This award was established in 2017 to honor Dr. G. Kevin Jones who had a distinguished
career in the law, authored award-winning law review articles, provided meaningful
community service, and was a popular adjunct professor at Utah Valley University.
Kevin worked in the three branches of United States government: Legislative (Article I), Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska); Executive (Article II), Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior; and Judicial (Article III), U.S. Supreme Court Fellow.
|
Content
|
Excellent
|
Good
|
Fair
|
Poor
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Explanation of the issue
|
Clear, logical and well focused. Includes multiple detailed examples to support ideas
and thesis.
|
Clear, logical and focused with some detailed examples to support ideas and thesis.
|
Somewhat lacking in clarity, logic or focus. Some related examples.
|
Little clarity, logical focus. Few details or examples.
|
|
Contemporary Relevance
|
Clearly states and provides many examples or details on why the issue is relevant.
|
Clearly states and provides some examples or details on why the issue is relevant.
|
Somewhat states why issue is relevant. Provides few examples or details.
|
Does not mention relevance and provides little to no details or examples.
|
|
Historical Relevance
|
Historical relevance clearly stated. Numerous examples.
|
Historical relevance stated, but with few examples.
|
Historical relevance mentioned, but little to no examples.
|
No mention of Historical relevance.
|
|
Legal and/or political impact of the issue
|
Clear statement of legal and/or political impact. Relevant examples.
|
Legal and/or political somewhat included. Some examples.
|
Only passing mention of legal and/or political impact. Few or no examples.
|
No mention of legal and/or political impact.
|
|
Counter-Arguments
|
Considers both obvious and not obvious counterexamples, counterarguments, and/or opposing
positions, and provides original and/or thoughtful responses.
|
Considers obvious counterexamples, counterarguments, and/or opposing positions, and
provides responses.
|
Considers obvious counterexamples, counterarguments, and/or opposing positions, and
provides responses. Responses are non exisent or mere claims of refutation.
|
No counterexamples, counterarguments, or opposing positions are considered.
|
|
Understanding
|
Excellent
|
Good
|
Fair
|
Poor
|
|
Ideas
|
Contains a highly accurate and precise description of the issue, along with a careful
consideration of possible solutions. The paper contains relevant examples.
|
The description of the issue is fairly accurate and precise, and possible alternatives
or solutions are considered. Semi relevant examples are used.
|
The description of the issue is fairly accurate but not precise, and solutions are
either not considered, or ill-described.
|
The description of the issue is inaccurate, and possible alternatives or solutions
are not considered, and examples are not provided.
|
|
Clarity
|
All sentences are complete and grammatically correct. All words are chosen for their
precise meaning. Good, clear examples are used to illuminate concepts and issues.
Information (names, facts, etc.) is accurate. Paper has been spell-checked and proofread,
has no errors, and no rhetorical questions or slang.
|
All sentences are complete and grammatical. Most words are chosen for their precise
meanings. Examples are clear. Information (names, facts, etc.) is accurate. Paper
has been spell-checked and proofread, and has very few errors, and no rhetorical questions
or slang.
|
A few sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. Words are not chosen for their
precise meanings. Examples are not clear. Information (names, facts, etc.) is mostly
accurate. Paper has several spelling errors, rhetorical questions and/or uses of slang.
|
Many sentences are incomplete and/or ungrammatical. Information (names, facts, etc.)
is inaccurate. Paper has many spelling errors, rhetorical questions and/or uses of
slang.
|
|
Organization
|
Excellent
|
Good
|
Fair
|
Poor
|
|
Fabrication
|
The introduction is inviting, states the main topic, and provides an overview of the
paper. Information is relevant and presented in a logical order. The conclusion is
strong.
|
The introduction states the main topic and provides an overview of the paper. A conclusion
is included.
|
The introduction states the main topic. A conclusion is included. The introduction
states the main topic. A conclusion is included.
|
There is no clear introduction, structure, or conclusion.
|
|
Citations
|
All evidence is properly cited in Chicago Turabain style.
|
All evidence is cited but there are some minor problems with completeness or format
of some citations.
|
Pieces are unreferenced or inaccurately referenced, and there are problems with completeness
and format of citations.
|
No attempt is made to cite evidence.
|
