt. The employee then later used the card to fraudulently charge over $3500 worth of merchandise. With this example, it is understandable why a person with a criminal record has a smaller chance of getting hired. Another example is when a co-worker of mine stole some computer software, which belonged to our employer. From prior experience, this employee knew how to steal and sell the equipment. After our employer found out that the employee had stolen the software, she was fired. It is understandable that if an employee had done anything wrong in the past, he or she might do it again.

Clearly discrimination is only valid if it is against someone's race, religion, color, or disability. Questions of past arrests and convictions are like anything else, a pre-employment necessity. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with employers asking any job-related or personal question. It is the employers who are taking their chances when trying to hire a good, honest, and trusty employee.

Comment: Although there are a number of spelling and usage errors that are substandard English, the basic argument is quite strong. The big difference between this essay and the 5 is that the sentences here are less clearer and less varied. In terms of structure, the writer has a good thesis and strong topic sentences. There are strong examples to support the topic sentences, but they are less convincing than the 5. The transitions are good. Overall, the essay is well developed and organized.

Score of 3

Everyone has made a mistake sometime in their life, and wished that they could turn back the clock and make everything right. For some its a candy bar we stole when we were a kid, or a bird we shot with a BB gun, or a test we cheated on in high school. For people who have been in the justace system like Walter Scanlon, its more serious crimes. Like with the mistakes we made, lots of people who have been to jail are sorry and have turned over a new leaf. Therefore ex-convicts need to be allowed to keep there jail time privite when looking for a job or any other time, unless they choose to discuss it.

First of all, their sentence was for five years or ten years, not for life. If they have to tell every employer about old mistakes, they probably won't get the job, and its like getting a life sentence. In "It's Time I Shed My Ex-Convict Status," Walter Scanlon says that even though he fullfilled his jail sentence and would not think of committing a crime, nobody will hire him. Even though he has a college degree, he's just an ex-con forever. My brother had a drug problem since he was a teenager, and it lead to him being sent to prison two times for dealing and posession. The last time he joined N.A. and cleaned up his act. Then he got out of jail and joined our church, he has been clean and sober for more then four years. He paid his debt to society, but has trouble finding work because he has a felony on his record. Of course he won't lie about it like a lot of other people would. Its not fair that he is sentenced to "life" without a good job after he did his time and is a good citizen now.

Next, this is a free country with the right to privicy which should go for every citizen, no matter what. Once you are let out of jail that is part of your privite life, and you shouldn't have to tell anyone about it unless you want to. Except for child molesters or murderers who might be dangerous to innocent people. The parole officers should be the ones who make sure convicts are staying straight. My brother's parole officer saw him every week at first and then every month. He had to take regular drug tests, and show that he was rehabilitated. If the parole officers are doing there jobs right, no one else needs to know anything else about an ex-convicts past. The convict may want to tell some people, but its their right to not tell others who will judge them and discriminate against them.

In conclusion, once you've done the time, you should be treated like anyone else. If we trust ex-convicts enough to let them go, we need to show that we really trust them to change. Let the parole agents take care of the "checking up", not the employers. After all, how would you like to have to tell your boss everything illegal you ever did?

Comment: Although this essay has a thesis and topic sentences which assert judgments, the topic sentences are not focused very directly on the thesis point, which makes the argument less coherent and thoughtful. In paragraph 2, the supporting evidence is adequate, but in paragraph 3, the evidence strays from the topic sentence judgment, leaving that point poorly supported. Transitions are present between paragraphs but not always where they are needed between sentences. Finally, there are a few major errors and many minor errors.

Score of 2

Walter Scanlon wants us to feel sorry for him, but I don't agree that he deserves a break. We need to be protected from criminals more, not less. I feel that criminals get off to easy as it is.

First, it is the law that ex-convicts must tell employers about felonies. Laws are there for a reason; to protect honest people. There are all ready too many laws that get the bad guys off easy. Either with an insanity plea, a sad story about their childhood, or time off for good behavior. It's a proven fact that most criminals end up back in jail again for other crimes, maybe worse than the last one. We as a society need to inforce whatever laws there are to keep our kids and our selfs safe from the predators.

I was burglarised last year, they took everything of value I had: TV, VCR, stereo, jewelrey, etc. To have someone come into my home like that is the worst thing that had ever happened to me. The police found the guys who did it but they were let off with a slap on the wrist. Most of my things were gone for good, I still haven't been able to replace them all. Also, my friend's car was stolen in July from right outside his house. Which wasn't surprising since Eureka has one of the highest crime rates in California. People need all the warnings we can get about theifs and other criminals.

Law abiding people are the one's who deserve protection. Ex-convicts should feel lucky they aren't still in jail paying for what they did to the rest of us. I don't feel sorry for Walter Scanlon or anyone who has been a menece to society.

Comment: Perhaps the most obvious problem with this essay is its lack of development. Considering the student had a week to prepare and ninety minutes to write, the paragraphs in this essay are too abbreviated, and there is not nearly enough supporting evidence in the body paragraphs to back up the thesis. But the essay has other serious weaknesses as well. The thesis judgment is not only impaired by the personal qualifier "I feel," but the thesis also suggests that the writer has not clearly grasped the main issue in Scanlon's essay. Neither topic sentence asserts a judgment, and the supporting evidence does not remain focused on the topic sentence. Transitions are not used consistently, and the essay has a number of major errors and many minor errors.

Score of 1

Drinking and doing drugs is a bad habit for many people. Teens copy adults' habits in many ways. When people drink, I stay out of their way. I don't want to be around people who will act crazy and be dumb. Drinking tends to provoke arguments and people will say things they will later regret.

Teens copy adults' habits in many ways it is the environment they were brought up in. I was in such a house hold, but I had no desire to drink. My uncle's drink, but not enough to get themselves into a lot of trouble. My uncles do tend to do dumb things. For example, one of my uncles made a bet with someone that he could burn through a twenty dollar bill on his arm with a cigarette. He burned through the twenty dollars, but as a result he has a scar on his arm. My mom does not drink and I follow in her foot steps. My step father did drink and I stayed out of his way because he was just to bosy. My brother started to follow in his fathers foot steps, but learned his lesson by having a hang over. My brother was funny, but also dumb for trying it. Many teens try or will follow someone they are close to or from peer pressure.

Drinking tends to provoke arguements and people will say things they will later regret. There are several types of drunk: funny, crazy, silent, mad, and a little bit of all four. The arguementative type (mad) usually are the ones that start arguements and fights. At some point in everyone's drinking habits something usually always snaps, whether it be expressing feelings or accusing someone. Th silent type will usually sit by and watch an arguement or fight take place and sometimes it is the silent one that is drawn into the ruckus. The crazy/funny type are always silly in some way and are usually the clowns. These people need to be careful of what they say or do so they don't provoke an arguement or fight because they usually are the weak ones.

People do need help and need to sometimes be saved from themselves. Sometimes going to jail/prison helps to turn a persons life around to the better. To be given a second chance is a privilege worth keeping because next time might not make them so lucky. My uncles are careful on how much they drink and their wives are always there to help them out. My step-father went to prison and put his second chance to good use by raising my brother properly. Some times a second chance is all people need

Comment: In discussing family drinking, this essay largely misses Scanlon's ideas about allowing ex-convicts to avoid having to put down their criminal history on job applications. Structurally speaking, the essay discovers the topic at the end, the topic sentences don't guide the paragraphs, and there are no transitions. Finally, there are a number of misspelling, particularly with two-part words, such as "some times," etc.