essay biology marking

PMT Education is looking for a Content Intern over the summer

A-Level Biology Papers

Sylvia B. ★ 5.0 (1)

Nottingham university - phd animal production.

Experienced secondary science teacher with over 15 years of examining IB Biology

• Qualified Teacher

Here you will find past exam papers and mark schemes for each of the modules below.

AS & A-Levels from 2015

Biology a (salters-nuffield), biology b (advancing biology), international a-levels (ial), legacy a-levels in the uk, connect with pmt education.

• Revision Courses
• Past Papers
• Solution Banks
• University Admissions
• Numerical Reasoning
• Legal Notices

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

AQA Biology Essay Simple and Effective Marking Guidance/ Grid for Student/ Teacher. Get 25/25!

Subject: Biology

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

13 October 2020

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

The 25 mark essay has been an element of AQA A-levels for many years, going back several specifications. At first, teachers may worry that this is difficult for their students and will mean a large amount of marking. This marking guidance/ grid, developed around a simple mnemonic can be used by students when planning and self assessing their work, or teachers who want a clear structure for marking and providing developmental feedback to their students. Once completed, the grid clearly identifies which elements are missing from essays, allowing for specific feedback and improved marks on the 25 mark essay. This marking grid can be printed and attached to student essays for their reference when revising.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

OCR homepage

Administration

• Active Results
• Interchange
• Submit for Assessment
• Teach Cambridge

ExamBuilder

• Online Support Centre

Main navigation

As and a level biology a - h020, h420.

Full assessment teaching materials, including secure assessment materials, are now only available on Teach Cambridge. Examples are shown below.

Question papers, mark schemes and reports

2022 - june series.

• Question paper - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 3MB
• Question paper - Biological processes insert H420/01 - PDF 2MB
• Mark scheme - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 575KB
• Examiners' report - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 6MB
• Question paper - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 1MB
• Mark scheme - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 543KB
• Examiners' report - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 3MB
• Question paper - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 1MB
• Mark scheme - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 520KB
• Examiners' report - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 3MB
• Moderators' report - Practical endorsement H414/04, H420/04, H422/04, H432/04, H433/04, H556/04, H557/04 - PDF 471KB
• Modified Papers H420/01/02/03 - ZIP 26MB

2021 - November series

• Question paper - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 1MB
• Question paper - Biological processes -insert H420/01 - PDF 2MB
• Mark scheme - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 445KB
• Examiners' report - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 380KB
• Mark scheme - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 472KB
• Examiners' report - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 416KB
• Question paper - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 4MB
• Mark scheme - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 675KB
• Examiners' report - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 382KB

2020 - November series

• Question paper - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 8MB
• Mark scheme - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 936KB
• Examiners' report - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 360KB
• Question paper - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 7MB
• Mark scheme - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 459KB
• Examiners' report - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 406KB
• Mark scheme - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 460KB
• Examiners' report - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 363KB
• Modified papers H420/01/02/03 - ZIP 11MB

2019 - June series

• Question paper - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 5MB
• Insert - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 869KB
• Mark scheme - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 735KB
• Examiners' report - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 1MB
• Question paper - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 4MB
• Erratum notice - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 424KB
• Mark scheme - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 813KB
• Examiners' report - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 1MB
• Question paper - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 2MB
• Mark scheme - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 724KB
• Examiners' report - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 1MB
• Moderators' report - Practical endorsement H420/04, H422/04, H432/04, H433/04, H414/04, H556/04, H557/04 - PDF 754KB
• Summer highlights report H420/H422 - PDF 486KB
• Modified Papers H420/01/02/03 - ZIP 72MB

2018 - June series

• Question paper - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 4MB
• Mark scheme - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 1MB
• Examiners' report - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 2MB
• Question paper - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 5MB
• Question paper - Biological diversity post-exam correction H420/02 - PDF 30KB
• Question paper - Biological diversity insert H420/02 - PDF 1MB
• Mark scheme - Biological diversity H420/02 - PDF 636KB
• Mark scheme - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 486KB
• Examiners' report - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 2MB
• Modified papers H420/01-H420/03 - ZIP 65MB
• Moderators' report - endorsed component H420, H422, H432, H433, H556, H557 - PDF 482KB
• Examiner comment summary H420, H422 - PDF 752KB

2017 - June series

• Question paper - Biological processes H420/01 - PDF 7MB
• Question paper - Biological processes post-exam correction H420/01 - PDF 725KB
• Mark scheme - Biological processes H420A/01 - PDF 867KB
• Question paper - Biological diversity erratum H420/02 - PDF 682KB
• Mark scheme - Biological diversity H420A/02 - PDF 956KB
• Question paper - Unified biology H420/03 - PDF 3MB
• Question paper - Unified biology insert H420/03 - PDF 4MB
• Mark scheme - Unified biology H420A/03 - PDF 518KB
• Modified papers ZIP 60MB
• Examiner comment summary H420 - PDF 708KB

2016 - June series

• Modified papers ZIP 10MB

Withdrawn qualification materials

• Question paper - Communication, homeostasis and energy F214 - PDF 277KB
• Mark scheme - Communication, homeostasis and energy F214 - PDF 277KB
• Question paper - Control, genomes and environment F215 - PDF 886KB
• Mark scheme - Control, genomes and environment F215 - PDF 418KB
• Examiner report F211,F212,F214,F215 - PDF 367KB

2015 - June series

• Question paper - Communication, homeostasis and energy F214 - PDF 503KB
• Mark scheme - Communication, homeostasis and energy F214 - PDF 324KB
• Question paper - Control, genomes and environment F215 - PDF 506KB
• Question paper - Control, genomes and environment insert F215 - PDF 463KB
• Mark scheme - Control, genomes and environment F215 - PDF 434KB
• Examiner report F211,F212,F214,F215 - PDF 418KB

2014 - June series

• Question paper - Communication, homeostasis and energy F214 - PDF 934KB
• Mark scheme - Communication, homeostasis and energy F214 - PDF 287KB
• Question paper - Control, genomes and environment F215 - PDF 497KB
• Question paper - Control, genomes and environment insert F215 - PDF 1MB
• Mark scheme - Control, genomes and environment F215 - PDF 332KB
• Examiner report F211, F212, F214, F215 - PDF 353KB

Sample assessment materials

Marking instructions are included at the beginning of specimen assessment material mark schemes and were accurate at the time of publication. Marking instructions may be revised in live papers as appropriate during the lifetime of the qualification.

We're currently revising our SAMs to update third-party copyright agreements. For question examples see our question papers, marks schemes and reports.

• Biological processes H420/01 - Sample question paper and mark scheme. PDF 1MB
• Biological diversity H420/02 - Sample question paper and mark scheme. PDF 1MB
• Unified biology H420/03 - Sample question paper and mark scheme. PDF 2MB

Practical endorsement

• Practical endorsement monitoring process - 2023–2025 PDF 112KB

Resources for students

• Exam hints for students H420 - PDF 1MB
• Student revision checklist H420 - A checklist of the learning outcomes and the content you need to cover and work on. DOCX 390KB
• Question paper - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 1MB
• Mark scheme - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 499KB
• Examiners' report - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 3MB
• Question paper - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 4MB
• Mark scheme - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 481KB
• Examiners' report - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 4MB
• Modified papers H020/01-H020/02 - ZIP 12MB
• Mark scheme - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 352KB
• Question paper - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 1MB
• Mark scheme - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 447KB
• Question paper - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 6MB
• Mark scheme - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 357KB
• Examiners' report - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 341KB
• Question paper - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 5MB
• Question paper - Depth in biology insert H020/02 - PDF 2MB
• Mark scheme - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 551KB
• Examiners' report - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 334KB
• Modified papers H020/01-02 - ZIP 9MB
• Question paper - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 5MB
• Mark scheme - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 442KB
• Examiners' report - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 1MB
• Question paper - Depth in biology insert H020/02 - PDF 1MB
• Mark scheme - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 815KB
• Examiners' report - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 1MB
• Modified papers H020/01-H020/02 - ZIP 39MB
• Question paper - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 4MB
• Mark scheme - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 235KB
• Examiners' report - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 2MB
• Question paper - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 3MB
• Mark scheme - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 770KB
• Modified papers H020/01-H020/02 - ZIP 34MB
• Question paper - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 3MB
• Mark scheme - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 472KB
• Mark scheme - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 990KB
• Modified papers ZIP 61MB
• Mark scheme - Breadth in biology H020/01 - PDF 328KB
• Question paper - Depth in biology insert H020/02 - PDF 829KB
• Mark scheme - Depth in biology H020/02 - PDF 577KB
• Modified papers H020 - ZIP 12MB
• Question paper - Cells, exchange and transport F211 - PDF 1MB
• Question paper - Cells, exchange and transport insert F211 - PDF 2MB
• Mark scheme - Cells, exchange and transport F211 - PDF 257KB
• Question paper - Molecules, biodiversity, food and health F212 - PDF 527KB
• Mark scheme - Molecules, biodiversity, food and health F212 - PDF 415KB
• Question paper - Cells, exchange and transport F211 - PDF 793KB
• Mark scheme - Cells, exchange and transport F211 - PDF 377KB
• Question paper - Molecules, biodiversity, food and health F212 - PDF 719KB
• Mark scheme - Molecules, biodiversity, food and health F212 - PDF 264KB
• Question paper - Cells, exchange and transport F211 - PDF 187KB
• Mark scheme - Cells, exchange and transport F211 - PDF 259KB
• Question paper - Molecules, biodiversity, food and health F212 - PDF 1023KB
• Mark scheme - Molecules, biodiversity, food and health F212 - PDF 465KB
• Breadth in biology H020/01 - Sample question paper and mark scheme. PDF 1MB
• Depth in biology H020/02 - Sample question paper and mark scheme. PDF 1MB

Assemble bespoke mock exams and topic tests from past papers with ExamBuilder, our free assessment builder platform.

IB Extended Essay: Assessment Criteria

• Research Questions
• Past Essays
• Notes & Outlines
• Works Cited Page
• In-Text Citations
• Assessment Criteria
• Reflections
• Supervisor Info
• Net Valley Library This link opens in a new window

Score Descriptors for each Criterion:

• A - Focus and Method
• B - Knowledge and Understanding
• C - Critical Thinking
• D - Presentation
• E - Engagement

Printable: Full Rubric  for all subjects

To view details for your SUBJECT, open the correct page below.

• Choose "Interpreting the EE Assessment Criteria" on the sidebar to see how to score well in YOUR subject area

Language & literature (language A)

Language acquisition (language B)

Mathematics

Visual Arts

World Studies

Business Management

Grade Boundaries

What's Expected?

• A: Focus/Method
• B: Knowledge
• C: Critical Thinking
• D: Presentation
• E: Engagement
• A: Focus and Method (6 marks)
• B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)
• C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)
• D: Presentation (4 marks)
• E: Engagement (6 marks)
• Total marks possible: 34 (see grade boundaries below)
• Printable:  Full Rubric
• Printable: A3 size with details
• Printable:  Details for each criterion , via the Oxford guide

Criterion A:  Focus and Method (6 points)

What It Means:   This criterion focuses on the topic, the research question and the methodology. It assesses the explanation of the focus of the research (this includes the topic and the research question), how the research will be undertaken, and how the focus is maintained throughout the essay.

Questions to ask:  

• Does this essay meet the requirements for the subject for which you are registering it?
• Is your research question stated as a question?
• Have you explained how your research question relates to the subject that you selected for the extended essay?
• Have you given an insight into why your area of study is important?
• Is your research question feasible within the scope of the task? Could your research question be “answered” or it is too vague?
• Did you refer to your research question throughout the essay (not only in the introduction and conclusion)?
• Did you explain why you selected your methodology?
• Are there other possible methods that could be used or applied to answer your research question? How might this change the direction of your research?
• If you stated a particular methodology in the introduction of your essay, or specific sources, have you used them?
• Are there any references listed in the bibliography that were not directly cited in the text?

(Source: Susan Trower, via West Sound Academy)

Criterion B:  Knowledge and Understanding (6 points)

What It Means:   This criterion assesses the extent to which the research relates to the subject area/discipline used to explore the research question; or in the case of the world studies extended essay, the issue addressed and the two disciplinary perspectives applied; and additionally, the way in which this knowledge and understanding is demonstrated through the use of appropriate terminology and concepts.

• Have you explained how your research question relates to a specific subject you selected for the extended essay?
• Have you used relevant terminology and concepts throughout your essay as they relate to your particular area of research?
• Is it clear that the sources you are using are relevant and appropriate to your research question?
• Do you have a range of sources, or have you only relied on one particular type, for example internet sources?
• Is there a reason why you might not have a range? Is this justified?

(Source: Oxford EE manual, p. 110)

Criterion C:  Critical Thinking (12 points)

What It Means:   This criterion assesses the extent to which critical thinking skills have been used to analyze and evaluate the research undertaken.

• Have you made links between your results and data collected and your research question?
• If you included data or information that is not directly related to your research question have you explained its importance?
• Are your conclusions supported by your data?
• If you found unexpected information or data have you discussed its importance?
• Have you provided a critical evaluation of the methods you selected?
• Have you considered the reliability of your sources (peer-reviewed journals, internet, and so on)?
• Have you mentioned and evaluated the significance of possible errors that may have occurred in your research?
• Are all your suggestions of errors or improvements relevant?
• Have you evaluated your research question?
• Have you compared your results or findings with any other sources?
• Is there an argument that is clear and easy to follow and directly linked to answering your research question, and which is supported by evidence? Are there other possible methods that could be used or applied to answer your research question? How might this change the direction of your research?

(Source: Oxford EE Manual p. 111)

Handy Links:

• Presentation One Pager  via Catalina Bordoy
• Presentation Checklist
• Sample Title page   (see below - top half of the page)

Criterion D:  Presentation ( 4 points)

What It Means:   This criterion assesses the extent to which the presentation follows the standard format expected for academic writing and the extent to which this aids effective communication.

• Have you read and understood the presentation requirements of the extended essay?
• Have you chosen a font that will be easy for examiners to read on-screen?
• Is your essay double-spaced and size 12 font?
• Are the title and research question mentioned on the cover page?
• Are all pages numbered?
• Have you prepared a correct table of contents?
• Do the page numbers in the table of contents match the page numbers in the text?
• Is your essay subdivided into correct sub-sections, if this is applicable to the subject?
• Are all figures and tables properly numbered and labelled?
• Does your bibliography contain only the sources cited in the text?
• Did you use the same reference system throughout the essay?
• Does the essay have less than 4,000 words?
• Is all the material presented in the appendices relevant and necessary?
• Have you proofread the text for spelling or grammar errors?

Criterion E: Engagement

• Three reflections (best after meeting with your supervisor)
• 500 words TOTAL (100 + 150 + 250?)
• Reflections are done in Managebac on your Reflection space
• See the "Reflections" tab above for prompts to write about

(Source: Oxford EE Manual p.135)

(Source: Oxford EE Manual p.133)

• Sample Reflections
• Full chapter on Reflections from the Oxford Guide

Criterion E:  Engagement (6 points)

What It Means:   This criterion assesses the student’s engagement with their research focus and the research process. It will be applied by the examiner at the end of the assessment of the essay, after considering the student’s RPPF (Reflections on planning and progress form).

• Have you demonstrated your engagement with your research topic and the research process?
• Have you highlighted challenges you faced and how you overcame them?
• Will the examiner get a sense of your intellectual and skills development?
• Will the examiner get a sense of your creativity and intellectual initiative?
• For prompts to deepen your reflections, go  here  and then to the bottom of the page
• Presentation Quick Guide
• << Previous: In-Text Citations
• Next: Reflections >>
• Last Updated: Apr 9, 2024 9:39 AM
• URL: https://sis-cn.libguides.com/ExtendedEssay

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes

Mark Kelly and Gabby Giffords on Their IVF Journey: 'Freedom to Start a Family Is Under Threat' (Exclusive)

In an exclusive essay for PEOPLE, the married Arizona lawmakers share how a gunman stole their dreams of having a child together — and why they fear politicians will do the same to other families

Kevin Dietsch/Getty

Our lives changed forever on January 8th, 2011, when a gunman opened fire at a "Congress on Your Corner" event in Tucson. Six lives were lost , many more were injured, and Gabby was shot in the head . Of everything that changed that day — both of us halting our careers, the beginning of a long, difficult road to recovery — we also lost something we wanted very much: the opportunity to have a child together.

The shooting happened on a Saturday morning. Two days later, we were supposed to have an appointment at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington, where Gabby had been receiving fertility treatments, to have our embryos implanted to try to begin a pregnancy. Like a lot of folks, we got married a little later in our lives. One of us had two beautiful daughters from a previous marriage; one of us had never had kids. We wanted to grow our family together and were fortunate enough to be able to pursue the only option for us: in vitro fertilization, or IVF. Gabby never made it to that appointment.

Office of Senator Mark Kelly

These past few months, as we’ve seen reproductive freedoms increasingly under attack in the absence of the protections of  Roe v. Wade ,  our hearts break for the couples who, all of a sudden, can’t decide for themselves how and when to start their family.

The IVF process is extensive and expensive. In order to create a viable embryo, women must inject hormonal medication to increase egg production and then have those eggs retrieved. It’s invasive, and many women experience pain and uncomfortable changes in their bodies. Still, for many couples who struggle to become parents, IVF is the safest — or in some cases only — option to achieve their hope of becoming pregnant.

With everything the shooting forced us to leave behind, we weren’t ready to let go of our dream of having a child together. But eventually, we had to. That loss was its own agony.

We don’t dwell on what could have been. Gabby’s philosophy is “Move ahead,” and that’s what we did to rebuild our lives and find our purpose after what happened to our family. We have a vibrant family we love, including a granddaughter who brings us so much joy.

Make no mistake: The freedom to start a family with IVF is under threat. In Alabama, a decision from the state Supreme Court made IVF virtually impossible for a period of time. In Arizona, the state legislature passed a law that would have threatened access to IVF in our state if it hadn’t been for a veto by Gov. Katie Hobbs . In Washington, the majority of House Republicans are cosponsors of a fetal personhood bill that, if signed into law, would endanger access to IVF for every American.

Our dream of having a child together was taken away by a gunman. The dreams of Americans to have a child together could be taken away by politicians.

This isn’t happening by chance. It’s the result of years of anti-choice efforts and the appointment of judges by governors and presidents like Donald Trump who are hostile to reproductive rights. Donald Trump said himself that he “broke”  Roe v. Wade ,  which set off a series of attacks on reproductive freedoms.

Twenty states now have abortion bans, including Arizona , where our state has been in turmoil between two abortion bans, both of which endanger women’s health and threaten doctors with jail time.

And it doesn’t stop there. Last week, the Supreme Court threw out a case attempting to rein in approval of abortion medication also used to treat miscarriages. But this won’t be the end. Other states could and will again challenge mifepristone, just as state abortion bans are threatening to undo a federal law that requires emergency care for pregnant women when their lives are in danger, including abortion care if necessary. The right to birth control could very well be the next target.

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer.

Despite this real threat, Republicans in Congress have multiple times in recent weeks blocked legislation that would protect access to IVF and contraception for all Americans. The truth is there is a real danger of our country moving backwards — even further than we already have.

Growing a family is never simple, even in the best of circumstances. We know that. When and how to do it is among the most personal decisions anyone makes. We know that, too. The government, whether its politicians or judges, has no business making those decisions for you. They should be yours alone.

Related Articles

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Amy Coney Barrett Sounds Fed Up with Clarence Thomas’ Sloppy Originalism

This is part of  Opinionpalooza , Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. Alongside  Amicus , we kicked things off this year by explaining  How Originalism Ate the Law . The best way to support our work is by joining  Slate Plus . (If you are already a member, consider a  donation  or  merch !)

A minor dispute over a trademark registration erupted into a heated battle over originalism at the Supreme Court last week, splintering the justices into warring camps over the value and practicality of history in constitutional analysis. No surprise there—as the term accelerates toward a contentious finale, the tensions roiling major cases are bound to spill over into littler ones. What’s remarkable is who seized on this squabble over intellectual property to launch a scathing salvo against the conservative majority’s “laser-like focus” on “supposed history and tradition”: Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative who presented as a true believer in originalism when joining the Supreme Court four years ago. Barrett’s latest opinion exudes disenchantment with the methodology, at least as it’s used by this court; it also suggests she has buyer’s remorse about signing on to Bruen , a significant expansion of the Second Amendment that’s arguably the most radical and unworkable “originalist” opinion she’s joined so far.

We will know soon enough. Last week’s squabble reads like shadowboxing over a much bigger decision to come: U.S. v. Rahimi , a follow-up to the Bruen decision. Rahimi gives the court an opportunity to walk back the most disastrous and lethal aspects of its Second Amendment extremism. Barrett now seems like she may be eager to take it.

Vidal v. Elster , last Thursday’s decision, is not the kind of case that usually makes headlines. Steve Elster is a labor lawyer who wanted to trademark the phrase “Trump too small,” inspired by Sen. Marco Rubio’s crude debate joke about Donald Trump’s hands in 2016. The Patent and Trademark Office, however, refused to register the trademark, citing a law that bars trademarks made up of a name “identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent.” (Needless to say, the former president did not give his consent.) Elster sued, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that two similar provisions of federal law violate free speech, one that bars disparaging trademarks and another that bars “ immoral or scandalous ” trademarks. So, he argued, the prohibition against trademarks that use other people’s names—the so-called names clause—should also be declared unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Elster, upholding the statute. But the justices fractured badly on the reason why, dividing more or less into a 5–4 split. Writing for the five men, Justice Clarence Thomas relied exclusively upon history (or his version of it) to resolve the case. Typically, he explained, laws that discriminate on the basis of content—that is, their “topic,” “idea,” or “message”—are subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. And by targeting trademarks that reference other people, the “names clause” is a “content-based regulation of speech.” But Thomas then declared that the law is not constitutionally suspect because it aligns with the “history and tradition” of the nation “since the founding.” Trademark restrictions “have always turned on a mark’s content” yet “have always coexisted with the First Amendment,” so they represent an exception to the usual constitutional limitations. Embarking upon a grand journey from the 1700s through today, Thomas presented a smattering of comparable laws from the past to demonstrate this “historical rule.” In short, he concluded, it has always been done, so it always may be done. Case closed.

In a separate opinion, Barrett agreed with Thomas’ bottom line but sharply disagreed with pretty much everything else. His history-only approach, she wrote, was “wrong twice over”: Thomas both botched the relevant history and failed to make a persuasive case for its use in the first place. Start with “the court’s evidence.” Thomas’ law-office history , Barrett explained, consists of “loosely related cases from the late-19th and early-20th centuries” that do not “establish a historical analogue for the names clause.” His analysis of these cases is shallow and often dubious; Barrett highlighted unfounded inferences in Thomas’ skim of the historical record, questioning his generalizations from a handful of archaic decisions. She also noted that Thomas declined to “fully grapple with countervailing evidence,” citing old decisions that cut against his conclusory assertions.

Clearly, Barrett is growing tired of her colleague’s bogus originalism: She also criticized his highly selective frolic through the archives in last term’s Samia v. U.S. , questioning his reliance on a somewhat random “snapshot” of history to cut back protections of the Sixth Amendment. “The court overclaims,” the justice wrote then, risking “undermining the force of historical arguments when they matter most.”

But this time, Barrett’s critique cuts much deeper: Thomas, she wrote, “never explains why hunting for historical forebears on a restriction-by-restriction basis is the right way to analyze the constitutional question.” The majority “presents tradition itself as the constitutional argument,” as though it is “dispositive of the First Amendment issue,” without any “theoretical justification.” In a passage that must have made the liberal justices proud, Barrett continued: “Relying exclusively on history and tradition may seem like a way of avoiding judge-made tests. But a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test. And I do not see a good reason to resolve this case using that approach rather than by adopting a generally applicable principle.” Plucking out historical anecdotes, ad libbing some connective tissue, then presenting the result as a constitutional principle “misses the forest for the trees.” When applying “broadly worded” constitutional text, “courts must inevitably articulate principles to resolve individual cases.” This approach brings sorely needed “clarity to the law.”

Barrett sketched out a better path: assessing the “names clause” within a framework “grounded in both trademark law and First Amendment precedent.” When the government “opens its property to speech,” she wrote, restrictions are permissible so long as they aren’t cover for the “official suppression of ideas.” Thus, courts should uphold trademark laws if they “are reasonable in light of the trademark system’s purpose.”

Why did Barrett spill so much ink repudiating Thomas’ opinion when the two justices landed in the same place? Her opinion reads like a rebuttal of Bruen , Thomas’ 2022 decision establishing a novel right to carry guns in public—which Barrett joined in full. Bruen marked a sea change because it upended the way courts looked at firearm restrictions. Previously, the courts of appeals applied heightened scrutiny to gun laws, asking whether the regulation was carefully drawn to further public safety. SCOTUS applies this test in countless other contexts, including the First Amendment and equal protection. It requires judges to balance the interests on both sides, a well-worn tool of judicial review. Yet Thomas spurned this “means-ends scrutiny,” demanding that courts rely exclusively on the nation’s “history and tradition”: A gun restriction, he wrote, is only constitutional if it has a sufficient number of “historical analogues” from the distant past.

This brand-new test has flummoxed the lower courts and led to ludicrous outcomes —partly because judges are not historians and have no reliable way to produce a complete historical record, and also because American society has evolved to the point that a great deal of “tradition” now looks barbaric . This term, the Supreme Court has been confronted with the fallout from Bruen in a follow-up called Rahimi , which asks whether domestic abusers have a right to bear arms . During oral arguments in Rahimi , Barrett sounded deeply uncomfortable with what her court had wrought. Rahimi has not yet been decided. But Barrett’s concurrence in Elster reads like a preview of her opinion in that case. The justice seems to have second thoughts about pinning constitutional interpretation entirely on a court’s amateur historical analysis; she now seems to see the immense value in “adopting a generally applicable principle” that courts can apply across cases.

The liberal justices were right there alongside Barrett in Elster , gladly signing on to her more sensible approach to the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also wrote a separate concurrence raising many of Barrett’s objections, taking more explicit aim at Bruen and the “confusion” it has caused. And some of Barrett’s Elster concurrence echoes a recent opinion by Justice Elena Kagan—which Barrett notably joined—that offered an alternative to Thomas’ rigid focus on founding-era history in a case upholding the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This shadowboxing foreshadows a bitter split in Rahimi , though with Barrett and the liberals appear poised to wind up on the winning side. There’s no doubt that Barrett is still a Second Amendment enthusiast , but with one more vote, this bloc is well positioned to walk back the excesses of Bruen . What’s certain right now is that the justice, at a minimum, has serious doubts about the legitimacy and workability of this Supreme Court’s sloppy, results-oriented originalism . That doesn’t mean Barrett has abandoned her broader commitment to the conservative legal movement’s cause. But it does signal a disillusionment with conservative orthodoxies that could put her vote up for grabs in cases much more important than a trademark dispute.

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Academics despair as ChatGPT-written essays swamp marking season

‘it’s not a machine for cheating; it’s a machine for producing crap,’ says one professor infuriated by rise of bland scripts.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

The increased prevalence of students using ChatGPT to write essays should prompt a rethink about whether current policies encouraging “ethical” use of artificial intelligence are working, scholars have argued.

With marking season in full flow, lecturers have taken to social media in large numbers to complain about AI-generated content found in submitted work.

Telltale signs of ChatGPT use, according to academics, include little-used words such as “delve” and “multifaceted”, summarising key themes using bullet points and a jarring conversational style using terms such as “let’s explore this theme”.

In a more obvious giveaway, one professor said an advert for an AI essay company was buried in a paper’s introduction ; another academic noted how a student had forgotten to remove a chatbot statement that the content was AI-generated.

“I had no idea how many would resort to it,” admitted one UK law professor .

Des Fitzgerald, professor of medical humanities and social sciences at University College Cork , told Times Higher Education that student use of AI had “gone totally mainstream” this year.

“Across a batch of essays, you do start to notice the tics of ChatGPT essays, which is partly about repetition of certain words or phrases, but is also just a kind of aura of machinic blandness that’s hard to describe to someone who hasn’t encountered it – an essay with no edges, that does nothing technically wrong or bad, but not much right or good, either,” said Professor Fitzgerald.

Since ChatGPT’s emergence in late 2022 , some universities have adopted policies to allow the use of AI as long as it is acknowledged, while others have begun using AI content detectors, although opinion is divided on their effectiveness .

According to the latest Student Academic Experience Survey , for which Advance HE and the Higher Education Policy Institute polled around 10,000 UK undergraduates, 61 per cent use AI at least a little each month, “in a way allowed by their institution”, while 31 per cent do so every week.

Campus resource: Can we spot AI-written content?

Professor Fitzgerald said that although some colleagues “think we just need to live with this, even that we have a duty to teach students to use it well”, he was “totally against” the use of AI tools for essays.

“ChatGPT is completely antithetical to everything I think I’m doing as a teacher – working with students to engage with texts, thinking through ideas, learning to clarify and express complex thoughts, taking some risks with those thoughts, locating some kind of distinctive inner voice. ChatGPT is total poison for all of this, and we need to simply ban it,” he said.

Steve Fuller, professor of sociology at the University of Warwick , agreed that AI use had “become more noticeable” this year despite his students signing contracts saying they would not use it to write essays.

He said he was not opposed to students using it “as long as what they produce sounds smart and on point, and the marker can’t recognise it as simply having been lifted from another source wholesale”.

Those who leaned heavily on the technology should expect a relatively low mark, even though they might pass, said Professor Fuller.

“Students routinely commit errors of fact, reasoning and grammar [without ChatGPT], yet if their text touches enough bases with the assignment they’re likely to get somewhere in the low- to mid-60s. ChatGPT does a credible job at simulating such mediocrity, and that’s good enough for many of its student users,” he said.

Having to mark such mediocre essays partly generated by AI is, however, a growing complaint among academics. Posting on X, Lancaster University economist Renaud Foucart said marking AI-generated essays “takes much more time to assess [because] I need to concentrate much more to cut through the amount of seemingly logical statements that are actually full of emptiness”.

“My biggest issue [with AI] is less the moral issue about cheating but more what ChatGPT offers students,” Professor Fitzgerald added. “All it is capable of is [writing] bad essays made up of non-ideas and empty sentences. It’s not a machine for cheating; it’s a machine for producing crap.”

[email protected]

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline:  Academics despair over ‘crap’ AI essays

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

Policing AI use by counting ‘telltale’ words is flawed and damaging

Making people paranoid about employing familiar and useful words is not the way to encourage responsible AI use, say Lilian Schofield and Xue Zhou 

Privileged students ‘more likely to use ChatGPT’ on assessments

Survey finds evidence of ‘emerging digital divide’ as majority of undergraduates say they use generative AI to help with assessments

Less than half of top universities publish AI guidelines

Lack of clear guidelines may put instructors on ‘defensive’ over students’ use of ChatGPT, researchers say

AI text detectors aren’t working. Is regulation the answer?

Tools developed to stamp out misconduct have been shown to be biased and inaccurate. Will AI creators themselves be forced to do it better?

Related universities

University college cork, university of warwick, reader's comments (18), you might also like.

Computer science students must be taught to consider social effects

Departments can no longer be singularly tied to their mathematical and engineering foundations, focused only on what can be built, says Beth Mynatt

What crisis? Students rate UK courses highly despite challenges

More UK undergraduates see courses as value for money in 2024, with international students driving much of the increase

AI or not, students must still learn to think for themselves

Perhaps AI will be a useful tool. But our obsession with every shiny new object regardless of the harm it might do makes me worry, says Melinda Zook

Featured jobs