Common reading programs and first-year seminars look for books that new students can finish and still argue about. Tuesdays with Morrie fits, since it is short, personal, and set partly on a college campus. The challenge for instructors is not picking the book but keeping the writing assignments rigorous enough for college-level work.

The risk with a book this accessible is that students treat it as a self-help text and respond with agreement. An instructor can push back by asking students to treat Morrie's advice as claims to be tested. That reframing moves the writing from reflection alone to critical reading.

Consider assigning three short papers across a few weeks. A first paper could analyze one Tuesday closely, a second could place Morrie's ideas next to a sociological or psychological reading, and a third could challenge one of his positions. Each paper builds a distinct academic skill while staying tied to one shared text.

Because common reading sections tend to be taught by many instructors, the assignments should be easy to explain and easy to grade the same way. A shared rubric turns that from a hope into a routine. It also gives students in different sections the same target.

Assignment ideas for a common reading course

The best first-year assignments make students do something they will do again in later courses. Ask for a claim, evidence, and a counterargument, and keep the length to something you can read closely. Two to three pages is enough to see whether a student can build an argument.

• A close reading of a single Tuesday that explains how Albom's word choices shape Morrie's message.
• A response paper that applies one concept from another course reading to Morrie's view of American culture.
• A short argument on whether Morrie's advice fits a first-year student's actual daily pressures.
• A comparison of the professor-student relationship in the book with the student's own experience of office hours.
• A reflection on what the student hopes to learn from college, using the book as a starting point.

Managing the grading load in large sections

A section of 25 students writing three papers means 75 papers before the semester is half over. Multiply that by two or three sections and grading becomes the part of the job that wears people down. The way through is to decide in advance what feedback each paper actually needs.

Many instructors now use AI-assisted feedback to produce a first pass against their rubric. GraideMind, for instance, lets an instructor grade essays against their own criteria and draft comments that can be revised before work is returned. The instructor still makes the final call but starts from something more than a blank page.

Keeping expectations consistent across instructors

In a program with multiple instructors, students compare notes. If one section grades harshly and another generously, the complaints reach the director. Norming sessions, where instructors score the same sample paper and discuss the differences, keep grading roughly aligned.

It helps to bring two anchor papers to the first meeting of the term. Ask everyone to score them independently, then compare. Ten minutes of disagreement in September saves hours of dispute in December.

Helping students move from summary to argument

First-year students tend to summarize, since it feels safe. Feedback that says "analyze more" rarely helps. A more useful comment points to a specific paragraph and asks what claim it is supporting.

Over three papers, that habit adds up. By the third assignment, students who once retold the chapter are making claims and testing them. That is exactly the shift a first-year writing course exists to produce.