Best Articles of the Year

CASE Districts I and II

Overall, to start with the negative, we noticed the sheer number of entries significantly down, and the general quality also lesser than in previous years; but the most noticeable flaw in the entries as a whole is poor reporting. The judges unanimously and independently considered that writers, editors, or both were not finishing the work in the manner to which we have been accustomed - sloppy reporting, pieces that ended too soon, pieces that skimmed the surface but did not delve for more than one source. First advice to editors reading this report - demand more from your writers. You pay them pretty well for careful work - make them do it, push them, and deepen the reading experience. You run magazines from the most impressive intellectual entities on the continent - don't settle for shallow reporting. Ask yourself this, when you think a piece is done - would you respect it if you saw it in the New Yorker or the New York Times Magazine? If it's not good enough for them, it's not good enough for you.

Specific notes on winners - the best among the entries, the profile of Vincent Scully from Yale, is a model of the well-turned profile. It goes well beyond a summary of his career, and enters into the realms of his character and personality. The descriptions of his lectures alone are terrific, as is the clear delivery of abstract ideas, the able and clear writing, and the depth of reporting. A lion in winter story done beautifully.

Among the other winners, we generally admired the way they grappled with tough topics (Amherst's "Ghost Writer"), recreated eras with real salt and aura (Queen U. treason article, Columbia's debaters), delivered far more than one would reasonably expect (UNH's aliens), explained complex science deftly and clearly (Hopkins, and people interested in how this can be done well could do worse than to read a pile of essays by Dale Keiger, who is very good at this crucial skill in our business), and were in general attentive to STORYTELLING, which is in the end the greatest tool we possess with which to deliver the message that our sponsoring institutions are places crucial ideas, well worth investment of students and money. If we do not tell good stories, if we do not rivet readers with our storytelling skill, we fail as useful aspects of the marketing business. So our second piece of advice to editors is to be relentless about storytelling - run every piece through a filter that kills mere articles and puffery, and allows only good tales through to the page.

CASE Districts III-V

In their initial discussion, the four judges pared down 69 entries to 21, which were closely examined and discussed with no pulled punches. Ultimately, seven articles rose to the top as medalists, albeit with no grand gold winner emerging.

Original and well-conceived ideas, fresh writing and a surprising amount of solid reporting marked the best entries. They were well-structured narratives edited by someone with the best interest of the reader in mind first and foremost, as opposed to someone simply interested in filling pages. Good editors never lose sight of their audiences! (It seems lost on some editors that the audience for their publications does not consist of deans, university presidents and other administrators.) Other hallmarks of the best entries: enticing leads, evocative writing that informs as it stirs emotions, a well-though-out sense of pacing, and a strong sense of organization.

Entries that were easily dismissed were marked by over-writing and notebook dumping, loads of clichés, too many irrelevant details and, simply, a lack of imagination. Some lacked any apparent structure. Others were way, way too long to hold interest, or they were just cliché-addled or lacking when it comes to narrative tension, an element of strong stories that must be fostered no matter the subject matter. Many articles were too formulaic and predictable. And the overly-sentimental cheerleading we encountered really destroys a story's credibility. Finally, an element all the judges abhorred: the intrusive use of first person. Judges felt the use of first person was overdone and unnecessary. Editors should keep their writers out of the story unless it is absolutely crucial to the piece!

A final note: Personal essays, president's pages, and opinion pieces have a hard time passing muster in this category, where feature-oriented articles do so much heavy lifting. Perhaps the personal essay might be considered a separate category at some point in time (but, we hope, not president's pages!).

A few additional comments about the Gold and Silver medalists:

Gold Medals

University of Texas, "The War for the Trees"

• Marked by strong editing and packaging, right down to all the sidebars and even the subheads throughout. It fleshed out great characters and a compelling history through the use of revealing and hilarious anecdotes.

Penn State University, "The Hungary Job"

• Wonderfully took readers into a whole new world, that of the top-secret, dangerous world of enriched uranium disposal in former Soviet states. The writer's sense of humor and an effectively-used tick-tock organizational structure enhanced an already compelling piece. "The Family Tree" could easily have turned into a clichéd and predictable piece of gush. Instead, the writing soared, carrying a piece about Holocaust survivors into a gem of a read.

Silver Medals

Auburn University

• A brave and successful attempt to portray a controversial alumnus in an even-handed fashion, this profile hits all the right notes and leaves the reader with two sets of somewhat opposing facts that readers must use to draw their own conclusions.

Duke University

• An extremely well-crafted piece that offered some hardcore medical science to readers in reader-friendly, accessible way, one that reminds us that good science stories are ultimately all about people, not just cells and vaccines and research. A nice tight edit.

CASE Districts VI-VIII

Overall, the stories that received medals were selected because they were either outside the norm of typical alumni magazine fare (don't be afraid to take risks with your story content!) or because they represent the best examples of how to tackle common topics: alumni profiles, research pieces, even an obituary for a much-beloved faculty member. They avoided clichés.

Alumni magazine editors (and their bosses) make a mistake when they assume that because we show up in our readers' homes uninvited and at no charge (for the most part) and because we have a connection to our readers, no matter how tenuous, we will be welcome. Actually, the opposite is true. No one asked us to be there, so what are we going to bring to the party to make us a welcome guest? Excellent writing, compelling photography and illustration, good design, strong editing, and interesting and timely topics better be top on your list.

Gold Medal

University of Portland, "Singing in the Shadows," author: Brian Doyle

• The judges said: "Sentimental, as a good eulogy should be, but not sappy." "I learned a great deal about this man in only a few hundred words, enough to make me wish I had known him." "Beautifully written."

Silver Medals

Stanford University, "694 Very Personal Questions," author: Robert L. Strauss

• The judges said: "I couldn't stop reading this very engaging article." "Informative. Good quotes. Tailored to an educated, but general, audience."

University of Portland, "Madre De Dios," author: Barry Lopez

• The judges said: "Some gripping scenes here." "I think not much would have been lost (and perhaps something gained) by [tighter editing]."

Bronze Medals

Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford Medicine, "Just Another Lab Rat," by Tracie White"

• The judges said: "Big topic that was well-researched; the story was paced well." "Almost too much for five pages; some big questions were raised that begged to be expanded on."

University of Washington Alumni Association, Columns, "Kids Like Us," by Eric McHenry

• The judges said: "Good example of a feature-length profile, which can be hard to do in alumni magazines, because few alumni actually warrant a feature-length profile." "The author did a great job weaving Cleary's personal story in with thoughts about her work and its place in literature and today's society."

Gold Medals

The Alumni Association of the University of Texas at Austin, The Alcalde, "The War for the Trees," by Tim Taliaferro
Amherst College (Mass.), Amherst Magazine, "Ghost Writer," by Rand Richards Cooper
Penn State Alumni Association, The Penn Stater, "The Family Tree," by Vicki Glembocki
Penn State Alumni Association, The Penn Stater, "The Hungary Job," by Jason Fagone
University of Portland, Portland, "Singing in the Shadows," by Brian Doyle
Yale University (Conn.), Yale Alumni Magazine, "The Patriarch," by Richard Conniff

Silver Medals

Auburn University, Auburn Magazine, "God's Man: The Rise, Fall and Resurrection of Millard Fuller," by Suzanne Johnson
Columbia University (N.Y.), Columbia Magazine, "The Great Debaters," by Paul Hond
Columbia University (N.Y.), Columbia Magazine, "Overbooked," by David Craig
Duke University, Duke Magazine, "Mind Over Matter," by Bridget Booher
Johns Hopkins University (Md.), Johns Hopkins Magazine, "Drugs v. Bugs," by Dale Keiger
Stanford Alumni Association, Stanford, "645 Very Personal Questions," by Robert L. Strauss
Queen's University (Ontario), Queen's Alumni Review, "A Question of Treason," by Sara Beck
University of Portland, Portland, "Madre de Dios," by Barry Lopez

Bronze Medals

Harvard Law School, Harvard Law Bulletin, "Visionary of the Visayan Sea," by Emily Newburger
North Carolina State University Alumni Association, NC State, "A Father's Pursuit," by Cherry Crayton
Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford Medicine, "Just Another Lab Rat," by Tracie White
University of Illinois Alumni Association, Illinois Alumni, "Sea Change," by Mary Timmins
University of New Hampshire, University of New Hampshire Magazine, "First Lady of Flying Saucers," by Dennis Robinson
University of Washington Alumni Association, Columns, "Kids Like Us," by Eric McHenry