essays from examiners 2020

IELTS Essays From Examiners 2020

IELTS Essays From Examiners 2020 is one of the best IELTS essays samples. That is written by the IELTS examiners. It is the best essay book for IELTS preparation .

Studying an IELTS sample is an indispensable need for the students who take this test. The sample post-school is now quite large with many books and sample articles online.

That’s the case, but the IELTS learner can’t help but be confused by the reliability and standards of the language of all the articles on the web, all of them consider themselves “standard” or “band 8+”.

IELTS Essays From Examiners 2020 PDF

In order to provide IELTS learners with the most standard samples from the best sources, the team “Writing IELTS Writing 9.0+” has released the document “Essay From Examiners – A collection of A collection of 91 authentic IELTS Task 2 Essays ”. The book is a collection of sample articles that come from sources main:

• HowtodoIELTS.com (Ex-examiners).
• Cambridge IELTS.
• Ms. Pauline Cullen.
•  Sample work from the Macmillan publisher’s book (Ready for IELTS 2nd Edition, Improve your Skills Writing for IELTS).
•  Mindset for IELTS.

Hopefully, this book will help you a bit on the road to a band score high on the IELTS Writing exam.

Final Note:

This was our IELTS Essays book for today. I really hope that you are going to get the best out of it. You can get the IELTS Essays From Examiners 2020 book from the links below. I wish you all the best guys. Good Luck!

IELTSMatters

صفحه اصلی >>> دانلود جدیدترین منابع آزمون آیلتس IELTS و زبان انگلیسی >>> دانلود کتاب IELTS Essays From Examiners 2020

دانلود کتاب IELTS Essays From Examiners 2020

• دسته بندی ها: منابع ویژه آیلتس , آزمون CAE , آزمون PTE , آزمون SAT , مهارت نوشتاری

ماژول:جنرال و آکادمیک

سمپل های حرفه ای رایتینگ 2020.

قیمت: 16,000 تومان

این محصول در بسته جامع آموزش آزمون آیلتس نیز موجود می باشد.

خرید نسخه چاپی این کتاب

فروشگاه کتاب چاپی آیلتس مترز.

پکیج موفقیت در آزمون آیلتس (لغات) IELTSMatters Success Package-Vocabulary

ماژول: جنرال و آکادمیک.

پکیج کامل تست زنی آزمون آیلتس ( ماژول جنرال) IELTSMatters Full Package Tests- General Module

ماژول: جنرال.

پکیج کامل تست زنی آزمون آیلتس ( ماژول آکادمیک) IELTSMatters Full Package Tests- Academic Module

ماژول: آکادمیک.

پکیج موفقیت در آزمون لیسنینگ آیلتس IELTSMatters Listening Success Package

پکیج موفقیت در آزمون آیلتس (گرامر) IELTSMatters Success Package – Grammar

پکیج موفقیت در آزمون رایتینگ آیلتس (جنرال) IELTSMatters Writing Success Package

دانلود کتاب IELTS PEAKING PACK 30 units

دانلود کتاب Fixing Mind Blocks When Speaking English

دانلود کتاب EFL Students English Grammar Practice Book Two

دانلود کتاب EFL Students English Grammar Practice Book One

دانلود کتاب ESL English for Preschoolers

دانلود کتاب A Guide to Landing an English Teaching Job Abroad

پس از معرفی ورژن 2019 کتاب و استقبال شما زبان آموزان عزیز از این کتاب، در این بخش قصد داریم تا ورژن 2020 این کتاب ارزشمند را نیز به شما تقدیم کنیم. به همراه یادگیری تکنیک‌های آیلتس، داشتن منبعی معتبر و موثق برای تمرین کردن این تکنیک ها، بسیار حائز اهمیت است. در این کتاب بیش از 120 سمپل تسک دوم رایتینگ آیلتس، برگرفته از آزمون های اصلی آیلتس (در سال 2020) ، در موضوعات متنوع، برای شما گردآوری شده است تا علاوه بر فراهم کردن بستری مناسب برای تمرین کردن، با موضوعات و کلمات بیشتری آشنا شوید. این کتاب برای آن دسته از داوطلبن آزمون آیلتس که به اندازه کافی با تکنیک های آزمون آشنا هستند و به دنبال منبعی معتبر برای تمرین هستند،

بهترین انتخاب است. هم اکنون به صورت اختصاصی از آیلتس مترز

نقد و بررسی‌ها

هیچ دیدگاهی برای این محصول نوشته نشده است.

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *

دیدگاه شما  *

نام  *

ایمیل  *

از تمامی زبان آموزان تقاضا داریم قبل از خرید حتماً توضیحات و فایل پیش‌نمایش محصول را مشاهده فرمایید و پس از اطمینان کامل به خرید اقدام نمایید.

پس از پرداخت آنلاین می توانید فورا این فایل را دانلود فرمایید پرداخت با کلیه کارت های عضو شتاب امکان پذیر است.

لطفا به این محصول امتیاز بدهید

میانگین امتیازات 3.6 / 5. تعداد امتیازات: 14

کانال تلگرام آیلتس مترز

جدیدترین کتاب های عمومی و زبان اصلی در سایت آمازون بوک

فروشگاه آمازون بوک.

دسترسی سریع

ما را در شبکه های اجتماعی دنبال کنید

DMCA Copyright Report

پشتیبانی 7/24

نمادهای اعتماد آیلتس مترز

فراز وردپرس Developed And Designed By Faraz WordPress

اَللّهُمَّ عَجِّل لِوَلیِّکَ الفَرَج

تمامی حقوق مادی و معنوی متعلق به IELTSMatters می باشد 1402

• مجلات برتر انگلیسی
• مشاهده همه ی منابع
• پکیج های آیلتس مترز
• مهارت گفتاری (Speaking)
• مهارت نوشتاری (Writing)
• مهارت خواندن (Reading)
• مهارت شنیداری (Listening)
• لغات و اصطلاحات (Vocabulary&Idiom)
• گرامر (Grammar)
• منابع ویدیویی (Video Courses) 
• کتاب های آموزشی اصلی (The Main Books)
• تست های  آزمون آیلتس (IELTS Practice Tests) 
• مشاهده همه ی مقالات 
• مهارت خواندن (Reading)
• مهارت گفتاری (Speaking) 
• مهارت نوشتاری (Writing)
• مهارت شنیداری (Listening)
• گرامر (Grammar)
• لغات و اصطلاحات (Vocabulary&Idiom)  
• همه کتاب ها
• آزمون آیلتس IELTS
• آزمون تافل TOEFL
• آزمون TOEIC
• ثبت نام/ورود
• خروج از حساب
• مشکلات دانلود
• سوالات متدوال
• قوانین و مقررات
• درخواست منابع آیلتس

درخواست چاپ کتاب

FirstLanguageEnglish.com

Your key to IGCSE First Language English!

• Your Profile
• Membership Signup
• Publications
• Descriptive and Narrative Essay Bank
• Directed Writing Sample Responses – EnglishFirstLanguage.net
• Writer’s Effect – Sample Answers
• Summary – Sample Responses for Question 1(f)
• Mission and Motivation
• Live Tuition Class Interest Form

Search Here ….

The magic of examiner reports.

Examiner Reports are released by Cambridge International after each examination session. These reports summarize the general performance of students, highlight common strengths and weaknesses, and provide constructive feedback for both students and teachers.

Put simply?

They’re awesome, and if you want to do well on the IGCSE, you should read them.

In this blog post, we will discuss the immense value of reading Examiner Reports for the IGCSE First Language English 0500 examination and how they provide invaluable insights into what examiners are looking for.

At the same time, they reflect the overall judgement of examiners for the essays of students for particular examination sessions and therefore provide key insights into the way that Cambridge as an organisation evaluates different scripts, which in turn can help you to better contextualise the marking criteria that has been provided in the mark scheme documents that you have no doubt seen so far.

“But Victor!!!” you might be saying… “I don’t want to spend my time reading dumb stuff like that!!!!”

Well hold on, hold on.

What if I told you that this ‘dumb stuff’… Was actually one of the master keys towards unlocking excellence on the IGCSE First Language English exam?

Unlocking the Marking Criteria

One of the difficulties of understanding how to do well in a language-based exam for students is that there are various ways to operationalize excellence in language. While it’s true that for other exams such as mathematics and science exams some degree of creativity and insight can lead to novel approaches and answers, it remains true that the possible sample space of excellent responses for First Language English and other exams is much wider, and it also remains true that it is more difficult for students to understand how to operationalize excellence through their work just from reading the marking criteria.

Here is where the \magic/ 🪄 of examiner reports comes in!

Examiner reports are absolutely invaluable in helping you to unlock the marking criteria for the IGCSE First Language English exam, because they offer comprehensive and actionable steps for you if you’re practicing for the exam, and they serve as a wonderful practice aid for you to check whether you are able to do well in particular practice exams.

Let’s look at the first part of the examiner report for the June 2022 IGCSE.

Observe here that there are key messages for each paper, and also general comments about what constituted excellence for the paper. We won’t discuss the entire thing, but there are also specific analyses on a question-by-question basis.

I won’t go into everything here today (more resources will be provided to our Premium members soon).

Here’s one sample:

…And here’s the next:

As you can see, the report specifically breaks down these questions.

Think about that and the value that it’s offering – in the first case, it is telling you exactly how the best candidates did question 2d) and how they came to deliver responses on Writer’s Effect.

In the second example, it is literally breaking down Question 3 for you by telling you the ways in which the candidates approached the question and the way that people thought about the question, which you can in turn reference as you write your own exam responses; you could implement a routine of practicing a past paper, following that up by having your essay graded (submissions for essays to our essay bank(s) are open!)

To sum up, why are examiner reports valuable to you?

(sorry to be annoying, but you’ll have to sign up for a free or premium membership to read the next bit c: – reminder that purchasing the book gains you access to premium member privileges… For now! )

I hope I’ve shown you that Examiner Reports for the IGCSE First Language English 0500 examination are a powerful tool for students seeking to understand what examiners are looking for in the context of the marking criteria, and also that they are something valuable to look at in your quest for mastery or for convergence towards writing stellar essays that fit the marking criteria while at the same time helping you to excel. By analyzing these reports, students can gain invaluable insights into the expectations of examiners, avoid common pitfalls, learn from real examples, and fine-tune their writing techniques to achieve the highest possible marks.

As the saying goes, knowledge is power, and in the case of the IGCSE First Language English 0500 examination, Examiner Reports are a key to unlocking that power – they are not the only key, but are definitely something that you should consider as part of your repertoire!

victortanws

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recommended Posts

Welcome to FirstLanguageEnglish.com!

Welcome to the ultimate guide to conquering the 0500 First Language English exam! Whether you’re a student or a teacher, we are confident that you’ll find some value here. The materials on this site will break down the IGCSE First Language English curriculum for you, offer you some helpful tips, […]

Eid Mubarak! (2024)

Eid Mubarak and Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri to all of you out there who celebrate! I’ve already wished some of you personally, but I hope that you will have a most blessed celebration together with your friends, family, and everyone dear! As we mark the culmination of Ramadan with the […]

Narrative Essay Composition Bank Updated! (9th April, 2024)

Dear all, The Narrative essay compilation has been updated! Want to gain the exact examples you need for that A*? Sign up for a Premium membership so that you don’t miss out, today! V. We hope you enjoyed these essays! If you want to join our IGCSE First Language English […]

Last-Minute Exam Tips For First Language English

Exactly one month remains between now and the IGCSE first language English exams for May 2024. Meanwhile, I’m sure that all of you out there are casually preparing. So here I am today with a couple of handy exam tips to remember as you go into exams! Let’s begin! Tip […]

Descriptive Essay Composition Bank Updated! (2nd April, 2024)

Dear all, Two new essays for you right out of the oven! Want to gain the exact examples you need for that A*? Sign up for a Premium membership so that you don’t miss out, today! V. We hope you enjoyed these essays! If you want to join our IGCSE […]

It’s never too late. 

The scene is familiar. You wake up one morning and the page of the calendar turns.  Yet again. Imperceptibly, you’ve crept one day closer towards that test, that exam.  Maybe time passed and you didn’t realize it.  Maybe it wasn’t all that important to you.  Maybe the only reason that […]

Narrative Essay Composition Bank Updated! (26th March, 2024)

Insert/edit link.

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

Programmes & Qualifications

Cambridge igcse english - first language (0500).

• Past papers, examiner reports and specimen papers

You can download one or more papers for a previous session. Please note that these papers may not reflect the content of the current syllabus.

Unlock more content

This is only a selection of our papers. Registered Cambridge International Schools can access the full catalogue of teaching and learning materials including papers from 2018 through our School Support Hub .

Past papers

• -->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 11 (PDF, 244KB)
• -->June 2022 Insert Paper 11 (PDF, 1MB)
• -->June 2022 Mark Scheme Paper 21 (PDF, 219KB)
• -->June 2022 Insert Paper 21 (PDF, 903KB)

Examiner reports

• -->June 2022 Examiner Report (PDF, 6MB)

Specimen papers

• -->2020 Specimen Paper 1 Mark Scheme (PDF, 187KB)
• -->2020 Specimen Paper 1 Insert (PDF, 155KB)
• -->2020 Specimen Paper 2 Mark Scheme (PDF, 981KB)
• -->2020 Specimen Paper 2 Insert (PDF, 143KB)
• -->2024 Specimen Paper 1 Markscheme (PDF, 1MB)

Stay up to date

Sign up for updates about changes to the syllabuses you teach

• Syllabus overview
• Published resources

13 Best Practices for Grading Essays and Performance Tests

This article originally appeared in The Bar Examiner print edition, Winter 2019-2020 (Vol. 88, No. 4), pp 8–14. By Sonja Olson

When grading essays and performance tests for the bar examination, fairness, consistency, and focus are the cornerstones of good grading. In this article, NCBE’s MEE/MPT Program Director shares best practices for grading these written components to ensure that they serve as reliable and valid indicators of competence to practice law.

Opinions may vary about what should be tested on the bar exam, but if there is one point of agreement, it is that lawyers need to be skilled at communicating in writing. And communicating in writing means much more than using proper syntax, grammar, and vocabulary. Lawyers must be able to adjust their writing to a variety of audiences, such as clients, courts, opposing counsel, and legislators. Essay questions and performance tests are therefore integral to evaluating whether an individual should receive a license to practice law.

The Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) and the Multistate Performance Test (MPT) would not perform as reliable testing components without the dedication and care exercised by the graders in every jurisdiction that uses those exam components. In this article I share some insights and best practices that I’ve learned over the years from our Grading Workshop facilitators, from our MEE and MPT Drafting Committees, and without a doubt, from the graders (veterans and newcomers) who participate in NCBE’s Grading Workshop after every February and July bar exam administration. 1 Following these grading best practices ensures that the MEE and MPT serve as valid and reliable measures of basic competence to practice law.

1. Know the question (and the answer).

Every MEE question comes to the graders with the Drafting Committee’s analysis of the issues raised by the question and a discussion of the applicable law. In addition, we provide grading guidelines at the Grading Workshop. These guidelines, generally one to two pages, distill the issues discussed in the MEE analyses but also offer suggestions for distinguishing answers and may identify common areas where examinees struggle. This information is based on the workshop facilitator’s review of at least 30 actual MEE answers, which are sent to NCBE by jurisdictions after the bar exam. For the MPT, the drafters’ point sheet identifies the issues raised in the MPT and the intended analysis.

Familiarity with the grading materials not only allows a grader to give credit where it is due but also ensures that a grader can readily identify answers containing extraneous discussion that may be accurate (such as memorized portions of bar review outlines) but is not pertinent to a discussion of the issues raised by the problem.

Particularly with performance tests, which provide the relevant law, examinees may reiterate sentences or more from the statutes, regulations, or cases in the test booklet. MPTs also present a more expansive collection of facts for examinees to master, and thus there is the temptation to recite extended portions of the facts in an answer. Familiarity with the text of these questions, from the beginning of grading, will make it much easier to identify examinees who are merely regurgitating material as opposed to synthesizing the relevant facts and law and producing a cogent analysis.

2. Know the applicable law.

Graders of the MPT have the luxury of having all examinees working from the same legal authorities, as the MPT is a closed-universe exam—that is, all the relevant law is provided as part of the MPT. So an MPT grader should have no worries that an examinee is referencing an alternative, but valid, legal doctrine—if it’s not in the Library portion of the test booklet, it’s probably not analysis that should receive credit.

New MEE graders, however, often ask whether it is expected that answers to MEE questions will contain the same level of analysis and legal citations as provided in the Drafting Committee’s analyses. The short answer is no—the MEE analyses are very detailed because the MEE Drafting Committee recognizes that graders may be assigned to grade questions in subject areas that are not frequently encountered in their law practices. The MEE analyses contain the legal authorities relevant to the problem and often some background material to help orient the grader. Graders of MEE questions may want to review the authorities cited in the analyses or other treatises and casebooks if grading a subject outside of their regular practice area.

3. Know the grading scale that your jurisdiction uses.

At the Grading Workshop, NCBE uses a six-point scale when discussing the grading of essays and MPTs. Some jurisdictions use another scale, such as 1 through 7 or 1 through 10. What matters is that the score scale is manageable enough that graders can make consistent and meaningful distinctions among answers without getting frustrated by trying to determine where an answer fits on an overly granular scale. 2 All graders in a jurisdiction should be using the same scale and be in agreement on when an answer is so deficient as to warrant a zero ( see best practice #13 ).

Graders should also know whether their jurisdiction requires that the grades conform to a particular distribution, such as a curve or equal percentages in each grading category. Note that one method isn’t preferred over another—the point is that all graders should be on the same page. 3

4. Focus on rank-ordering.

No grader should bear the weight and added stress of believing that the grade they assign to an essay or performance test is what will tip the scale for that examinee and determine whether he or she passes the bar exam. The emphasis should be on rank-­ordering the papers, not on whether an individual paper receives a passing or a failing grade. The score given to an essay by a grader is essentially a “raw” score because those essay grades will be scaled to the jurisdiction’s Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) scores. 4 Only then will the “real” grade for that specific essay be determined, which will then be added to that examinee’s MBE score, other essay grades, and grades on any other bar exam components to produce the final score.

That being said, a grader should be able to articulate why a paper ends up at a different point on the grading scale vis-à-vis those papers receiving a higher or lower grade. At times, most papers may drop easily into particular “piles” on the grading scale based on simple criteria—for instance, that they cover the first two issues well but then do not reach a correct conclusion on the third issue.

Graders should turn off their inner editor and focus on how well the paper has answered the call and demonstrates the examinee’s ability to reason and analyze compared to the other papers in the pile.

5. Achieve calibration to ensure consistency in rank-ordering.

Fairness to all examinees means that it shouldn’t matter when their papers are graded or by whom. Calibration is the means by which graders develop coherent grading judgments so that rank-ordering is consistent by a single grader as well as across multiple graders. The recommended practice is that a grader review at least 30 papers before grading “for real” to see what the range of answers is. Note that for both multiple graders and single graders, answers for each point on the grading scale should be identified before the “real” grading begins. This could require reviewing more than 30 papers.

For multiple graders: Reviewing at least 30 papers works well when there are two or more graders for a question. As graders read the same papers in the calibration packet, they should pause after every five or so answers and discuss what grades they have assigned. If they have graded the same papers differently, they should discuss those papers and come to an agreement for each paper. This process of grading, discussing, and resolving differences should continue through the whole calibration packet or until graders are confident that they are using the same criteria to differentiate papers.

For a single grader: For a single grader, it is just as important to review a calibration packet of 30 or more papers. The papers can be sorted into piles for each point on the grading scale. After reviewing the first 10 or 15 papers, the grader should revisit the grades given to the first papers to see if the initial grade still holds or if the paper in fact belongs in a different pile. Each pile should then be reviewed to verify that the papers in it are of a consistent quality. One approach that some graders have found helpful is to first separate answers into three piles (poor, medium/average, and good) and then review the papers in each pile, separating them into the 1s and 2s, the 3s and 4s, and the 5s and 6s.

6. Combat “grader drift.”

Graders can “drift,” or begin grading papers inconsistently, for a variety of reasons. Fatigue is a common reason, as is hitting a string of very poor (or very good) papers so that the next one seems very good (or very bad) when it is merely average. To ward against “grader drift,” all graders should have some answers from the calibration packet embedded into the papers they grade, with the score from the calibration session hidden. After grading the embedded paper (which may be on colored paper or otherwise marked as a part of the calibration set), the grader can compare the just-­assigned grade with that from the calibration session and determine whether drift is occurring. For multiple graders, embedding the same answer from the calibration packet at the same point in each grader’s pile provides an opportunity to check that the graders are internally consistent and still applying the same standards.

7. Spread out grades over the entire score scale.

Rank-order grading only works as an effective assessment tool if graders take care to use the entire score scale. This does not mean that the final grades fit a particular curve. Rather, even a grader in a smaller jurisdiction who has fewer than 100 papers to grade should have no problem finding papers that slot into each point on the scale. There will be fewer 1s and 6s (in the case of a 6-point scale) and likely more 3s and 4s, with the number of 2s and 5s probably falling somewhere in between—but there will be papers that a grader, with confidence and justification, may reasonably place at each given point on the scale. While there are times when a question may be easier and most examinees appear to do well, a grader will still be able to find valid points of distinction among answers that will allow the grader to spread out the scores. 5 Some graders may find it helpful to initially use pluses and minuses when grading and then to review those 4- and 4+ answers, for example, to see if they really belong in the 3 or 5 piles.

The table below illustrates the importance of spreading out grades. If there are two graders, each grading answers for different questions, and Grader A decides to use the whole score scale of 1 through 6 but Grader B thinks that all examinees performed about the same and gives out only 3s and 4s, the resulting combination of the scores from Grader A and Grader B demonstrates that it is really Grader A who, by taking care to use the entire range of possible scores, is determining how well, or how poorly, each examinee does overall.

Lack of calibration between graders of the same question is unfair to examinees because their scores will be affected not by the quality of their answers but by whether they got the “easy” or the “hard” grader. On a similar note, if graders of different questions fail to spread out their grades, the questions whose grades are “bunched up” will ultimately have less impact on examinees’ overall scores.

8. Approach each paper as an “empty bucket”—that is, look for reasons to give credit.

Just as we encourage graders at the Grading Workshop to avoid thinking that the pass/fail line is whether a paper receives a 3 as opposed to a 4 on a 6-point scale, we encourage graders to approach each paper as an “empty bucket” and to view their task as searching for points to add to the bucket. It is much more likely that a grader can be consistent across papers in what he or she will give credit for, instead of attempting to be fair and consistent in all the ways a paper could be penalized.

9. Grade in a compressed time period.

Some jurisdictions, where the number of examinees means that grading cannot be completed over the course of a long weekend, may set targets for the number of papers that a grader can reasonably grade in a day. Certainly, grading is not something that should be rushed. But it is much easier to maintain calibration if the grader doesn’t have to get reacquainted with the details of the legal analysis and the quality of the answers because of a start-and-stop grading process spread out over several weeks. To the extent possible, grading should be done over a shorter time period.

10. Know the additional factors to consider when assigning grades.

Know what factors are legitimate grounds for assigning different grades to papers. Obviously, the content and substance of the answer is the first indication—what parts of the question did the examinee answer correctly? But other qualities are valid reasons for distinguishing papers.

Response to the call of the question

For both MEEs and MPTs, the answer should respond to the call of the question asked—and not the question that the examinee may have preferred to answer. For example, the examinee may launch into a discussion of whether a contract was validly entered into when the call of the question specifically asks for an assessment of the amount of damages the plaintiff is likely to recover. If that examinee then goes on to provide discussion that does respond to the specific call, the examinee will receive credit for the good content and at that point, the grader can generally ignore the extraneous material. Examinees who inflate their answers with a lot of extraneous material effectively penalize themselves: including the irrelevant material leaves the examinee less time to devote to the legal issues that are raised by the call. If two papers have approximately equal good content, but one is cluttered by unnecessary material, the one that adheres to the relevant issues is the better answer, although depending on the overall group of answers, those two papers could end up in the same pile.

Additional factors to consider, especially with MPTs, are the answer’s format, structure, and tone, and whether the examinee followed directions (e.g., if the task is to draft a letter to opposing counsel, which should be a persuasive piece, and instead the examinee writes an objective memorandum, this should be taken into account in determining the examinee’s grade). Finally, the analysis should state the applicable legal standard, marshal the relevant facts, and apply the law to those facts in the problem.

Accuracy in stating facts

In a similar vein, examinees may get a fact or two wrong when writing their answers. Even with MEE questions, which are generally just one page long, in the rush to produce an answer in 30 minutes, it is not unusual for an examinee to misread or misstate facts. The mistake may be very minor (e.g., getting a character’s name wrong). If it is clear from the context whom the examinee is discussing, such an error can probably be ignored. But if an examinee misstates a fact and then hinges part of the analysis on that incorrect statement, that should likely be considered when grading. After all, an important lawyering skill is paying attention to the facts that matter and getting them right when presenting a legal argument or analysis.

Written communication skills

For jurisdictions that have adopted the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE), the UBE Conditions of Use mandate that graders take into account written communication skills when grading, although no discrete weight is provided for that component. Each jurisdiction may have specific guidelines for how its graders should handle papers that are riddled with typos, exhibit poor grammar, or contain irrelevant information (legal or factual), among other things. Obviously, there will be a point where a paper’s typos and poor grammar will make it impossible to discern whether the examinee does comprehend the relevant legal principles, and in such cases, a lower grade is warranted. But typos and occasional poor grammar, in themselves, should generally not factor into the grading decisions for most papers. NCBE suggests ignoring typos for the most part because it is unreasonable to expect perfection in typing skills given the time pressure of the exam.

When assessing the quality of the writing, the focus should generally be on characteristics such as logical and effective organization, appropriate word choice and level of detail, and the presence or absence of a clear conclusion. The quality of the writing does matter, and while it remains important in MEE answers (and its absence is more obvious, if only because MEE answers are fairly brief), it comes to the forefront when grading MPTs. For one thing, while essay prompts ask the examinee to provide solid, reasoned legal analysis, the MPT instructs the examinee to consider both the audience of the work product and what tone is called for, objective or persuasive, to properly complete the task.

11. Know when to assign partial credit.

Essay exams are more forgiving than multiple-choice questions. If an examinee taking the MBE knows the relevant legal rule and is able to narrow the answer down to two options, one of which is the correct answer, but still selects the wrong answer, the examinee receives no credit for that question. The Scantron machine doesn’t care how close the examinee came to the right answer. But essay questions give examinees a chance to earn partial credit—they have an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to identify relevant facts and employ legal reasoning to reach a conclusion. Even if the ultimate conclusion is incorrect, an examinee who has stated the correct legal rule and then produced a cogent analysis of how the law would apply should get substantial credit. Graders should spend enough time on each paper to see where the examinee has shown some knowledge of the law and how it would apply to the given situation, even if the examinee does not reach the “correct” conclusion.

Similarly, just because an examinee hasn’t remembered the correct name of a legal doctrine, that doesn’t exclude that paper from receiving at least some credit. Depending on the range of quality of answers, an examinee should receive some amount of credit, even substantial credit, for describing the applicable rule or doctrine. The grader should ask whether the examinee’s discussion indicates that he or she is applying the same criteria covered by the relevant doctrine.

12. Acknowledge when a paper is incomplete.

With incomplete papers, those where the examinee clearly ran out of time (sometimes as obvious as a final sentence that cuts off, or a missing final issue, or analysis that starts strong but gets more superficial and conclusory toward the end), the grader can’t provide the answer that the examinee didn’t get to, no matter how promising the first paragraphs are. Fairness to all examinees requires that a grader award credit only for what is on the page, as other examinees were able to complete the essay or performance test in the time allowed by appropriately managing their time.

13. Know when to assign a zero.

All graders in a jurisdiction should be in agreement about when a paper should receive no credit, that is, a zero. A score of zero should be reserved for a blank page or an answer that is completely nonresponsive to the call of the question. This is important because essay answers that receive a zero are excluded from the reference group that is used to determine the formula for scaling essay scores to the MBE. Earning a 1 instead of a 0 should require that the examinee has made an honest attempt to answer the question.

Fairness, consistency, and focus are the cornerstones of good grading. Following these practices in grading bar exam essays and performance tests will not lessen the workload, but it will help ensure that bar exam essays and performance tests serve as reliable and valid indicators of an examinee’s competence to practice law, that scores are fair to examinees and are the result of meaningful differences in the quality of the answers, and that the quality of the writing—an important skill for all lawyers, regardless of practice area—is considered as a grading criterion.

• NCBE’s MEE/MPT Grading Workshop is held in Madison, Wisconsin, the Saturday after each administration of the bar exam. The purpose of the workshop is to identify trends that graders will likely see when grading the MEE and the MPT in their jurisdictions as well as to discuss any questions graders have about the applicable law or the grading materials. While the workshop gives graders an orientation for grading, it is not intended to be a calibration session; that is best accomplished using a calibration packet comprising papers solely from the grader’s jurisdiction. (Calibration is the means by which graders develop coherent grading judgments so that rank-ordering is consistent by a single grader as well as across multiple graders.) (Go back)
• See Mark A. Albanese, PhD, “ The Testing Column: Essay and MPT Grading: Does Spread Really Matter? ” 85(4) The Bar Examiner (December 2016) 29–35, at 30: “For the purposes of illustrating how spread in grades affects the [standard deviation—that is, the average deviation of scores from the mean—] a six-point scale works fairly well. There are enough different grade points that spread can be easily seen, yet not so many that one gets lost in the details of computation.” See also Susan Case, PhD, “ The Testing Column: Bar Examining and Reliability ,” 72(1) The Bar Examiner (February 2003) 23–26, at 24: “All else being equal, more score gradations work better than fewer score gradations. The key is to make sure that the scale reflects the level of judgments the grader can make…. A six-point grading scale tends to work better than a four-point grading scale. Something much broader, like a 20-point grading scale, would work better than a six-point scale, but only if the grader could make reasonable, consistent, meaningful decisions along that scale.” (Go back)
• See Mark A. Albanese, PhD, supra note 2, at 32: “From a practical standpoint, we want to spread scores out as much as possible, but it is not necessary for the number of essays to be evenly distributed in each grade category; there are a range of distributions that achieve reasonably spread-out grades, but they tend to involve having some percentage of examinees in each grade category and not “bunching up” examinees too much into a small number of grade categories. In other words, uniform and bell-shaped distributions of grades are reasonable ways of “bucketing” examinees to ensure good spread in grades.” (Go back)
• Scaling is a procedure that statistically adjusts raw scores for the written components of the bar exam (the MEE and the MPT) so that collectively they have the same mean and standard deviation (average distance of scores from the mean) as the jurisdiction’s scaled MBE scores. See Susan Case, PhD, “ The Testing Column: Frequently Asked Questions about Scaling Written Test Scores to the MBE ,” 75(4) The Bar Examiner (November 2006) 42–44 at 42: “In the bar examination setting, scaling is a statistical procedure that puts essay or performance test scores on the same score scale as the Multistate Bar Examination. Despite the change in scale, the rank ordering of individuals remains the same as it was on the original scale.” (Go back)
• Scaling ( see supra note 4) takes advantage of the equated MBE scores and therefore accounts for variance in difficulty of the essay questions from one administration to the next. See Mark A. Albanese, PhD, “ The Testing Column: Scaling: It’s Not Just for Fish or Mountains ,” 83(4) The Bar Examiner (December 2014) 50–56, at 55: “Scaling essay scores to the MBE will … stabilize passing rates even though the intrinsic difficulty of essay questions may vary.” (Go back)

Sonja Olson is the MEE/MPT Program Director for the National Conference of Bar Examiners.

Contact us to request a pdf file of the original article as it appeared in the print edition.

In This Issue

Winter 2023-2024 (Vol. 92, No. 4)

• Letter from the Chair
• President’s Page
• Facts & Figures
• Military Spouse Attorney Licensure: Progress and Perspectives
• Distance-Education Allowances and Academic Freedom in Law Schools: Recent Developments in the ABA Standards
• Texas Bar Exam: 2023 Standard-Setting Study
• The Testing Column: Standards? We Don’t Need No Stinking Standards!
• The Next Generation of the Bar Exam: Quarterly Update
• FAQs About Bar Admissions: Answering Questions About: Transferring UBE Scores Between Jurisdictions
• News & Events
• In Memoriam: Mark A. Albanese, PhD
• In the Courts

Bar Exam Fundamentals

Addressing questions from conversations NCBE has had with legal educators about the bar exam.

Online Bar Admission Guide

Comprehensive information on bar admission requirements in all US jurisdictions.

NextGen Bar Exam of the Future

Visit the NextGen Bar Exam website for the latest news about the bar exam of the future.

BarNow Study Aids

NCBE offers high-quality, affordable study aids in a mobile-friendly eLearning platform.

2023 Year in Review

NCBE’s annual publication highlights the work of volunteers and staff in fulfilling its mission.

2022 Statistics

Bar examination and admission statistics by jurisdiction, and national data for the MBE and MPRE.

• Cách Thức Mua sách

Chưa có sản phẩm trong giỏ hàng.

• Sách Luyện Đề IELTS
• Sách Luyện nhiều kĩ năng
• Sách IELTS Reading
• Sách IELTS Listening
• Sách IELTS Writing
• Sách IELTS Speaking
• Sách IELTS Vocabulary
• Sách IELTS Grammar
• Sách IELTS General Training
• Sách Bổ Trợ
• Cambridge IELTS

Home » Blog » IELTS Essays From Examiners 2019 & 2020

IELTS Essays From Examiners 2019 & 2020

Uncategorised.

IELTS Essays From Examiners là bộ tài liệu tổng hợp các bài mẫu của cac tác giả (các examiners) nổi tiếng. Trong 2 quyển này, các bạn sẽ có được vô số các bài mẫu chất lượng cao từ các cựu giám khảo IELTS nhé.

• 1.1.1 Ưu điểm :
• 1.1.2 Nhược điểm:
• 2 Link tải IELTS Essays From Examiners 2019 & 2020:

IELTS Essays From Examiners 2019 & 2020 Review:

Mỗi quyển trong bộ này tổng hợp gần 100 bài mẫu IELTS Writings, và cái hay của bộ này là các bài mẫu này đều từ các nguồn rất uy tín, bao gồm:

• IELTS Simon
• Cô Palline Cullen (Đồng tác giả quyển The Official Cambridge Guide )
• Các bài mẫu của NXB Macmillan
• Mindset For IELTS

Các bạn có thể thấy ha, nếu được trích bài mẫu từ những quyển trên thì chất lượng nội dung chúng ta khỏi phải bàn nhé.

Các bài mẫu khi các bạn tham khảo nên lựa chọn nguồn phù hợp, tốt nhất là từ các NXB và tác giả người bản địa là tốt nhất ha. Chứ nếu các bạn đọc & học từ các nguồn chưa được xác thực, nó sẽ ảnh hưởng tới tư duy làm bài của các bạn rất nhiều.

Ưu & nhược điểm của bộ IELTS Essay From Examiners 2019 & 2020:

• bài viết rất chất lượng vì được tổng hợp từ những nguồn uy tín,
• Số lượng bài viết khá là nhiều,
• Cover hầu như mọi topics trong IELTS Writing
• Ideas & Vocabulary từ các bộ bài mẫu này rất giá trị

Nhược điểm:

• Hoàn toàn không có phần hướng dẫn cách viết
• Không có note từ vựng cụ thể mà các bạn phải tự làm ha
• Các bài mẫu được phân theo từng giáo viên, chứ không phân theo từng topics cụ thể: Cái này có thể sẽ làm các bạn khó tập trung từ vựng và ideas theo từng dạng bài/câu hỏi hơn

Dù có chút nhược điểm, nhưng mà một điều chắc chắn là bộ IELTS Essays From Examiners 2019 & 2020 này sẽ là bộ tài liệu vô cùng quý giá cho các bạn tự học IELTS đó ha.

Link tải IELTS Essays From Examiners 2019 & 2020:

Bộ này hiện tại có 2 bản là 2019 & 2020. Khi nào có bản mới nữa thì bên mình sẽ update lên cho mọi người tải về cùng học nha:

• IELTS Essay From Examiners 2019 PDF
• IELTS Essay From Examiners 2020 PDF

Hi vọng với bộ tài liệu này, các bạn sẽ có được nguồn tài liệu học IELTS tốt nhất nhé!

Tên tài khoản hoặc địa chỉ email  *

Mật khẩu  *

Đăng nhập Ghi nhớ mật khẩu

Quên mật khẩu?

097 288 87 54

08:00 - 21h30 (Thứ 2 đến CN)

[DOWNLOAD] TÀI LIỆU IELTS ESSAYS FROM EXAMINERS 2020 HỌC WRITING CỰC CHẤT

Trong bài viết này, ITN sẽ cung cấp cho các bạn các bài mẫu IELTS Writing với 137 topic khác nhau đến từ các giám khảo IELTS đình đám.

Nghiên cứu bài mẫu IELTS là một nhu cầu không thể thiếu của những sĩ tử tham gia kì thi này. Thị trường bài mẫu hiện nay khá rộng lớn với nhiều tài liệu sách, bài viết mẫu trên mạng. Tuy đa dạng là thế, nhưng người học IELTS cũng không khỏi bối rối vì độ tin cậy và tính chuẩn mực về ngôn ngữ của các bài viết trên mạng, bài nào cũng tự xem là “chuẩn” hay “band 8+”.

Nhằm mang đến người học IELTS những bài mẫu chuẩn mực nhất từ các nguồn chuẩn nhất, ITN cung cấp cho các bạn bộ tài liệu “Essay From Examiners 2020” được tổng hợp bởi đội ngũ “Luyện viết IELTS Writing 9.0+” với 137 topic khác nhau :

Sách là sự tổng hợp bài mẫu đến từ các nguồn chính như:

• HowtodoIELTS.com (Ex-examiners)
• Cambridge IELTS
• Cô Pauline Cullen
• Bài mẫu từ sách của nhà xuất bản Macmillan (Ready for IELTS 2nd Edition, Improve your Skills Writing for IELTS)

Hãy cùng ITN chinh phục band điểm cao của IELTS Writing với bộ tài liệu “cực chất” này nhé!

Link download tài liệu “IELTS ESSAYS FROM EXAMINERS 2020”

TÀI LIỆU TỔNG HỢP BÀI MẪU IELTS WRITING TỪ CÁC GIÁM KHẢO IELTS ĐÌNH ĐÁM

______________________

• Theo dõi series học thuật của IELTS Trang Nguyễn  TẠI ĐÂY 
• Tham gia group  Yêu IELTS Từ Đầu  của ITN
• Fanpage  IELTS Trang Nguyễn
• Channel Youtube :   IELTS Trang Nguyễn

Đăng kí nhận tư vấn

• Họ và tên *
• Khoá học bạn đang quan tâm * Khoá học bạn đang quan tâm Khóa Begin (1.0 - 3.0 IELTS) Khóa Explore (3.0 - 4.5 IELTS) Khóa Accelerate (4.5 - 5.5 IELTS) Khóa Achieve (5.5 - 6.5+ IELTS) Học Cấp Tốc 1vs1

Nếu bạn cần tư vấn thêm hãy gọi

Chia sẻ Xem linkedin Xem facebook Xem twitter Xem pinterest

Trả lời Hủy

Email của bạn sẽ không được hiển thị công khai. Các trường bắt buộc được đánh dấu *

Bình luận *

Lưu tên của tôi, email, và trang web trong trình duyệt này cho lần bình luận kế tiếp của tôi.

Bài viết liên quan

Bộ đề dự đoán quý I (tháng 1 – tháng 3/2024)

Để phục vụ cho quá trình luyện thi IELTS Speaking, ITN IELTS xin gửi đến bạn bộ đề dự đoán IELTS Speaking Forecast quý 1/2024,...

Review sách Cambridge Grammar for IELTS

Review sách Cambridge Grammar for IELTS Chắc là sĩ tử IELTS nào cũng đã trải nghiệm ôn luyện với bộ Cambridge IELTS từ 1 đến...

Bộ đề thi IELTS Speaking Forecast 2023 – Dự đoán quý 2 (tháng 5 – 8/2023)

Để phục vụ cho quá trình luyện thi IELTS Speaking, ITN IELTS xin gửi đến bạn bộ đề dự đoán IELTS Speaking Forecast quý 2/2023,...

Đăng kí kiểm tra đầu vào MIỄN PHÍ

Nhận kết quả nhanh, tư vấn lộ trình học chi tiết

• Số điện thoại *

What is the difference between a solar eclipse and a lunar eclipse?

It almost time! Millions of Americans across the country Monday are preparing to witness the once-in-a-lifetime total solar eclipse as it passes over portions of Mexico, the United States and Canada.

It's a sight to behold and people have now long been eagerly awaiting what will be their only chance until 2044 to witness totality, whereby the moon will completely block the sun's disc, ushering in uncharacteristic darkness.

That being said, many are curious on what makes the solar eclipse special and how is it different from a lunar eclipse.

The total solar eclipse is today: Get the latest forecast and everything you need to know

What is an eclipse?

An eclipse occurs when any celestial object like a moon or a planet passes between two other bodies, obscuring the view of objects like the sun, according to NASA .

What is a solar eclipse?

A total solar eclipse occurs when the moon comes in between the Earth and the sun, blocking its light from reaching our planet, leading to a period of darkness lasting several minutes. The resulting "totality," whereby observers can see the outermost layer of the sun's atmosphere, known as the corona, presents a spectacular sight for viewers and confuses animals – causing nocturnal creatures to stir and bird and insects to fall silent.

Partial eclipses, when some part of the sun remains visible, are the most common, making total eclipses a rare sight.

What is a lunar eclipse?

A total lunar eclipse occurs when the moon and the sun are on exact opposite sides of Earth. When this happens, Earth blocks the sunlight that normally reaches the moon. Instead of that sunlight hitting the moon’s surface, Earth's shadow falls on it.

Lunar eclipses are often also referred to the "blood moon" because when the Earth's shadow covers the moon, it often produces a red color. The coloration happens because a bit of reddish sunlight still reaches the moon's surface, even though it's in Earth's shadow.

Difference between lunar eclipse and solar eclipse

The major difference between the two eclipses is in the positioning of the sun, the moon and the Earth and the longevity of the phenomenon, according to NASA.

A lunar eclipse can last for a few hours, while a solar eclipse lasts only a few minutes. Solar eclipses also rarely occur, while lunar eclipses are comparatively more frequent. While at least two partial lunar eclipses happen every year, total lunar eclipses are still rare, says NASA.

Another major difference between the two is that for lunar eclipses, no special glasses or gizmos are needed to view the spectacle and one can directly stare at the moon. However, for solar eclipses, it is pertinent to wear proper viewing glasses and take the necessary safety precautions because the powerful rays of the sun can burn and damage your retinas.

Contributing: Eric Lagatta, Doyle Rice, USA TODAY

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Doctor Is Fired After Maternal and Infant Deaths at a Brooklyn Hospital

A doctor involved in an infant death at Woodhull Medical Center was later involved in a C-section that led to a mother’s death, according to state investigators and hospital staff.

By Joseph Goldstein

A baby died during childbirth late last year after medical staff at a Brooklyn hospital appeared to ignore worrying signs for several hours, a new report by state health investigators has found.

Two weeks later, the same doctor involved in the infant’s death was also involved in the death of a mother who gave birth at the hospital, Woodhull Medical Center in Bedford-Stuyvesant, according to the report.

The doctor, Ronald Daniel, 72, was fired in December after the mother’s death, his employer said. But the two fatal incidents on the same labor and delivery floor highlighted major concerns about the hospital, which state health officials declared to be in “immediate jeopardy” — an administrative finding that a hospital poses a danger to patients.

The doctor was not the first at Woodhull to be fired following a maternal death in recent years. And this is not the first time regulators have concluded that problems on the hospital’s labor and delivery floor led to a death.

The “jeopardy” finding was quickly lifted after Woodhull promised several changes. In a statement, the city’s public hospital system said it had “revamped and enhanced its protocols across its obstetrics and anesthesiology departments.” A person who answered a call to Dr. Daniel’s phone number hung up when asked for comment.

Woodhull, one of the city’s 11 public hospitals, has long been regarded as one of the weaker institutions in the public hospital system. It has become a symbol of what city officials call New York’s “maternal health crisis ,” which has especially affected women of color. In New York City, Black women are nine times more likely than white women to die during pregnancy or childbirth, a far starker disparity than the national one.

A growing body of evidence paints Woodhull’s labor and delivery floor as a place where deadly mistakes keep occurring, with insufficient efforts to figure out why. In recent years Woodhull has been the site of two maternal deaths that regulators blamed on troubling errors by medical staff.

In 2020, Woodhull removed an anesthesiologist, Dr. Dmitry Shelchkov, after he botched an epidural, the first in a cascade of errors that resulted in the death of Sha-Asia Semple, a first-time mother .

Government investigators subsequently discovered a disturbing pattern: During childbirth, six women in the preceding three years had “suffered adverse outcomes related to the administration of anesthesia,” though all survived. Dr. Shelchkov had been involved in many of those earlier cases, but the hospital had done relatively little to monitor his performance, hospital regulators found.

The death of Ms. Semple, who was Black, sparked a demonstration outside the hospital and underscored the racial disparities surrounding childbirth in New York.

The public hospital system said in its statement that it had instituted a stronger process for reviewing bad outcomes. Woodhull also recently hired a new chief medical officer and a new head of obstetrics. Some women have sought it out as a place to give birth because midwives play an unusually large role on the labor and delivery floor, providing a less medicalized experience . More than 1,000 babies are delivered at Woodhull each year; about 85 percent are Black or Hispanic.

But the 10-page government report — which includes the findings by state Health Department investigators, and Woodhull’s response — describes two incidents at Woodhull involving pregnancies over the past six months: a uterine rupture that led to the death of a baby, and, two weeks later, the death of a mother during an emergency C-section.

The first case involved a woman who had arrived at the hospital on Oct. 29, 2023. She had labored for 24 hours in the care of nurses and midwives at the hospital, and at times the fetal heart rate had dropped, a signal that something could be wrong. She was attempting a vaginal delivery, but had previously given birth by C-section. That can involve a small risk — perhaps under 1 percent, though estimates vary — of a uterine rupture, when the earlier C-section scar rips. A drop in the fetal heart rate is often a key warning sign.

Investigators concluded that the nurses and midwives caring for her did not notify the attending physician until more than 12 hours after the first worrisome signs. At that point, around 1 a.m. on Oct. 31, a doctor recommended an emergency C-section. During the C-section, it became clear that the woman’s uterus had ruptured, injuring her bladder as well.

The report said little about the infant other than to note that the baby did not live. “Resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful,” the report said. The mother’s uterus was removed, the report said.

The hospital’s chief medical officer, Ross MacDonald, later told investigators that the emergency C-section should have happened earlier, according to the report.

The document does not identify the mother, and does not state whether Dr. Daniel was the obstetrician who ultimately performed the C-section, or if he had been involved in the case only in the preceding hours. But the report noted that the doctor involved was fired in response to two separate cases, and a health official confirmed that the doctor described in the report was Dr. Daniel.

A spokesman for NYU Langone Health, which supplies many of the doctors at Woodhull, confirmed that Dr. Daniel was fired on Dec. 5 — the same date provided for the doctor’s termination in the government report.

The infant death revealed some uncertainty on the labor and delivery floor about who — midwives or doctors — was primarily responsible for patients who were trying for a vaginal birth after a C-section. The two midwives involved were both placed on a monitoring program to evaluate their competence.

Two weeks later, on Nov. 13, a 30-year-old mother of two, Christine Fields, had an emergency C-section amid signs of growing fetal distress. The obstetrician, Dr. Daniel, later filed a report saying there had been “no intraoperative surgical complications” during the C-section, according to the investigators’ findings, suggesting that all was well.

It was not. Investigators later learned the C-section incision was too long, which can occur from the scalpel or a tear when pulling out the baby. During the C-section, doctors had patched up the injury with sutures and saw no further bleeding at the time, Dr. MacDonald, the chief medical officer, later wrote in an email to the medical examiner’s office.

But Dr. Daniel did not mention the injury in his surgical report or to the medical staff providing post-delivery care, as is required.

An extension of the incision can be “one of the more frightening complications of a C-section” because it can tear into major blood vessels on the uterine wall, raising the risk of hemorrhage, said Dr. Amos Grunebaum, a longtime obstetrician and professor at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University, who had no involvement in the case.

An assistant surgeon later acknowledged to supervisors that an injury had occurred during the C-section, which the autopsy report would confirm. But the staff who cared for Ms. Fields after the C-section seemed to have had no idea. She began to bleed internally, and later died.

Dr. Daniel is well-regarded by his peers, who described him as caring and competent. Several colleagues said they were unaware of a larger pattern of problems beyond these two cases. In an email, the public hospital system said it had made “many significant improvements in the area of maternal health” and had increased its use of simulations to help train labor and delivery floor staff on how to respond to various emergencies. The C-section rate at the city’s public hospitals is consistently lower than the state average, an indicator linked to safety , the email said.

Doctors often note that bad outcomes sometimes happen on the labor and delivery floors of even the best hospitals.

“Things can happen even when you do things perfectly well,” Dr. Grunebaum said. “But they didn’t do things perfectly well.”

Joseph Goldstein covers health care in New York for The Times, following years of criminal justice and police reporting. More about Joseph Goldstein