Freewriting about Formal Response- 9/29

As of right now I'm still not sure whether my final paper will be based upon my agreement or disagreement with the arguments that Edmundson puts forth in his essay "On the Uses of a Liberal Education." So far I see two main points/arguments that Edmundson develops throughout the essay: 1. Today, universities are catering to students through fancy facilities, etc., more so than through the qualities of their professors, and 2. That students need to change- they need to go from being shy and reserved to engaging and knowledgeable with an urge to learn and less of a fear of failure. 

I think it would be easy to agree with him because many students want to come to specific universities because of their name (Princeton, Harvard, etc.), because of their beauty, or maybe even because of a specific reputation that they have (party school, smart school, getting good jobs afterwards). I would also agree to some extent that there are not many students who have the same attitudes and personalities as Joon Lee, the urge to learn and explore different ideas and question the teachings of professors. Edmundson thinks this because of the lack of expression and the lack of active participation during class, and instead the increased conformity, of students. However, just because student's don't want to speak up in class does not mean that they are not interested in the subject and don't have their own opinions. 

On the other hand, if we were all afraid of failure because we've been pampered our whole lives, wouldn't we be more likely to go out on a limb because of the belief that we wouldn't fail, even if we were wrong? The idea that we would never fail just isn't true since, maybe in high school and college professors just might pass us, once we get into the real world with real jobs, we'll get fired if we are wrong or making mistakes. I would also have to argue that maybe the students aren't the only consumers- but the universities as well. Universities only accept the best applicants, so throughout high school the students must not only do well in school but volunteer, play sports, participate in extracurricular activities, and just be an all around good student so that they will appeal to the universities. 

Uses of a Liberal Education- Edmundson 9/24

I'm not sure exactly what we're supposed to write in this blog, so I'm just going to go ahead and write about a first impression and one point that I found interesting. When I first glanced at this essay I was immediately turned off because of its length and that we will have to eventually summarize and analyze it. After reading the first page I was no more turned on than I was when I had printed it out. However, once I started to get into the second page I became interested in what Edmundson was talking about. I thought that the JL fest was interesting because it makes students aware that teachers really do take into consideration those that question not only the material but the teacher as well. A major theme that I found throughout this essay was the theme of our generation being afraid of failure and therefore conforming to the "norm," making those JL kids few and far between. 

I felt as if I could relate to parts of this essay because I grew up in a house where failure was not an option. Gradually, as I got older and more responsible, my parents let me go on my own because I had proved to them that I have morals and know that you have to give 110% in order to get where you want to be. There is one part of this essay which I feel emphasizes this point: "There's a sentiment currently abroad that if you step aside for a moment, to write, to travel, to fall too hard in love, you might lose position permanently." We're afraid to take chances because of the idea that we might fail. Because of this, Edmundson says, teachers, parent's, and bosses alike have been taught to be soft and gentle to us, making us feel as if we won't fail. Although I do agree that many people don't take risks because of the lingering chance of failure, I don't think that he should generalize and think that everyone in this generation acts/feels the same way. 

I think this essay actually turned out to be interesting and, although I'm nervous about writing the paper, I'm excited to analyze this further. 

Chapter 6

After I finished reading Chapter 6, I found that I was most interested in the different ways you can read and analyze a text. I never really thought about whether I would go into a reading and decide whether I would agree with them or disagree with them. The book coined these terms reading "with the grain" and reading "against the grain." I think that it's interesting to read about these because it truly is a way to interact and understand the texts more so than before.

When you "read with the grain" you don't point out the flaws in the text, but you embrace them and include your own ideas with them. On the other hand, "reading against the grain" is challenging what the author has stated and pointing out what the have not said. It makes sense that strong writers would read both with and against the grain. 

I also thought the different types of Strong Responses were interesting as well. The first response mentioned is the Rhetorical Critique which is used to "make insightful observations about how a text works rhetorically," by asking questions about its appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos as well as how well the text is actually constructed. The second response is as an Ideas Critique which mainly focuses on the ideas rather than how they are presented rhetorically. The third response is as a Reflection, which is pretty self explanatory - joining your ideas to the ideas of the author. The final type of response is more of just a blending of all three so that one is not confined to certain guidelines. 

Contrasting Descriptions 9/17

Part A-

Description #1- As I sit here in Festival, the different aromas from various food concessions drift my way. There's the smell of the fried food- burgers and french fries- which some how mix with the scent of pasta with cream sauce. I'm sitting here by the window with my friends so that the sun can softly warm my back as we chat about the day. Looking around everyone seems pretty anxious to get to their seats and devour their meal while having good conversations, each with their own "designated group." The lines to get to the food are long, but no one seems to mind, knowing that in the end it was worth the wait. It's funny to watch people as they get out of the lines to "pay" because there is an array of white and black styrofoam containers mixed with the burgers wrapped in foil, sandwiches wrapped in a white paper, and, of course, the occasional plastic container of salad. Everyone seems pretty excited to sit down at the end of they day, munch of some good Festival food, and catch up with their friends. 

Description #2- I'm just sitting here in Festival, waiting for my friends to come sit down so we can finally catch up and do a little gossiping. However, the lines are so long that it seems that it's taking forever. I just grabbed a slice of pizza because it was the quickest line, and it still took me 5 minutes to get a water, pay, and come sit down. And to make matters worse, I'm sitting by the window and the sun is so hot I feel like I could probably re-cook the entire pizza. As I wait, the different smells come together to form a mixture of pizza, burgers, and pasta- a smell which, to say the least, is not all that enticing. I wait and watch my friends move through the check out lines, and as they do, I realize that there are so many styrofoam and plastic containers going through that line, onto the tables, and ultimately into the garbage, that I'm a little confused as to why we don't recycle any of it. There are so many people here, anxious to get their food and get to a table, I'm almost able to compare the entire Festival dining area to a zoo. 

Part B-

This assignment has made me realize that you can look at the same scene through two different lenses and see two entirely different things. Just switching up the adjectives, having some favorable and others less so, is interesting because when I'm writing to describe something positively I don't even think about the negative words that I could use to describe the same scene. I'm still a little confused about rhetoric, but if I have it right than it's just really to interpret the use of words in sentences and see what how it makes the reader view things differently. The first description, like it was supposed to be, is filled with positive words and paints a festive picture in the readers mind. Unlike that description, the second one is filled with negative adjectives, comparing Festival to a zoo because of how crowded it always seems to be. It's almost as if you're looking at the same scene through two different people. 

September 11

I know that this is a late post; however, I think that a brief reaction to the clip that we watched is appropriate. I found what was said very interesting and I would have easily been able to watch the whole video. After our class discussion it became more clear that one really has to look for credible sources and note the angle of vision and, in this case, how one sided the film really is. I think that this film helped to remind me why we are still in Iraq and why we reacted to September 11th the way that we did. It's interesting to be reminded that even today that we are still working to try and find evidence as to what happened, why it happened, and who exactly did this. Our discussion led to some good "do's" and "don'ts" that I think will be really helpful in our writing, such as building credibility because, like we said, there was nothing in this film to really make us 100% positive that we could believe what they were saying- especially when they never really give the other side a chance to present their argument. All in all I really enjoyed that film and that class discussion that we had the other day. 

Chapter 3

I liked this chapter because you don't really ever think about how messages are sent, and why they are being "said" like that. I liked how the angle of vision was compared to a lens because it put it into perspective that as the writer you can take a lot of "pictures" (or views) of the audience. A lot of the points that were made in this chapter were also very interesting- like how the stance that we take on questions is "partly influenced by our life experiences and knowledge." It's one of those things that you don't really realize or think about until its put in front of you in a text book but makes perfect sense. I thought that the rhetoric of clothing section was a little bit strange. What they say makes sense- about buying certain goods to project a certain status- but I never really thought of it that way. All in all though I liked this chapter and thought that it was a good read.

Believing and Doubting Game, 9/2

I think that the amount of sarcasm that Arthur Miller puts into his piece "Get it Right"  does work to his advantage. I think that his use of sarcasm helps the reader to agree with him that executions should be made illegal because who would want to actually see an execution happen? I think that one of his main points is that the reason why many American's don't object to executions is because we aren't actually there witnessing it. Many of us are neither the victims nor do we have any relationship with those directly involved. Given this, it is much easier for us to pretend that it doesn't effect us, because, we aren't being directly effected. When Miller says "people can be executed in places like Shea Stadium before immense paying audiences" he stresses the point, very sarcastically, that no one would want to bring their kids to see someone get executed; rather they'd want to bring their kids to a baseball game. When he compares the two like this, it is easy to see why execution should be made illegal and it is hard to understand the idea behind the legalization of this process. I think it's also good that he draws in the question as to why "Americans commit murder more often than any other people?" This then leads to the question that although we have a death penalty, its it really doing anything?

I would have to disagree with Arthur Miller's belief that the death penalty should be made illegal because he doesn't give sufficient evidence as to why it's not doing its job. He never sites any sources that would make the reader believe that the death penalty is insignificant and not functioning correctly. If you have no sources or evidence to back up your ideas with why would anyone agree with what he says? Another thing that Miller says that I don't think is that great is when he talks about executions and baseball games. It's probably true that if  the executions were set like a baseball game no one would want them anymore; however, there's logic and reason behind why they aren't like that. They aren't supposed to be a family affair but more a punishment for the most gruesome crimes committed. Since the death penalty is clearly keeping dangerous people off the streets I don't see why anyone would want it any other way. 

I think that this was a good exercise because it helps you look at both sides rather than just sticking to your one opinion and not even recognizing the other side of the argument. On the other hand it was also hard to do that because it's hard creating an argument for the side that you disagree with. I thought that it was hard to do this exercise for 15 minutes because of two things- 1. there was only so much that I could believe or doubt, and 2. it felt weird to just write exactly what I was thinking rather than write correctly, so I also tried to make my thoughts in correct form. I never felt too uncomfortable arguing either side because I don't have a particularly strong stance on this argument.