Here's some examples of papers.  In general, most of the papers students hand in are at least good. In hardly any cases does a paper hold a person back--that is, if a student does well on the test, and does a paper, then that student will likely get honors. Last year, the only exceptions were the very few cases where a person didn't follow the directions on what the paper should have--however, this was very rare (fortunately, or I might worry I wasn't clear in what I wanted).

 I didn't grade the papers, but usually categorized them with an adjective--"good" "very good" and "excellent".

Most papers I review are generally pretty good at discussing diagnostic issues. I am particularly impressed, however, by papers that are able to go beyond that, and find a way to incorporate both clinical impressions from the interview, and didactic information ( from the lecture/books/articles).

The ideal paper would be a perfect marriage between the theoretical and the practical--class and small group--information and observation--yin and yang--abbott and cost--well, you get the point.

I'm including 2 papers that came very close to this ideal. I publish them here (with the authors' permission) as examples of what I wanted.

Paper 1: Cocaine Detoxification: effective or not (G. Subramaniam)

Paper 2: Major depression in the Geriatric Population: a case study (G Song).