One thing I try to make clear to TAs is that in any grading dispute I support them. Doesn’t matter if I would have given pity points where the TA didn’t. If the TA is operating reasonably within the norms of the discipline, faculty should back them up.
Given that the instructor cited “learning goals” in their feedback, it is also likely that an expectation of empirical evidence was explicitly outlined in a syllabus or LMS. Students should be expected to interpret instructions with such expectations in mind.
I’ve seen arguments that the essay should not have received a 0 given the rubric, but the instructions made it clear that the purpose of the assignment was to demonstrate engagement with the article and that essay simply did not do that (hence, a 0 for incompleteness).
Given the parameters of the assignment, the student could have cited specific sections of the paper (with proper APA citations) and then tied that information back to their own experiences as a Christian. Simply spouting personal theology does not fulfill this requirement.
Five year plan:
1. party and skim the sacred texts
2. party and skim the sacred texts
3. party and skim the sacred texts
4. party and skim the sacred texts
5. apocalypse
nobody will remember:
- your salary
- how “busy you were”
- how many hours you worked
they will remember:
- the taste of a madeleine dipped in tea
- the tinkling of a spoon against a plate
- the feel of an uneven cobblestone