Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– ## WrittenIntroductionParagraph2.edited.docx
– ## Revise.pdf
**## WrittenIntroductionParagraph2.edited.docx**
2
**The Case for Paying College Athletes**
**The Case for Paying College Athletes**
College sports are not mere sideshows but a massive business that makes millions of dollars selling tickets, merchandise, and TV contracts. Each season, millions of fans who watch their favorite teams on TV fill stadiums. This leads to the earning of massive profits by colleges, coaches, and sponsors. However, beneath all the glamour and excitement lies a less glamorous reality: student-athletes, whose abilities and diligence enable all of this, seldom receive substantial financial compensation. Scholarships are given to the majority of student-athletes, but they frequently fall short of covering the actual cost of living and the sacrifices that athletes must make for their sport. For a long time, the NCAA has maintained strict rules against directly paying athletes. They assert that college sports will go 'amateur' once players start getting paid. In fact, the schools, networks, and sponsors benefit, not the players themselves (Haile, 2023). Additionally, many college athletes put in about 30-40 hours a week into training, travelling, and competing. Due to this heavy schedule of events and competitions, many athletes cannot take outside jobs anymore and are struggling financially (Haile, 2023). On top of this, athletes put their bodies on the line every game, facing injuries that can not only end their sports careers but also affect their long-term health. Because of their time commitment, the unfair system, the fact that they are the ones driving the money, and the risks they take with their health, student-athletes deserve to be paid fairly.
It is not unjust to pay student-athletes due to the equal amount of time they give to their sport on a full-time basis. College athletes have between 30 and 40 hours per week in practice, training, traveling, and competing. It is this amount of time that most adults spend at a full-time job (Pacenta et al., 2024). In the case of athletes, this period is physically demanding, besides being highly psychologically straining as they combine sport with academics. These long hours leave them with little time or energy to pursue outside employment, hence they cannot earn additional money to sustain their personal bills. Some of them are awarded scholarships; however, these are not always reflective of the actual cost of living. Most of the athletes are yet asked to finance food and accommodation, clothing, and transportation costs out of their own purse, which may be hard to do without a stable income-generating process. This puts an unjust state of affairs where sportspeople are dedicating their time, effort, and energy to a billion-dollar business and still failing to meet the ministry's needs (Delventhal, 2021). Due to the high demands of the schedules along with the nature and lapses of the financial sharing, it is but natural to expect that student-athletes deserve to be rewarded for their devotion.
Many student-athletes struggle financially in addition to their time commitment, which highlights the shortcomings of the current system. Even though they are frequently offered as a solution, scholarships usually fall short of covering the entire cost of living, particularly given the annual increases in tuition, housing, and food prices (Gurney, 2025). Athletes still have to cover necessities like food, housing, transportation, and personal expenses, even if they receive full or partial tuition assistance. These expenses are inevitable and put additional strain on students who already have a lot on their plates. Most athletes are unable to work part-time jobs to supplement their income because their athletic commitments take up a significant part of their week (Kite & Parris, 2025). Many consequently struggle to maintain a minimal standard of living, which makes it difficult for them to give their all to their studies and sports. This disparity in income emphasizes how urgent it is to compensate athletes fairly.
Additionally, the current system is also incredibly unfair because it permits colleges, coaches, and media outlets to take advantage of athletes without paying them for their labor. The performance, popularity, and marketability of athletes bring in billions of dollars each year for schools, television networks, and corporate sponsors. However, the athletes themselves receive virtually none of these profits, even though they are the primary contributors. For example, while the school, networks, and sponsors benefited greatly from Johnny Manziel's fame, the Texas A&M quarterback and 2012 Heisman Trophy winner only received a scholarship worth roughly $20,000 despite generating an estimated $37 million in media attention for his university (Bachman & Cohen, 2013). Investigations into Manziel's alleged acceptance of payment for autographs revealed the hypocrisy of NCAA regulations that penalize athletes for requesting payment while allowing schools to freely take advantage of their marketability (Bachman & Cohen, 2013). Players are limited to scholarships that do not adequately compensate them for the enormous profits they bring in, even as these salaries keep increasing. In the end, the system treats athletes more like commodities than like human beings worthy of respect, putting institutional profit ahead of athlete justice. This disparity will continue to be a glaring instance of exploitation until compensation is implemented.
Lastly, athletes should be compensated for the substantial health risks they incur each time they take the court or field. A student-athlete's career could be abruptly ended by a single injury, delaying their athletic aspirations and their chance to pursue a career in professional sports. Many injuries result in long-term physical problems, such as chronic pain, concussions, and mental health difficulties, that last well beyond college years, even when they do not end careers (Jiao & Hou, 2025). Athletes in all sports must deal with these risks; they are not hypothetical. Athletes themselves pay the psychological and physical costs, but colleges make money whether or not a player is hurt. While offering monetary compensation would not eliminate these risks, it would recognize the tremendous physical sacrifices made by athletes in the name of achievement.
In conclusion, student-athletes ought to receive compensation due to the long hours they put in, the financial struggles they experience, the systemic exploitation that takes advantage of their skill, and the serious health risks they face. These athletes are essential to the existence of college athletics, but they are not given the financial benefits that their labors bring. In addition to promoting equity, compensating athletes would uphold the integrity of the system as a whole by honoring their efforts and sacrifices. In the end, paying student-athletes would guarantee that they are seen as more than just performers; rather, they are valued contributors who should be respected and given financial assistance.
**References**
Delventhal, M. L. (2021).
_A Latent Class Analysis Predictive Modeling Approach to Profile Division I Collegiate Athletes for Nutrition and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) Concern_. The University of Mississippi.https://www.proquest.com/openview/4e90b7577eaa02be870947121e398896/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
ein.journals/bclr64&div=45&id=&page=
Gurney, G. S. (2025).
_The Cost of Winning: An Insider's Perspective on Exploitation and Greed in College Sports_. Rowman & Littlefield.
Haile, A. J. (2023). Equity implications of paying college athletes: A title IX analysis.
_BCL Rev._,
_64_, 1449. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=h
Jiao, Z., & Hou, T. (2025). Analyzing the causes of sports injuries in college sports activities and research on the recovery strategy using an intelligent approach.
_Scientific Reports_, 15(1), 13357. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96770-5
Kite, R. J., & Parris, Z. (2025). Athletes’ transitions from part-time to full-time performance programmes: Athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions.
_International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching_, 17479541251334740. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541251334740
Pacenta, J., Starkoff, B. E., Lenz, E. K., & Shearer, A. (2024). Prevalence of and contributors to food insecurity among college athletes: a scoping review.
_Nutrients_,
_16_(9), 1346. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16091346
**## Revise.pdf**
Revise My rough Draft with the rubric provided and the feedback
Feedback: The final body paragraph could benefit from one more supporting point from a
research article, but other than that, this looks great! Other than minor tweaks, this is
pretty much ready for final draft submission. Detailed, well-researched, well-organized,
and well-written. A pleasure to read a strong rough draft.
Submit the final draft of your research paper, incorporating the feedback you previously
received on your draft, as well as further revisions you have made. Use the revision and
editing checklist in order to ensure you have applied all the lessons learned throughout
the term: Revision & Editing Checklist
Download Revision & Editing Checklist
Signature Assignment: Argumentative Essay (Full Instructions)
Download Signature Assignment: Argumentative Essay (Full Instructions)
See the rubric for specific grading criteria.
Resource: Use the Grammarly tool to catch and correct mistakes in your writing
assignments.
Points: 200
Due Sunday, 11: 59 p.m. (Pacific time)
Rubric
Final Draft Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?wrap=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?wrap=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?wrap=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?wrap=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1)
[https://guides.westcoastuniversity.edu/grammarly](https://guides.westcoastuniversity.edu/grammarly)
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Content
60 to >53.4 ptsThe writer demonstrates original thought and critical
thinking skills. He/she presents a clear, focused central argument
(thesis) and supports it effectively with concrete details, examples, and
sound logic. Other authors’ ideas are skillfully paraphrased. Direct
quotations are minimal and well-chosen. All sources are relevant and
appropriate, and the writer’s ideas are convincing, even for those who
disagree with his/her premise.
53.4 to >47.4 ptsThe writer presents and supports a clear and focused
central argument (thesis), but ideas may not be consistently
convincing. Supporting details are relevant and logical but may lack
depth. Other authors’ ideas are effectively paraphrased, and direct
quotations are minimal. All sources are relevant and appropriate.
47.4 to >43.2 ptsThe writer presents a central argument (thesis), but it
may be overly general/broad. He/she adequately supports the central
argument, but supporting points may at times be vague, too obvious, or
otherwise unconvincing. The writer makes an effort to paraphrase but at
times struggles to express ideas in his/her own words. The essay lacks
interesting details, and/or not all sources are relevant and appropriate.
43.2 to >0 ptsThe writer’s central argument (thesis) is unclear or
missing, and the essay lacks focus. Supporting details are insufficient,
not relevant, and/or not based on sound logic. Attempts to paraphrase
do not always reflect understanding. The writer has not used enough
sources, and/or the sources are not all relevant and appropriate.
60
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Organizatio
n
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer demonstrates a clear sense of direction. The
paper includes an engaging introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs
are unified and arranged in a logical order. Each paragraph begins with
a clear topic sentence that introduces the main idea of that paragraph.
The writer smoothly transitions from paragraph to paragraph, showing
connections between related ideas. Supporting details within
paragraphs are well-organized, and research is well-integrated.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer demonstrates a sense of direction. The
paper includes a strong introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs are
unified and include topic sentences, but they may lack smooth
transitions between ideas. The organization of supporting details within
paragraphs may need improvement.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer demonstrates some direction and includes
an adequate introduction and conclusion, but topic sentences and
transitions are weak. The paragraphs show unity, but they are not
arranged in any discernable order, and supporting details may not
always be well-organized.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer demonstrates little or no direction. The
introduction and conclusion are weak. It is difficult to identify a single
subtopic for each paragraph because paragraphs are not unified and
lack clear topic sentences or transitions. The order of body paragraphs
seems random, as do the supporting details within them.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Style/Langu
age
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer’s tone is confident, engaging, and appropriate
for the assignment and/or the intended audience. The text demonstrates
strong vocabulary skills and does not suffer from errors in word choice.
The writer expresses ideas concisely, only using as many words as
necessary to communicate a point. The writer achieves flow and
readability by employing sentence variety successfully.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer’s tone is appropriate and effective overall.
The text demonstrates good use of vocabulary and contains few (if any)
errors in word choice. The writer expresses ideas concisely and clearly
most of the time. The writer makes an effort to employ sentence variety.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer’s tone suffers from one or more possible
problems. Depending on the assignment, it may be too informal, too
personal, not authoritative enough, etc. Numerous sentences suffer
from lack of variety, awkward constructions, wordiness, limited
vocabulary, and/or errors in word choice.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer often fails to communicate ideas effectively
because the paper suffers from significant problems with tone,
language use, and/or wordiness.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Sentence
Structure
and
Mechanics
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer makes minimal (if any) errors in grammar,
spelling, and/or punctuation. There are no fragments or run-on
sentences.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer makes some errors in grammar, spelling,
and/or punctuation, but these errors do not significantly distract the
reader from the substance of the text. The paper contains few (if any)
fragments and/or run-on sentences.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer makes numerous errors in grammar,
spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence structure, which at times distract
the reader from the substance of the text.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer makes a significant number of errors in
grammar, spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence structure, regularly
distracting the reader from the substance of the text and hindering
comprehension.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Format/Cred
iting
Sources
20 to >17.8 ptsThe writer makes minimal (if any) errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
17.8 to >15.8 ptsThe writer makes some errors in APA format, citations,
or references.
15.8 to >14.4 ptsThe writer makes numerous errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
14.4 to >0 ptsThe writer makes significant errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
20
pts
Total Points: 200
– Rubric
**## Revise.pdf**
Revise My rough Draft with the rubric provided and the feedback
Feedback: The final body paragraph could benefit from one more supporting point from a
research article, but other than that, this looks great! Other than minor tweaks, this is
pretty much ready for final draft submission. Detailed, well-researched, well-organized,
and well-written. A pleasure to read a strong rough draft.
Submit the final draft of your research paper, incorporating the feedback you previously
received on your draft, as well as further revisions you have made. Use the revision and
editing checklist in order to ensure you have applied all the lessons learned throughout
the term: Revision & Editing Checklist
Download Revision & Editing Checklist
Signature Assignment: Argumentative Essay (Full Instructions)
Download Signature Assignment: Argumentative Essay (Full Instructions)
See the rubric for specific grading criteria.
Resource: Use the Grammarly tool to catch and correct mistakes in your writing
assignments.
Points: 200
Due Sunday, 11: 59 p.m. (Pacific time)
Rubric
Final Draft Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?wrap=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?wrap=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?wrap=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?wrap=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1)
[https://guides.westcoastuniversity.edu/grammarly](https://guides.westcoastuniversity.edu/grammarly)
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Content
60 to >53.4 ptsThe writer demonstrates original thought and critical
thinking skills. He/she presents a clear, focused central argument
(thesis) and supports it effectively with concrete details, examples, and
sound logic. Other authors’ ideas are skillfully paraphrased. Direct
quotations are minimal and well-chosen. All sources are relevant and
appropriate, and the writer’s ideas are convincing, even for those who
disagree with his/her premise.
53.4 to >47.4 ptsThe writer presents and supports a clear and focused
central argument (thesis), but ideas may not be consistently
convincing. Supporting details are relevant and logical but may lack
depth. Other authors’ ideas are effectively paraphrased, and direct
quotations are minimal. All sources are relevant and appropriate.
47.4 to >43.2 ptsThe writer presents a central argument (thesis), but it
may be overly general/broad. He/she adequately supports the central
argument, but supporting points may at times be vague, too obvious, or
otherwise unconvincing. The writer makes an effort to paraphrase but at
times struggles to express ideas in his/her own words. The essay lacks
interesting details, and/or not all sources are relevant and appropriate.
43.2 to >0 ptsThe writer’s central argument (thesis) is unclear or
missing, and the essay lacks focus. Supporting details are insufficient,
not relevant, and/or not based on sound logic. Attempts to paraphrase
do not always reflect understanding. The writer has not used enough
sources, and/or the sources are not all relevant and appropriate.
60
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Organizatio
n
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer demonstrates a clear sense of direction. The
paper includes an engaging introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs
are unified and arranged in a logical order. Each paragraph begins with
a clear topic sentence that introduces the main idea of that paragraph.
The writer smoothly transitions from paragraph to paragraph, showing
connections between related ideas. Supporting details within
paragraphs are well-organized, and research is well-integrated.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer demonstrates a sense of direction. The
paper includes a strong introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs are
unified and include topic sentences, but they may lack smooth
transitions between ideas. The organization of supporting details within
paragraphs may need improvement.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer demonstrates some direction and includes
an adequate introduction and conclusion, but topic sentences and
transitions are weak. The paragraphs show unity, but they are not
arranged in any discernable order, and supporting details may not
always be well-organized.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer demonstrates little or no direction. The
introduction and conclusion are weak. It is difficult to identify a single
subtopic for each paragraph because paragraphs are not unified and
lack clear topic sentences or transitions. The order of body paragraphs
seems random, as do the supporting details within them.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Style/Langu
age
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer’s tone is confident, engaging, and appropriate
for the assignment and/or the intended audience. The text demonstrates
strong vocabulary skills and does not suffer from errors in word choice.
The writer expresses ideas concisely, only using as many words as
necessary to communicate a point. The writer achieves flow and
readability by employing sentence variety successfully.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer’s tone is appropriate and effective overall.
The text demonstrates good use of vocabulary and contains few (if any)
errors in word choice. The writer expresses ideas concisely and clearly
most of the time. The writer makes an effort to employ sentence variety.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer’s tone suffers from one or more possible
problems. Depending on the assignment, it may be too informal, too
personal, not authoritative enough, etc. Numerous sentences suffer
from lack of variety, awkward constructions, wordiness, limited
vocabulary, and/or errors in word choice.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer often fails to communicate ideas effectively
because the paper suffers from significant problems with tone,
language use, and/or wordiness.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Sentence
Structure
and
Mechanics
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer makes minimal (if any) errors in grammar,
spelling, and/or punctuation. There are no fragments or run-on
sentences.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer makes some errors in grammar, spelling,
and/or punctuation, but these errors do not significantly distract the
reader from the substance of the text. The paper contains few (if any)
fragments and/or run-on sentences.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer makes numerous errors in grammar,
spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence structure, which at times distract
the reader from the substance of the text.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer makes a significant number of errors in
grammar, spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence structure, regularly
distracting the reader from the substance of the text and hindering
comprehension.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Format/Cred
iting
Sources
20 to >17.8 ptsThe writer makes minimal (if any) errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
17.8 to >15.8 ptsThe writer makes some errors in APA format, citations,
or references.
15.8 to >14.4 ptsThe writer makes numerous errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
14.4 to >0 ptsThe writer makes significant errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
20
pts
Total Points: 200
– Rubric
**## WrittenIntroductionParagraph2.edited.docx**
2
**The Case for Paying College Athletes**
**The Case for Paying College Athletes**
College sports are not mere sideshows but a massive business that makes millions of dollars selling tickets, merchandise, and TV contracts. Each season, millions of fans who watch their favorite teams on TV fill stadiums. This leads to the earning of massive profits by colleges, coaches, and sponsors. However, beneath all the glamour and excitement lies a less glamorous reality: student-athletes, whose abilities and diligence enable all of this, seldom receive substantial financial compensation. Scholarships are given to the majority of student-athletes, but they frequently fall short of covering the actual cost of living and the sacrifices that athletes must make for their sport. For a long time, the NCAA has maintained strict rules against directly paying athletes. They assert that college sports will go 'amateur' once players start getting paid. In fact, the schools, networks, and sponsors benefit, not the players themselves (Haile, 2023). Additionally, many college athletes put in about 30-40 hours a week into training, travelling, and competing. Due to this heavy schedule of events and competitions, many athletes cannot take outside jobs anymore and are struggling financially (Haile, 2023). On top of this, athletes put their bodies on the line every game, facing injuries that can not only end their sports careers but also affect their long-term health. Because of their time commitment, the unfair system, the fact that they are the ones driving the money, and the risks they take with their health, student-athletes deserve to be paid fairly.
It is not unjust to pay student-athletes due to the equal amount of time they give to their sport on a full-time basis. College athletes have between 30 and 40 hours per week in practice, training, traveling, and competing. It is this amount of time that most adults spend at a full-time job (Pacenta et al., 2024). In the case of athletes, this period is physically demanding, besides being highly psychologically straining as they combine sport with academics. These long hours leave them with little time or energy to pursue outside employment, hence they cannot earn additional money to sustain their personal bills. Some of them are awarded scholarships; however, these are not always reflective of the actual cost of living. Most of the athletes are yet asked to finance food and accommodation, clothing, and transportation costs out of their own purse, which may be hard to do without a stable income-generating process. This puts an unjust state of affairs where sportspeople are dedicating their time, effort, and energy to a billion-dollar business and still failing to meet the ministry's needs (Delventhal, 2021). Due to the high demands of the schedules along with the nature and lapses of the financial sharing, it is but natural to expect that student-athletes deserve to be rewarded for their devotion.
Many student-athletes struggle financially in addition to their time commitment, which highlights the shortcomings of the current system. Even though they are frequently offered as a solution, scholarships usually fall short of covering the entire cost of living, particularly given the annual increases in tuition, housing, and food prices (Gurney, 2025). Athletes still have to cover necessities like food, housing, transportation, and personal expenses, even if they receive full or partial tuition assistance. These expenses are inevitable and put additional strain on students who already have a lot on their plates. Most athletes are unable to work part-time jobs to supplement their income because their athletic commitments take up a significant part of their week (Kite & Parris, 2025). Many consequently struggle to maintain a minimal standard of living, which makes it difficult for them to give their all to their studies and sports. This disparity in income emphasizes how urgent it is to compensate athletes fairly.
Additionally, the current system is also incredibly unfair because it permits colleges, coaches, and media outlets to take advantage of athletes without paying them for their labor. The performance, popularity, and marketability of athletes bring in billions of dollars each year for schools, television networks, and corporate sponsors. However, the athletes themselves receive virtually none of these profits, even though they are the primary contributors. For example, while the school, networks, and sponsors benefited greatly from Johnny Manziel's fame, the Texas A&M quarterback and 2012 Heisman Trophy winner only received a scholarship worth roughly $20,000 despite generating an estimated $37 million in media attention for his university (Bachman & Cohen, 2013). Investigations into Manziel's alleged acceptance of payment for autographs revealed the hypocrisy of NCAA regulations that penalize athletes for requesting payment while allowing schools to freely take advantage of their marketability (Bachman & Cohen, 2013). Players are limited to scholarships that do not adequately compensate them for the enormous profits they bring in, even as these salaries keep increasing. In the end, the system treats athletes more like commodities than like human beings worthy of respect, putting institutional profit ahead of athlete justice. This disparity will continue to be a glaring instance of exploitation until compensation is implemented.
Lastly, athletes should be compensated for the substantial health risks they incur each time they take the court or field. A student-athlete's career could be abruptly ended by a single injury, delaying their athletic aspirations and their chance to pursue a career in professional sports. Many injuries result in long-term physical problems, such as chronic pain, concussions, and mental health difficulties, that last well beyond college years, even when they do not end careers (Jiao & Hou, 2025). Athletes in all sports must deal with these risks; they are not hypothetical. Athletes themselves pay the psychological and physical costs, but colleges make money whether or not a player is hurt. While offering monetary compensation would not eliminate these risks, it would recognize the tremendous physical sacrifices made by athletes in the name of achievement.
In conclusion, student-athletes ought to receive compensation due to the long hours they put in, the financial struggles they experience, the systemic exploitation that takes advantage of their skill, and the serious health risks they face. These athletes are essential to the existence of college athletics, but they are not given the financial benefits that their labors bring. In addition to promoting equity, compensating athletes would uphold the integrity of the system as a whole by honoring their efforts and sacrifices. In the end, paying student-athletes would guarantee that they are seen as more than just performers; rather, they are valued contributors who should be respected and given financial assistance.
**References**
Delventhal, M. L. (2021).
_A Latent Class Analysis Predictive Modeling Approach to Profile Division I Collegiate Athletes for Nutrition and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) Concern_. The University of Mississippi.https://www.proquest.com/openview/4e90b7577eaa02be870947121e398896/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
ein.journals/bclr64&div=45&id=&page=
Gurney, G. S. (2025).
_The Cost of Winning: An Insider's Perspective on Exploitation and Greed in College Sports_. Rowman & Littlefield.
Haile, A. J. (2023). Equity implications of paying college athletes: A title IX analysis.
_BCL Rev._,
_64_, 1449. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=h
Jiao, Z., & Hou, T. (2025). Analyzing the causes of sports injuries in college sports activities and research on the recovery strategy using an intelligent approach.
_Scientific Reports_, 15(1), 13357. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96770-5
Kite, R. J., & Parris, Z. (2025). Athletes’ transitions from part-time to full-time performance programmes: Athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions.
_International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching_, 17479541251334740. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541251334740
Pacenta, J., Starkoff, B. E., Lenz, E. K., & Shearer, A. (2024). Prevalence of and contributors to food insecurity among college athletes: a scoping review.
_Nutrients_,
_16_(9), 1346. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16091346
**## Revise.pdf**
Revise My rough Draft with the rubric provided and the feedback
Feedback: The final body paragraph could benefit from one more supporting point from a
research article, but other than that, this looks great! Other than minor tweaks, this is
pretty much ready for final draft submission. Detailed, well-researched, well-organized,
and well-written. A pleasure to read a strong rough draft.
Submit the final draft of your research paper, incorporating the feedback you previously
received on your draft, as well as further revisions you have made. Use the revision and
editing checklist in order to ensure you have applied all the lessons learned throughout
the term: Revision & Editing Checklist
Download Revision & Editing Checklist
Signature Assignment: Argumentative Essay (Full Instructions)
Download Signature Assignment: Argumentative Essay (Full Instructions)
See the rubric for specific grading criteria.
Resource: Use the Grammarly tool to catch and correct mistakes in your writing
assignments.
Points: 200
Due Sunday, 11: 59 p.m. (Pacific time)
Rubric
Final Draft Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?wrap=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?wrap=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?wrap=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?wrap=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1)
[https://guides.westcoastuniversity.edu/grammarly](https://guides.westcoastuniversity.edu/grammarly)
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Content
60 to >53.4 ptsThe writer demonstrates original thought and critical
thinking skills. He/she presents a clear, focused central argument
(thesis) and supports it effectively with concrete details, examples, and
sound logic. Other authors’ ideas are skillfully paraphrased. Direct
quotations are minimal and well-chosen. All sources are relevant and
appropriate, and the writer’s ideas are convincing, even for those who
disagree with his/her premise.
53.4 to >47.4 ptsThe writer presents and supports a clear and focused
central argument (thesis), but ideas may not be consistently
convincing. Supporting details are relevant and logical but may lack
depth. Other authors’ ideas are effectively paraphrased, and direct
quotations are minimal. All sources are relevant and appropriate.
47.4 to >43.2 ptsThe writer presents a central argument (thesis), but it
may be overly general/broad. He/she adequately supports the central
argument, but supporting points may at times be vague, too obvious, or
otherwise unconvincing. The writer makes an effort to paraphrase but at
times struggles to express ideas in his/her own words. The essay lacks
interesting details, and/or not all sources are relevant and appropriate.
43.2 to >0 ptsThe writer’s central argument (thesis) is unclear or
missing, and the essay lacks focus. Supporting details are insufficient,
not relevant, and/or not based on sound logic. Attempts to paraphrase
do not always reflect understanding. The writer has not used enough
sources, and/or the sources are not all relevant and appropriate.
60
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Organizatio
n
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer demonstrates a clear sense of direction. The
paper includes an engaging introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs
are unified and arranged in a logical order. Each paragraph begins with
a clear topic sentence that introduces the main idea of that paragraph.
The writer smoothly transitions from paragraph to paragraph, showing
connections between related ideas. Supporting details within
paragraphs are well-organized, and research is well-integrated.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer demonstrates a sense of direction. The
paper includes a strong introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs are
unified and include topic sentences, but they may lack smooth
transitions between ideas. The organization of supporting details within
paragraphs may need improvement.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer demonstrates some direction and includes
an adequate introduction and conclusion, but topic sentences and
transitions are weak. The paragraphs show unity, but they are not
arranged in any discernable order, and supporting details may not
always be well-organized.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer demonstrates little or no direction. The
introduction and conclusion are weak. It is difficult to identify a single
subtopic for each paragraph because paragraphs are not unified and
lack clear topic sentences or transitions. The order of body paragraphs
seems random, as do the supporting details within them.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Style/Langu
age
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer’s tone is confident, engaging, and appropriate
for the assignment and/or the intended audience. The text demonstrates
strong vocabulary skills and does not suffer from errors in word choice.
The writer expresses ideas concisely, only using as many words as
necessary to communicate a point. The writer achieves flow and
readability by employing sentence variety successfully.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer’s tone is appropriate and effective overall.
The text demonstrates good use of vocabulary and contains few (if any)
errors in word choice. The writer expresses ideas concisely and clearly
most of the time. The writer makes an effort to employ sentence variety.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer’s tone suffers from one or more possible
problems. Depending on the assignment, it may be too informal, too
personal, not authoritative enough, etc. Numerous sentences suffer
from lack of variety, awkward constructions, wordiness, limited
vocabulary, and/or errors in word choice.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer often fails to communicate ideas effectively
because the paper suffers from significant problems with tone,
language use, and/or wordiness.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Sentence
Structure
and
Mechanics
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer makes minimal (if any) errors in grammar,
spelling, and/or punctuation. There are no fragments or run-on
sentences.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer makes some errors in grammar, spelling,
and/or punctuation, but these errors do not significantly distract the
reader from the substance of the text. The paper contains few (if any)
fragments and/or run-on sentences.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer makes numerous errors in grammar,
spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence structure, which at times distract
the reader from the substance of the text.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer makes a significant number of errors in
grammar, spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence structure, regularly
distracting the reader from the substance of the text and hindering
comprehension.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Format/Cred
iting
Sources
20 to >17.8 ptsThe writer makes minimal (if any) errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
17.8 to >15.8 ptsThe writer makes some errors in APA format, citations,
or references.
15.8 to >14.4 ptsThe writer makes numerous errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
14.4 to >0 ptsThe writer makes significant errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
20
pts
Total Points: 200
– Rubric
**## WrittenIntroductionParagraph2.edited.docx**
2
**The Case for Paying College Athletes**
**The Case for Paying College Athletes**
College sports are not mere sideshows but a massive business that makes millions of dollars selling tickets, merchandise, and TV contracts. Each season, millions of fans who watch their favorite teams on TV fill stadiums. This leads to the earning of massive profits by colleges, coaches, and sponsors. However, beneath all the glamour and excitement lies a less glamorous reality: student-athletes, whose abilities and diligence enable all of this, seldom receive substantial financial compensation. Scholarships are given to the majority of student-athletes, but they frequently fall short of covering the actual cost of living and the sacrifices that athletes must make for their sport. For a long time, the NCAA has maintained strict rules against directly paying athletes. They assert that college sports will go 'amateur' once players start getting paid. In fact, the schools, networks, and sponsors benefit, not the players themselves (Haile, 2023). Additionally, many college athletes put in about 30-40 hours a week into training, travelling, and competing. Due to this heavy schedule of events and competitions, many athletes cannot take outside jobs anymore and are struggling financially (Haile, 2023). On top of this, athletes put their bodies on the line every game, facing injuries that can not only end their sports careers but also affect their long-term health. Because of their time commitment, the unfair system, the fact that they are the ones driving the money, and the risks they take with their health, student-athletes deserve to be paid fairly.
It is not unjust to pay student-athletes due to the equal amount of time they give to their sport on a full-time basis. College athletes have between 30 and 40 hours per week in practice, training, traveling, and competing. It is this amount of time that most adults spend at a full-time job (Pacenta et al., 2024). In the case of athletes, this period is physically demanding, besides being highly psychologically straining as they combine sport with academics. These long hours leave them with little time or energy to pursue outside employment, hence they cannot earn additional money to sustain their personal bills. Some of them are awarded scholarships; however, these are not always reflective of the actual cost of living. Most of the athletes are yet asked to finance food and accommodation, clothing, and transportation costs out of their own purse, which may be hard to do without a stable income-generating process. This puts an unjust state of affairs where sportspeople are dedicating their time, effort, and energy to a billion-dollar business and still failing to meet the ministry's needs (Delventhal, 2021). Due to the high demands of the schedules along with the nature and lapses of the financial sharing, it is but natural to expect that student-athletes deserve to be rewarded for their devotion.
Many student-athletes struggle financially in addition to their time commitment, which highlights the shortcomings of the current system. Even though they are frequently offered as a solution, scholarships usually fall short of covering the entire cost of living, particularly given the annual increases in tuition, housing, and food prices (Gurney, 2025). Athletes still have to cover necessities like food, housing, transportation, and personal expenses, even if they receive full or partial tuition assistance. These expenses are inevitable and put additional strain on students who already have a lot on their plates. Most athletes are unable to work part-time jobs to supplement their income because their athletic commitments take up a significant part of their week (Kite & Parris, 2025). Many consequently struggle to maintain a minimal standard of living, which makes it difficult for them to give their all to their studies and sports. This disparity in income emphasizes how urgent it is to compensate athletes fairly.
Additionally, the current system is also incredibly unfair because it permits colleges, coaches, and media outlets to take advantage of athletes without paying them for their labor. The performance, popularity, and marketability of athletes bring in billions of dollars each year for schools, television networks, and corporate sponsors. However, the athletes themselves receive virtually none of these profits, even though they are the primary contributors. For example, while the school, networks, and sponsors benefited greatly from Johnny Manziel's fame, the Texas A&M quarterback and 2012 Heisman Trophy winner only received a scholarship worth roughly $20,000 despite generating an estimated $37 million in media attention for his university (Bachman & Cohen, 2013). Investigations into Manziel's alleged acceptance of payment for autographs revealed the hypocrisy of NCAA regulations that penalize athletes for requesting payment while allowing schools to freely take advantage of their marketability (Bachman & Cohen, 2013). Players are limited to scholarships that do not adequately compensate them for the enormous profits they bring in, even as these salaries keep increasing. In the end, the system treats athletes more like commodities than like human beings worthy of respect, putting institutional profit ahead of athlete justice. This disparity will continue to be a glaring instance of exploitation until compensation is implemented.
Lastly, athletes should be compensated for the substantial health risks they incur each time they take the court or field. A student-athlete's career could be abruptly ended by a single injury, delaying their athletic aspirations and their chance to pursue a career in professional sports. Many injuries result in long-term physical problems, such as chronic pain, concussions, and mental health difficulties, that last well beyond college years, even when they do not end careers (Jiao & Hou, 2025). Athletes in all sports must deal with these risks; they are not hypothetical. Athletes themselves pay the psychological and physical costs, but colleges make money whether or not a player is hurt. While offering monetary compensation would not eliminate these risks, it would recognize the tremendous physical sacrifices made by athletes in the name of achievement.
In conclusion, student-athletes ought to receive compensation due to the long hours they put in, the financial struggles they experience, the systemic exploitation that takes advantage of their skill, and the serious health risks they face. These athletes are essential to the existence of college athletics, but they are not given the financial benefits that their labors bring. In addition to promoting equity, compensating athletes would uphold the integrity of the system as a whole by honoring their efforts and sacrifices. In the end, paying student-athletes would guarantee that they are seen as more than just performers; rather, they are valued contributors who should be respected and given financial assistance.
**References**
Delventhal, M. L. (2021).
_A Latent Class Analysis Predictive Modeling Approach to Profile Division I Collegiate Athletes for Nutrition and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) Concern_. The University of Mississippi.https://www.proquest.com/openview/4e90b7577eaa02be870947121e398896/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
ein.journals/bclr64&div=45&id=&page=
Gurney, G. S. (2025).
_The Cost of Winning: An Insider's Perspective on Exploitation and Greed in College Sports_. Rowman & Littlefield.
Haile, A. J. (2023). Equity implications of paying college athletes: A title IX analysis.
_BCL Rev._,
_64_, 1449. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=h
Jiao, Z., & Hou, T. (2025). Analyzing the causes of sports injuries in college sports activities and research on the recovery strategy using an intelligent approach.
_Scientific Reports_, 15(1), 13357. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96770-5
Kite, R. J., & Parris, Z. (2025). Athletes’ transitions from part-time to full-time performance programmes: Athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions.
_International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching_, 17479541251334740. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541251334740
Pacenta, J., Starkoff, B. E., Lenz, E. K., & Shearer, A. (2024). Prevalence of and contributors to food insecurity among college athletes: a scoping review.
_Nutrients_,
_16_(9), 1346. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16091346
**## Revise.pdf**
Revise My rough Draft with the rubric provided and the feedback
Feedback: The final body paragraph could benefit from one more supporting point from a
research article, but other than that, this looks great! Other than minor tweaks, this is
pretty much ready for final draft submission. Detailed, well-researched, well-organized,
and well-written. A pleasure to read a strong rough draft.
Submit the final draft of your research paper, incorporating the feedback you previously
received on your draft, as well as further revisions you have made. Use the revision and
editing checklist in order to ensure you have applied all the lessons learned throughout
the term: Revision & Editing Checklist
Download Revision & Editing Checklist
Signature Assignment: Argumentative Essay (Full Instructions)
Download Signature Assignment: Argumentative Essay (Full Instructions)
See the rubric for specific grading criteria.
Resource: Use the Grammarly tool to catch and correct mistakes in your writing
assignments.
Points: 200
Due Sunday, 11: 59 p.m. (Pacific time)
Rubric
Final Draft Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?wrap=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?wrap=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265772/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?wrap=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?wrap=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1)
[https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1](https://canvas.westcoastuniversity.edu/courses/65707/files/28265808/download?download_frd=1)
[https://guides.westcoastuniversity.edu/grammarly](https://guides.westcoastuniversity.edu/grammarly)
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Content
60 to >53.4 ptsThe writer demonstrates original thought and critical
thinking skills. He/she presents a clear, focused central argument
(thesis) and supports it effectively with concrete details, examples, and
sound logic. Other authors’ ideas are skillfully paraphrased. Direct
quotations are minimal and well-chosen. All sources are relevant and
appropriate, and the writer’s ideas are convincing, even for those who
disagree with his/her premise.
53.4 to >47.4 ptsThe writer presents and supports a clear and focused
central argument (thesis), but ideas may not be consistently
convincing. Supporting details are relevant and logical but may lack
depth. Other authors’ ideas are effectively paraphrased, and direct
quotations are minimal. All sources are relevant and appropriate.
47.4 to >43.2 ptsThe writer presents a central argument (thesis), but it
may be overly general/broad. He/she adequately supports the central
argument, but supporting points may at times be vague, too obvious, or
otherwise unconvincing. The writer makes an effort to paraphrase but at
times struggles to express ideas in his/her own words. The essay lacks
interesting details, and/or not all sources are relevant and appropriate.
43.2 to >0 ptsThe writer’s central argument (thesis) is unclear or
missing, and the essay lacks focus. Supporting details are insufficient,
not relevant, and/or not based on sound logic. Attempts to paraphrase
do not always reflect understanding. The writer has not used enough
sources, and/or the sources are not all relevant and appropriate.
60
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Organizatio
n
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer demonstrates a clear sense of direction. The
paper includes an engaging introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs
are unified and arranged in a logical order. Each paragraph begins with
a clear topic sentence that introduces the main idea of that paragraph.
The writer smoothly transitions from paragraph to paragraph, showing
connections between related ideas. Supporting details within
paragraphs are well-organized, and research is well-integrated.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer demonstrates a sense of direction. The
paper includes a strong introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs are
unified and include topic sentences, but they may lack smooth
transitions between ideas. The organization of supporting details within
paragraphs may need improvement.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer demonstrates some direction and includes
an adequate introduction and conclusion, but topic sentences and
transitions are weak. The paragraphs show unity, but they are not
arranged in any discernable order, and supporting details may not
always be well-organized.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer demonstrates little or no direction. The
introduction and conclusion are weak. It is difficult to identify a single
subtopic for each paragraph because paragraphs are not unified and
lack clear topic sentences or transitions. The order of body paragraphs
seems random, as do the supporting details within them.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Style/Langu
age
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer’s tone is confident, engaging, and appropriate
for the assignment and/or the intended audience. The text demonstrates
strong vocabulary skills and does not suffer from errors in word choice.
The writer expresses ideas concisely, only using as many words as
necessary to communicate a point. The writer achieves flow and
readability by employing sentence variety successfully.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer’s tone is appropriate and effective overall.
The text demonstrates good use of vocabulary and contains few (if any)
errors in word choice. The writer expresses ideas concisely and clearly
most of the time. The writer makes an effort to employ sentence variety.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer’s tone suffers from one or more possible
problems. Depending on the assignment, it may be too informal, too
personal, not authoritative enough, etc. Numerous sentences suffer
from lack of variety, awkward constructions, wordiness, limited
vocabulary, and/or errors in word choice.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer often fails to communicate ideas effectively
because the paper suffers from significant problems with tone,
language use, and/or wordiness.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Sentence
Structure
and
Mechanics
40 to >35.6 ptsThe writer makes minimal (if any) errors in grammar,
spelling, and/or punctuation. There are no fragments or run-on
sentences.
35.6 to >31.6 ptsThe writer makes some errors in grammar, spelling,
and/or punctuation, but these errors do not significantly distract the
reader from the substance of the text. The paper contains few (if any)
fragments and/or run-on sentences.
31.6 to >28.8 ptsThe writer makes numerous errors in grammar,
spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence structure, which at times distract
the reader from the substance of the text.
28.8 to >0 ptsThe writer makes a significant number of errors in
grammar, spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence structure, regularly
distracting the reader from the substance of the text and hindering
comprehension.
40
pts
This criterion
is linked to a
Learning
Outcome
Format/Cred
iting
Sources
20 to >17.8 ptsThe writer makes minimal (if any) errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
17.8 to >15.8 ptsThe writer makes some errors in APA format, citations,
or references.
15.8 to >14.4 ptsThe writer makes numerous errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
14.4 to >0 ptsThe writer makes significant errors in APA format,
citations, or references.
20
pts
Total Points: 200
– Rubric
– 1
– 2