Week 3 Homework

Let me give you this week's homework update.

First of all, don't forget the written assignments that are due next week. Your first draft for Essay 2 is due on Monday, 4/6, by the start of class, and your critique in response to a classmate's first draft is due Wednesday. But I'd like to give you a few initial notes, too.

Regarding your Essay 2 first draft:

Most importantly, keep in mind that you need to talk about how the authors of two articles (and no more than two articles) argue similarly. So, to be sure, you need to find articles where the authors are trying to argue a point, clearly and directly. In other words, find articles whose authors are really trying to persuade their readers of some idea.

Also, don't forget that you want to compare (not contrast) the ways these authors argue. In other words, you need to find similarities (not differences) between the two arguments. They don't have to be exactly similar, but if, for example, both articles' authors use some amount of emotional appeal, you should spot those moments and compare those specific approaches. If you find that the similarities are too difficult to point out, find other articles. And if you find that there are more than just one way the two articles' arguments are similar, don't worry about those extra approaches. Focus on just one main way of arguing. If you must, combine just one other approach -- but keep in mind that you're not writing two essays here; you're writing just one, about one main similar way of arguing and why it matters.

Regarding your Essay 2 critique:

I'm finding that a number of you are writing very limited critiques. When I asked some of you why your critique appeared so limited, the response I most often received was, "My partner just didn't write enough in their first draft." Honestly, I understand you: You want to be fair and direct, and you want to respond only to what's there, specifically what's going right and what's going wrong.

But then, I wonder, why should a short first draft limit you from writing a fuller critique? Remember that you can always ask questions, and you can always make suggestions. In fact, you can ask questions and make suggestions about things you don't see in the first draft you're critiquing. To be sure, you should start by observing what you see happening in the essay, but then, ask yourself, what more can you do to try to help your partner write a better essay? Keep in mind that you are the one being graded for your critique, not your partner.

=-=-=-=-=

Second, let me give you some reading homework to do:

-- Please read this article, "Why America's obsession with STEM education is dangerous," by Fareed Zakaria:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-stem-wont-make-us-successful/2015/03/26/5f4604f2-d2a5-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html?hpid=z3.

-- Please also read this article, "Hellhole," by Atul Gawande:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/30/hellhole.

As you read these two articles, consider the following questions: In what ways do these two authors argue? Can you spot moments where the authors draw on certain values that they know their readers have? Can you spot moments where the authors use emotions that they know their readers have? Remember that Ethos (values) and Pathos (emotions) are the two stronger ways to argue. Sure, using Logos (logic and reasoning) to argue can seem straight and to the point, but consider how an angry reader might respond to a detailed discussion of the facts. And consider how a reader who dislikes professors because he or she thinks education is over-valued might respond to an academic analysis of a topic.

-- And, lastly, please skim the following handout taken from a rhetoric textbook, a discussion of the kinds of questions that can come up for each of the Stases in Stasis Theory:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B59oU02C12STa2d0MWN6NTlfYTg/view?usp=sharing.

As you skim through this handout, consider how you might say that Zakaria and Gawande answer some of these questions more than others in their arguments. For instance, is it possible to say that Gawande is making a Policy argument (meaning, he's literally telling us to do something and showing us how this course of action will be good)? Or is he simply making a Definition argument (meaning, he's simply describing how a certain issue works, and he leaves us to draw our own conclusions)?

=-=-=-=-=

And that's it for now. Let me know if you have any questions or comments.

See you again soon.