Few topics generate as much student interest as free will, and Nagel's chapter on it gives teachers a short, readable way into the debate. Students consider whether we are free if our actions are determined by prior causes, and whether freedom would even make sense if our choices were random. The problem for graders is that the topic invites sprawling essays that touch on science, religion, and morality without settling on any single argument.

Good prompts narrow the territory. Asking whether a person can be morally responsible if their choices were determined by earlier events gives the essay a clear target and a built-in tension between two ideas students care about. Narrower prompts also make grading fairer, because every student is addressing roughly the same question.

Teachers should also say up front that no single answer is expected. Students sometimes assume the teacher secretly favors determinism or libertarian free will, and they write to please instead of to reason. A short note on the assignment sheet that the grade depends on the argument, not the position, removes that pressure.

Prompts that keep the essay focused

Prompts work best when they force a choice and ask for a reason. Instead of asking what free will is, ask students to defend a view about whether it is compatible with determinism, using one concrete scenario to illustrate their point. The scenario requirement keeps the writing grounded, and it gives the grader something specific to check against the argument.

• Argue whether a person who could not have done otherwise can still deserve blame
• Explain whether random events in the brain would make choices more free or less free
• Defend or reject the claim that feeling free is enough to be free
• Discuss how the idea of free will affects the way we think about punishment
• Consider whether knowing that your choices were predictable would change how you see them

Common structural problems in free will essays

One recurring issue is the essay that lists positions without choosing among them. It describes determinism, then libertarianism, then compatibilism, and ends with a vague sentence saying that it is a complicated question. A grader can respond with a simple instruction, which is to pick one view and explain why it handles the hardest objection better than the others.

Another problem is the unsupported leap from physical causes to the claim that choices are meaningless. Students often assume that if the brain causes our decisions, then we are not really deciding anything. Feedback should ask them to explain why being caused rules out being chosen, since that is the exact step many philosophers dispute.

Scoring objections and replies

Free will essays are especially good for assessing objection handling because every position faces a well-known challenge. A student defending determinism must address the sense that we deliberate and choose, while a student defending free will must explain how choices fit into a world governed by causes. The rubric should reward essays that state the objection fairly and attempt a real reply.

A useful check is whether the student could have written the objection themselves. If the counterargument sounds like a weak version that no one would hold, the essay has not earned full credit for engagement. Asking students to present the opposing view as its defenders would is a habit worth building early.

Keeping grading consistent on a contested topic

Because the topic is contested, teachers sometimes worry that their own views will shape their grading. A written rubric focused on reasoning, along with a sample of anchor papers, helps keep personal opinion out of the score. AI-assisted grading adds a second layer of consistency, since the same criteria are applied to every paper whatever position it takes.

It is still worth auditing a handful of results across different positions to confirm that no stance is being scored higher out of habit. If the tool or a grader seems to favor one side, the descriptors may be rewarding conclusions instead of reasoning. Rewriting them to point at observable features of the argument usually solves the problem.