[Student Example] Semester Final Essay

On AP Lang’s 1–6 rubric, this feels somewhere in the 3–4 range: clear understanding and a defensible thesis, some specific evidence, but the commentary and sophistication could go deeper and be more precise.

A few things you’re already doing well:
- You clearly state Jen’s argument and keep coming back to it.
- You use specific details about the brother and Jeremy Lin, not just vague summary.
- You try to name rhetorical choices (point of view, comparison, citing experts).

And a few places you could level it up:

1. Thesis precision
- Right now you say she “uses personal experience…, comparison…, and cites experts.” That’s more list-y than analytical.
- Stronger thesis = not just what devices she uses, but how they help her persuade this audience in this context.

You might ask yourself: what kind of audience is she talking to (Americans? Asian American parents? sports fans?) and how do those specific strategies push that audience?

2. Evidence vs. summary
- Some sentences retell what happens (what her parents wanted, that he became an athlete) without always tying it directly to how that persuades the reader.
- In AP terms: you’ve got evidence; now you want more commentary that explains the rhetorical effect.

Try asking with every quote: “So what? How does this choice move the reader’s emotions, assumptions, or values?”

3. Rhetorical terms and accuracy
- You say she uses “third-person point of view to describe her brother’s life” as a strategy, but the essay is still basically first-person with references to “my brother.” The real move there is personal anecdote + challenging stereotypes about Asian parents.
- Instead of forcing “point of view,” you might notice tone (warm, admiring?), audience connection (relatable sibling story), and how that builds credibility and relatability.

What other rhetorical labels actually fit what she’s doing: ethos? pathos? addressing stereotypes? countering a common narrative?

4. Commentary depth
- When you say “This proves that the societal structures we’re born into don’t define us,” that’s a good start, but the College Board wants one more step.
- You could probe: how does showing both pressure and love from parents complicate the “strict Asian parent” stereotype and make her argument more nuanced?

Ask yourself: how might a reader who believes “Asians just aren’t athletes” react to each example? How is she strategically nudging that reader?

5. Sophistication / nuance
- The essay currently ends with “a person can be whoever they want to be,” which is a little broad and cliché.
- Sophistication often comes from acknowledging complexity: culture shapes us and yet doesn’t fully determine us—that tension is actually in her Bruner quote.

Where do you see Jen admitting culture is powerful, even as she insists it isn’t destiny?

If you revised one body paragraph, would you rather focus on sharpening the thesis-connection sentences (“This shows… This proves…”) or on identifying more precise rhetorical moves Jen makes?

On the AP scale (1–6 for the current rubric), this looks like it would probably land around a 3–4: solid understanding, clear thesis, some evidence and commentary, but not yet deep or sustained enough for the top scores.

A few things I’m noticing:
- You do clearly state an argument about culture not defining identity and you stick to it throughout.
- You use specific references to Jen’s brother and Jeremy Lin, but the analysis mostly paraphrases what happens rather than really unpacking how Jen’s choices (tone, structure, diction, etc.) work on the audience.
- The conclusion circles back to the thesis but doesn’t add a new layer of thinking or zoom out to a broader implication in a detailed way.

If you were revising just as practice, where do you think you could dig deeper into Jen’s actual rhetorical moves—like her tone, word choice, or structure—instead of mainly retelling the examples?

You’ve got a clear, focused claim already: culture doesn’t have to define who we are.

To “improve” your thesis, the main choice is: do you want it to just state the argument, or also hint at why it matters (like challenging stereotypes, expanding what counts as “Asian American”)?

If you wanted to sharpen it, you might ask yourself:
- Do I want to name the specific stereotype she’s pushing against (Asian = only academic, not athletic)?
- Do I want to name the main rhetorical moves more precisely (personal narrative, example, expert testimony) or keep it simple?
- Do I want my thesis to say something about identity in America more broadly, not just “cultures don’t define us”?

Which of those directions—naming the stereotype, naming the techniques, or widening the stakes—sounds most interesting for you to lean into?