Fall 2004 first-years: Welcome!

Welcome to the English 100, Section 004 blog. I use (or will use) this site to offer general remarks about the course and coursework, filling in the little details I don't remember in time to blurt out in class and answering interesting questions you guys email me.

Right now, as you prepare to write your first journal, this blog is an excellent resource for pointing you to last semester's online journals. The post beneath this one leads to some of the best blog entries, conversations, and debates. Two posts down I analyze one of Danielle's top-notch journals, indicating in as much detail as I can what I like about her argument.

Remember, your first two or three journals aren't representative of how your work--and your grade--will look at the end of the semester. There's a short learning curve, and you should be patient with yourself as you try to figure out exactly what I'm looking for when I ask you for claim and support.

And, as always, email me any questions you have. I'm here to help you, but I know how to help only if you ask.

- posted by Mike @ 10:19 PM

 
Exemplary journals of yesteryear

Although I am asking you not to post your journals online until Wed. 6 Oct., you can certainly benefit from reading over some of the online journals of last semester's class. If you click on the students' names under "Spring 2004" in the sidebar to the right you can flip through the last several months' of their journals. Sarah P.'s seems to be down at the moment, but hopefully it will return soon.

One thing you should immediately notice is that students freely engaged one another in conversation. A particularly vibrant conversation about abortion began in the penultimate week of the semester, which Zak seems to have instigated on 5/2. I'm not sure how (date forgery?), but Kaylan then went back in time and responded on 4/30, then Alison Z. entered the fray on 5/4, followed by Alison F. and Katie on 5/5, and finally Danielle on 5/6. I typically shy away from discussing abortion in class because no topic seems more perfectly calibrated to get people to stop thinking logically and start calling one another names. However, these students manage to disagree in civil, thoroughly well-argued ways. All in all this has to be one of my favorite blog-versations.

There are some outstanding point-counterpoint arguments hidden in these blogs. Jen's 4/12 journal responds respectfully and thoroughly to Zak's 4/11 journal about sexuality in music (and Bono's famous VMA utterance). Answering Danielle's 3/30 claim that the Yankees rule all, Alison F.'s 4/1 journal offers a spirited argument in defense of the Cubs.

Sports were clearly a favorite topic: Jeremy's journals on 4/22 and 4/29 give thoroughly good demonstrations of how to make fully-fledged arguments about sports. He also did great work analyzing music: check out his journal on 4/4. Likewise Zak's journals on 4/18, 4/20 and 4/22 investigate music and the modern world.

Finally, if you want proof that you can write an excellent journal without losing your prose's natural verve and flair, take a long glance at Kaylan's work. As prolific as she is eccentric, Kaylan has best-of-the-class arguments on 5/2, 4/27 (another perspective on professional athletics), 4/5 and 3/31. Perhaps her personal best: 4/15. (Not "best" in the sense of "check plus," but in the sense of "Kaylanest.") If you can't write like her, don't worry; I can't either.

- posted by Mike @ 9:24 PM

 
Writing journals: examples and explanation.

Let's take a close look at a check plus journal: Danielle's entry from 4/25 of last semester, about athletes and education -

I'm going to have to throw my two cents in on the NFL issue. And I'm going to have to agree with Jeremy. There are many reasons why players should have to go to college before they play professional sports. For one, there's no assurance that football or any other sport can always provide for you. You could get hurt or someone younger and better could take your spot. A college degree can never be taken away from you. By allowing athletes to skip college you're almost supporting the 'dumb jock' mentality. It's a stereotype and like all others it's wrong, but you're telling kids that their grades don't matter as long as they can play a sport well. But there's a one in a million chance that they'll make it professionally. So what happens when kids can't get drafted and they can't get into college because their grades aren't good enough? A good example-my dad was drafted into the Cleveland Indians Club right out of high school. Three years later, he was done with no college degree to fall back on. So, what's four years? Think how quickly high school went by. Plus, it's said that much needed growth and maturation occurs between the ages of 18 and 25 (even though it's not always evident!).

This is an excellent journal; let me ennumerate why.

1. The first thing to observe is that Danielle is not answering a journal prompt of my fabrication; she is focusing, instead, on an issue that interests her. Although you can't tell without having last semester's course calendar in front of you, Danielle alternates between suggested journal topics and free comments. This is way legit.
2. Instead of working from one of my prompts, Danielle is picking up on Jeremy's entry from 4/22, about the Maurice Clarett case. This was a free comment on Jeremy's part as well.
3. She articulates her claim clearly and immediately: players should have to go to college before they play professional sports. A clear claim is the first part of a successful argument.
4. The second part is clear support for that claim. Danielle supports this claim clearly and prolifically: (a) you can't play football forever, but on the other hand (b) a college degree makes you employable forever; furthermore, (c) athletes who skip college perpetuate stereotypes about athletes' intelligence. In essence, (d) a good education is more likely to be financially advantageous than an athletic career.
5. So far, Danielle has been peppering us with intuitive support; that is, she is supporting her argument with logical deduction and common sense, the most common but also the weakest ways to support a claim. Her next support, though, is analytical in the extreme: A good example, she begins, keying us in to the fact that she is switching to anecdotal evidence, evidence taken from life experience--or, in this case, her father's life experience: my dad was drafted into the Cleveland Indians Club right out of high school. Three years later, he was done with no college degree to fall back on. (Want another excellent example of anecdotal evidence? Check out Dave's 4/25 response to a Badger Herald column.)
   
6. Right away we can see that this anecdote is supporting Danielle's original claim. However, if Danielle had stopped with this sentence this piece of support would have given us an example without tucking it into place. In this state this piece of evidence could support any number of claims: Don't play for the Indians or you'll be left unemployed within three years, for example. To better incorporate this evidence into her argument, Danielle decided to spell out the relationship between this anecdote and her larger argument: So, what's four years? That innocuous-looking "So" is the key, transitioning this anecdote back into the larger argument. She goes on, perhaps unintentionally, to parallel her father's three years with high school's four years.

This is a strong, interesting argument that not only makes creative and effective use of a personal (or paternal) argument, but unfolds in a carefully-organized way. Danielle subtly begins by constructing an outline of her argument with weaker, intuitive forms of support. Then, using an anecdote, she consciously fills up that outline with precise, meaningful evidence. Finally, she connects the anecdote to her earlier argument and ends with a direct appeal to the reader. Good topic, good form, good execution.

- posted by Mike @ 8:43 PM