Upload your Philosophy IA draft and get instant feedback aligned with official IB criteria.
Follow the same rubric-first flow students use to move from a raw draft to a submission-ready version.
Start by dropping in your coursework PDF. We built this flow to mirror how students prepare final submission drafts.
Drag and drop to upload
Limit 10 MB per file. Supported files: PDF
Sign in to start your first grading run.
Marksy maps your draft against the rubric so you can see where marks are gained or lost in each criterion.
Every important scoring decision is anchored to your writing so revision is evidence-based, not guesswork.
Get structured next actions so you can move from draft to stronger markband performance in the right order.
For class-wide workflows, the same logic extends to batch marking so feedback stays consistent across submissions.
Keep one grading system across IA, EE, TOK, and subject variants so your preparation process stays consistent.
Use this guide to keep the stimulus connection explicit, the structure easy to follow, and the argument focused on justified philosophical analysis.
Recommended Length
2,000-2,200 words
Build Timeline
3-5 weeks: issue, outline, draft, refine
Anchor Question
Can a reader see the philosophical issue, the argument, and the evaluation without guessing your intent?
Want a full playbook format? Read Philosophy IA Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: Identifying the philosophical issue raised by the stimulus and justifying the connection
Top-band move: The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is clearly and explicitly identified. There is a clear justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.
Common penalty: The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is implied but not explicitly identified. There is no justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.
Examiner focus: Structure, organization, and clarity of the response
Top-band move: The response is well structured, focused and effectively organized. The response is clear and coherent.
Common penalty: The response is poorly structured, or where there is a recognizable structure there is minimal focus on the task.
Examiner focus: Relevant knowledge, explanation of the philosophical issue, and use of philosophical vocabulary
Top-band move: The response contains relevant, accurate and detailed knowledge. There is a well-developed explanation of the philosophical issue. There is appropriate use of philosophical vocabulary throughout the response.
Common penalty: There is little relevant knowledge. The explanation of the philosophical issue is minimal. Philosophical vocabulary is not used, or is consistently used inappropriately.
Examiner focus: Depth and development of analysis, use of examples, and identification of counter-arguments
Top-band move: The response contains well-developed critical analysis. The examples used are well chosen and lend support to the argument. Counter-arguments are identified and analysed in a convincing way.
Common penalty: The response is mostly descriptive. There is little analysis, and few or no examples are given.
Examiner focus: Evaluation of alternative interpretations, justification of main points, and consistency of conclusion
Top-band move: There is clear evaluation of alternative interpretations or points of view. All, or nearly all, of the main points are justified. The response argues from a consistently held position. The conclusion is clearly stated and consistent with the argument.
Common penalty: There is little evaluation of alternative interpretations or points of view. Some of the main points are justified. There is no conclusion, or the conclusion is not relevant.
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is implied but not explicitly identified. There is no justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.
Points 2
The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is clearly identified. There is some justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.
Points 3
The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is clearly and explicitly identified. There is a clear justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
The response is poorly structured, or where there is a recognizable structure there is minimal focus on the task.
Points 2
There is some attempt to follow a structured approach, although it is not always clear what the answer is trying to convey.
Points 3
The response is structured and generally organized, and can be easily followed.
Points 4
The response is well structured, focused and effectively organized. The response is clear and coherent.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
There is little relevant knowledge. The explanation of the philosophical issue is minimal. Philosophical vocabulary is not used, or is consistently used inappropriately.
Points 2
Some knowledge is demonstrated but this lacks accuracy and relevance. There is a basic explanation of the philosophical issue. Philosophical vocabulary is used, sometimes appropriately.
Points 3
Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant. There is a satisfactory explanation of the philosophical issue. Philosophical vocabulary is used, sometimes appropriately.
Points 4
The response contains relevant, accurate and detailed knowledge. There is a well-developed explanation of the philosophical issue. There is appropriate use of philosophical vocabulary throughout the response.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The response is mostly descriptive. There is little analysis, and few or no examples are given.
Points 3-4
There is limited analysis, but the response is more descriptive than analytical. Some appropriate examples are used.
Points 5-6
The response contains analysis, but this analysis lacks development. Appropriate examples are used in support of the argument. Counter-arguments are identified.
Points 7-8
The response contains well-developed critical analysis. The examples used are well chosen and lend support to the argument. Counter-arguments are identified and analysed in a convincing way.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
There is little evaluation of alternative interpretations or points of view. Some of the main points are justified. There is no conclusion, or the conclusion is not relevant.
Points 3-4
There is some evaluation of alternative interpretations or points of view. Many of the main points are justified. The conclusion is stated but may not be entirely consistent with the argument.
Points 5-6
There is clear evaluation of alternative interpretations or points of view. All, or nearly all, of the main points are justified. The response argues from a consistently held position. The conclusion is clearly stated and consistent with the argument.
Step 1
Translate the stimulus into one precise philosophical issue and justify why that issue is the right focus.
Step 2
Organize the response so the claim, reasoning, and transitions are easy to follow at every step.
Step 3
Define the key terms you rely on and keep the language precise rather than decorative.
Step 4
Develop counter-arguments and alternative views instead of stopping at description.
The philosophical issue is explicitly identified and justified.
The response is structured and easy to follow.
Philosophical terms are accurate and relevant throughout.
Evaluation is clearly tied to the argument, not added at the end as an afterthought.
Write the issue statement before drafting the body so the response stays focused.
Turn one descriptive paragraph into a claim-plus-counterclaim structure.
Use one sentence at the end of each paragraph to signal why it matters philosophically.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Philosophy and returns criterion-level marks with actionable feedback.
Yes. Most students use draft grading to identify weak criteria, revise, and re-check before final submission.
Yes. Teachers can upload multiple files in one batch from the bulk grading route for faster class-wide feedback.
Absolutely. By default, nobody other than you can access your uploaded files, however you may make them shareable to others. Even then, you have full control to delete your files at any moment, and your files are not used to train AI models. More information here.
Upload a single submission and get criterion-by-criterion feedback aligned to IB descriptors.
Open Single GradingProcess up to 15 files in one run and keep feedback consistent across your class.
View Bulk Plan