Blog #6: They Really Were Preparing Me For College.... Who Knew?!

This might be the most helpful thing I've ever read in school.

In Teresa Thonney's Teaching the Conventions of Academic Discourse, she is upfront about the problems with first-year college student writing. But not only that- she describes how to fix them! Teachers are her primary audience, not students like you and me, but this makes the writing much more valuable. 

She clearly breaks down why first-year students struggle with writing, where they go wrong in academic writing, and what tools teachers can equip them with the fix these problems. Her language is very academic,  but the overall piece is easy to understand because she breaks it down to six main issues. 

The way the journal was split up was the most enjoyable part for me. Of course it was, because it was simpler to understand and although I am not her primary audience, it appeals to me. By breaking the piece into six common problems and their solutions, it made the piece friendlier to the audience and seems like a check list for students like me. When I write my next essay, I can go through the six steps and see what I can improve. It is also beneficial to other scholars because they can base their teachings off of her organized six step approach.

The one thing that definitely doesn't appeal to me: all the citation. I see how the citation would appeal to other scholars: it is appropriately done and adds a lot of credibility to her main points. But for me, it made the reading harder to get through and it was hard to focus on specific examples. 

One point that Thonney makes that stands out to me is when she says, "Some composition instructors want students to avoid statements of purpose that begin 'In this paper' and to avoid 'blueprint' statements,"(CR 47). This is the opposite of instruction I have been given in the past. In fact, I had many AP teachers who would hammer home the idea of the statement of purpose and blueprint, they even used those exact terms. Thonney concludes that section by explaining why this IS an important skill for writers; she explains that teachers read so many papers so quickly, that being clear and having direction will make it more likely that the student will get a higher grade. My AP teachers would always always always tell me this, and I believe it helped me pass many of my AP tests. At the time, I thought it was so annoying how my teachers would make us practice blueprints and statements of purpose over and over again, but now I'm grateful and understand that they were helping prepare me for college. Thanks AP teachers!

Blog #5: There's Always Strength In Numbers, and The Masters Know It

Who cares about other people? You should only care about yourself and what benefits you- at least that's what the masters want you to do.

In Chomsky's Requiem For the American Dream he claims that the masters of mankind are actively trying to dismantle any solidarity among Americans. He goes as far as to title his fifth principle "Attack Solidarity." This adds to Chomsky's overarching argument that the American Dream is dead because it explains how the masters are trying to dismantle programs that allow the public a chance to better their situation in life.

Chomsky builds his argument by using Social Security as an example. He explains how Social Security works to benefit the public, and the "crisis" that everybody focuses on with Social Security is simply a way for the masters to destroy the program. He cites the Social Security Act of 1935 to strengthen his argument and allow the reader to look at what the Social Security Act is truly about, not just trust his opinion. Once Social Security is defunded, the system won't work and privatized companies can swoop in and profit. It all circles back to the vile maxim; people want what is best for them, not the public.

Next, Chomsky goes in depth on the destruction of public education. He compares public education in the '50s and '60s with public education today in order to highlight a startling observation: "In the 1950s, it was a much poorer society than it is today but, nevertheless, it could easily handle essentially free mass higher education,"(68). Chomsky relates to his audience by using personal experience of himself achieving higher education, at an Ivy League school, for virtually no cost. This personal account makes a huge impact when he compares it to today's problems with student debt. It appeals to both ethos and pathos by making the reader trust Chomsky due to his concern for students, and making the students angry towards a system that is supposed to help them learn and achieve their dreams.

Lastly, Chomsky evaluates the issue of joblessness in America. He breaks down how the masters want us to focus on our country's deficit, when joblessness is what matters to the public. If we were to put our workforce and resources to use, the public and the economy would be better off. Instead, the masters want to focus on themselves, not the betterment of the country, and they want Americans to sit back and watch. It's working, and our school systems and public programs are being destroyed. This evaluation appeals to logos in the way the Chomsky explains and clearly breaks down a complex and hidden plan that the masters have in place.

He calls out to his audience in the end of this chapter to realize that the outrageous price of higher education in American is a choice made by the masters. It is preventing people from reaching their dreams, thus adding to the argument that the American Dream is altogether dead. He evokes feelings of betrayal and frustration so that his audience will want to be active and change the course of this vicious cycle.

Blog #4: Is It Really That Bad?

The dream is over. Democracy is dangerous. There's a vicious cycle that hands over power to the wealthy. This is harmful, corrosive.

The above diction is just a fraction of the language used in Noam Chomsky's Requiem For The American Dream. This repetitive, alarming diction caught my attention and challenged my views of the American Dream. Chomsky intentionally uses these negative words and phrases to get his reader to understand his point of view, that the American Dream is dead and the state of our country will keep it that way.

Chomsky challenges my optimistic beliefs about the American Dream, and he uses solid evidence. Don't get me wrong, I don't think America is all rainbows and equality, but I still believe there are chances for ordinary people to achieve their dreams. Through references to James Madison's protection of the wealthy, the indoctrination of school children, and the insane prices of higher education (relatable am I right), Chomsky does a successful job in pointing out major obstacles to the American Dream. I have to say, I start to believe him that these obstacles cannot be overcome.

Something that stands out to me is Chomsky's argument that the structure of our political system is meant to keep the poor people poor and the rich people rich. He calls out the founding fathers by claiming, "...the structure of the system, it was designed to prevent the danger of democracy,"(3).  Chomsky then presents a two sided argument (Rebecca Jones would not approve) pitting Aristotle's and Madison's solutions of how to run a free democracy against one another. Aristotle claims the answer is to reduce inequality, while Madison asserts it is to reduce democracy. You and I know there are infinite more opinions than these two, so it is hard for me to believe Chomsky that Aristotle had the right idea. It is not enough to provide a this or that argument as evidence. I want some specifics! One way to reduce inequality would be to redistribute land. However, Madison is clearly concerned with land being protected. I'd like to see an argument not for or against these two ideas, but somewhat of a compromise.

Speaking of compromise, it is a new idea to me to view our structure of government as not being a compromise. All along in school I was taught that the idea behind the House of Representatives and Senate was to find a compromise. Represent states equally and by population. However Chomsky goes deeper and discusses how back in the day, most power was given to the Senate (which was made up of wealthy men), and this ultimately kept out the majority of the population's opinion. It makes me think that maybe all along there was no real compromise happening, and that everyone was just believing propaganda like the Federalist Papers.

Although Chomsky poses a depressing view of American politics, economy, and society, he hasn't convinced me that the American Dream is dead. He has planted seeds of doubt, but I still believe! Ask me again at the end of this book though... my opinion might change. 😮

Blog #3 Wait, What Are We Arguing About?!

Before you start an argument, you and your opponent have to agree.

That statement seems to go against everything we believe about arguments. We think of agreement as not having any part in an argument, but it actually does. In order to have an argument, people need to agree on something called the "primary standpoint." This essentially means that people need be in agreement on what they are going to argue about.

That's obvious, though....isn't it?

Well, in "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic" Rebecca Jones points out that people often think they are arguing about the same topic, when in reality they aren't. She gives the example that one party may be arguing about voting on health care, while then other is discussing problems with Medicaid. These topics both fall under the broad category of health care plans in America, but each party is approaching a different situation: voting vs. problems with a current plan.

This type of "argumentation"is a huge problem in today's media because it gets nothing done. NOTHING. When people cannot establish what it is that they disagree on, it's impossible to find a solution. This defeats the purpose of good argumentation and gives a bad example for what argumentation is supposed to look like. The media has immeasurable influence in America, so as long as they continue to follow this model of argumentation, citizens will have to be satisfied with heated debates that come to no real conclusion.

As another example of this issue, Jones highlights, "It is well known that arguing about abortion is nearly pointless as long as one side is arguing about the rights of the unborn and the other about the rights of women. These are two different starting points,"(175). This illustrates how it is not enough to just argue about a broad topic, such as abortion. To be productive you must agree on a starting point.

I came across this issue as a senior in high school during my U.S. Government and Politics course. Both parties were debating on the topic of the death penalty: should we keep it or get rid of it? The discussion lasted all class, but since no conclusion could be reached, the topic was tabled until the end of the semester. I didn't know it then, but what happened was that both parties did not agree on a starting point. My argument was based in the economic benefits of abolishing the death penalty, whereas my opponent was appealing to ethics to establish that murders should not have the rights to live. No wonder we couldn't find a solution.

If I could jump back in time and give myself a solution I would suggest this: understand what you and your opponent are arguing. Thoroughly. Come up with a singular statement to argue about (a starting point) and make that statement specific. Make sure you and your opponent agree on this one point. If you or an opponent gets sidetracked, take initiative and redirect the argument back to your agreed starting point. This solution will make for a productive argument where ultimately a solution can be reached.