Character analysis is the most common essay assigned on You Can't Take It With You, and it is also one of the easiest to grade inconsistently. The play has more than a dozen memorable figures, from Penny Sycamore and her unfinished plays to Boris Kolenkhov and his ballet lessons. Without a shared standard, one teacher might reward a lively description of a character while another expects an argument about how that character serves the play's ideas.

A strong rubric starts by separating description from analysis. Describing Essie Carmichael as someone who makes candy and dances badly is a plot-level observation that nearly every student can produce. Analysis begins when the writer explains what her cheerful, unbothered pursuit of a passion says about the household's values and why the playwrights chose to present it as funny rather than foolish.

Teachers also need to decide how much weight to give accuracy. Students sometimes confuse which family member does what, such as attributing the fireworks to Ed instead of Paul, and these slips can undermine an otherwise thoughtful argument. A dedicated accuracy row keeps such errors visible without letting them overwhelm the score for reasoning.

The Core Criteria Every Rubric Needs

Four criteria cover most character essays: a thesis that makes a claim about the character, evidence drawn from specific moments, explanation that connects evidence to the claim, and control of writing conventions. Each should have performance levels written in plain language so students can read them before drafting. A top-level descriptor for evidence, for instance, might say the writer selects scenes from more than one act and quotes sparingly but precisely.

• Thesis makes a debatable claim about what the character represents
• Evidence comes from at least two distinct scenes
• Explanation links each example to the thesis rather than retelling the scene
• Context about the 1930s setting appears where it clarifies motive
• Organization moves from one idea to the next without repeating itself

Matching the Rubric to Different Characters

Not every character supports the same kind of analysis, and a flexible rubric accounts for that. Grandpa Vanderhof invites arguments about philosophy and authority, while Anthony Kirby invites arguments about change and regret. Tony Kirby sits between the two families, which makes him a natural subject for essays about compromise and identity.

If students choose their own character, consider adding a justification row that rewards a thoughtful choice. A student who writes about Rheba or Donald, who appear in fewer pivotal moments, must work harder to find evidence and often produces more original thinking. Rewarding that effort keeps the whole class from converging on the same two or three characters.

Calibrating Scores Across a Class Set

Even a well-written rubric can drift over a long grading session. A useful habit is to select three anchor essays, one strong, one average, and one weak, and score them before anything else. Returning to those anchors whenever a paper feels hard to place helps you hold the standard steady from the first essay to the last.

Departments teaching the same play can calibrate together by scoring a shared sample and comparing results. The conversation that follows often reveals hidden differences, such as one teacher penalizing plot summary heavily while another treats it as a minor flaw. Aligning on those expectations before grading begins makes final grades feel fairer to students in different sections.

Turning Rubric Scores Into Useful Feedback

A score by itself tells a student where they landed but not how to improve. Pair each rubric row with one specific comment that names a strength and one concrete next step. For example, noting that a paragraph on Penny's playwriting quotes well but never explains why the scene matters gives the writer something actionable to revise.

AI grading tools can apply a rubric like this one row by row and draft those comments at scale, which saves hours during a unit with many sections. Teachers still review the output, adjusting tone and correcting any misreadings of the play. The result is feedback that is consistent across the class yet still reflects the teacher's own priorities.