Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
peer review recap pt. II
I think on the whole, this peer review was far more useful for me. I got a lot of good comments on this paper, far more than the last one. However, I found it far more difficult to use the wetpaint program to edit than google docs. I really liked the highlighting and comment features in google docs found myself trying to re-create those features in wet paint and just becoming frustrated. I did like the "thread" feature, as it forced me to leave more detailed comments. On the whole, I like google docs much better for editing. The other issue that came up was ensuring a equal level of commenting on all papers. On the one hand, I think it worked out better than the small groups method, because I wasn't reliant on 3 specific people to comment, and so I personally received more feedback of a higher quality. However, some people didn't get any comments at all, which would have rendered this whole activity useless for them, and probably would have felt particularly unfair if they commented on other papers. Side note, I was really surprised how many people didn't have an essay up. I probably would have edited more, had they been there.
(Hannah, you've put too much pressure on me. I can't think of one witty thing. Not one!
so.....Here's my little sister flying.
Think about that.)
(Hannah, you've put too much pressure on me. I can't think of one witty thing. Not one!
so.....Here's my little sister flying.
Think about that.)
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
what are others saying?
While reading others class blogs, I was really surprised by how much support Williams has. Now, I realize that my blog comparing the two was somewhat grandiose, and perhaps even silly, but only one other person to comedown on the side of Strunk and White. Byron declares "If I were to compare Strunk and White's book to Williams, I would easily say that despite the grumpy and doddering old man feel the Strunk and White have, I like their book far better than Williams"... maybe I'll make us tee-shirts. A few people mentioned in their "what are people saying" entry that they agreed with my comparison of S&W V. Williams, their own comparisons clearly favored Williams. Ashley W makes a good point for Williams: "When I actually understand why something is supposed to be a done a certain way, it makes it much easier for me to do it in that manner. The book explains each example almost too much". That was something I hadn't thought about-- I really do tend to like rules more when I understand the why of them, and Williams certainly does explain. I also, as you may have guessed, agree with the "too much" statement as well.
Monday, October 6, 2008
game point: Stunk N White V Joe Williams
I'm going to be honest: I Love Strunk and White. Sure, they're not perfect. You could say they have a fair amount of incomplete passes: 'write clearly' and 'avoid a breezy manner' are arguably and ironically not clear. But, they're the home team. Yeah, you could argue that men over 80 shouldn't be playing the game at all, and if you did, I wouldn't blame you.
(I didn't think this sports analogy through very well.)
Ok.
So, if Strunk and White are the aging, ailing, fiesty home team, then Williams is a pretentious army of star players that arrive in a gleaming sliver bus with their own referrees. They play dirty, rough, never get grass stains on their knees and are self referent to their own greatness.
who do you want to play ball against?
I'm not going to argue with the drawbacks of S&W that we have discussed thoroughly in class. I know, its true, 'write clearly' is not a clear rule. Williams, on the other hand, has an entire chapter devoted to how one can achieve clarity in writing. This is, clearly, more clear. But personally, Williams was just too prescriptive. He's overwhelming. There are too many too specific rules that in the end make me grind my teeth, tap my foot and grow a headache. As the icing on the cake, after an hour of trudging my way through a chapter the end would read "but these are just guides. Ultimately, you need to figure it out for yourself". At which point, steam blew out my ears and I sincerely wondered why I bothered fighting my way through his rules if it ultimately was my call anyhow.
So, I prefer S&W's short commands that are accessible and come ready for interpretation. Because, as Williams acknowledges, that's what I'm going to have to do anyway.
And yes, I know that I could learn some plays from Williams gleaming army. After dissecting them in class, I understand that it is useful to be mindful of character and verb; to specifically arrange the information in my sentences. It will probably improve my passing. But I will never paint my face, stomp my feet and roar at a Williams game. So there.
(I didn't think this sports analogy through very well.)
Ok.
So, if Strunk and White are the aging, ailing, fiesty home team, then Williams is a pretentious army of star players that arrive in a gleaming sliver bus with their own referrees. They play dirty, rough, never get grass stains on their knees and are self referent to their own greatness.
who do you want to play ball against?
I'm not going to argue with the drawbacks of S&W that we have discussed thoroughly in class. I know, its true, 'write clearly' is not a clear rule. Williams, on the other hand, has an entire chapter devoted to how one can achieve clarity in writing. This is, clearly, more clear. But personally, Williams was just too prescriptive. He's overwhelming. There are too many too specific rules that in the end make me grind my teeth, tap my foot and grow a headache. As the icing on the cake, after an hour of trudging my way through a chapter the end would read "but these are just guides. Ultimately, you need to figure it out for yourself". At which point, steam blew out my ears and I sincerely wondered why I bothered fighting my way through his rules if it ultimately was my call anyhow.
So, I prefer S&W's short commands that are accessible and come ready for interpretation. Because, as Williams acknowledges, that's what I'm going to have to do anyway.
And yes, I know that I could learn some plays from Williams gleaming army. After dissecting them in class, I understand that it is useful to be mindful of character and verb; to specifically arrange the information in my sentences. It will probably improve my passing. But I will never paint my face, stomp my feet and roar at a Williams game. So there.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Revising consentual sexual relationships with Williams.
The original policy on consensual sexual conduct in Eastern's course catalog:
"[1]Sexual relations (which includes contact of a sexual nature) or requests for sexual relations between students and faculty members with whom they also have a current instructional or evaluative relationship are fraught with the potential for exploitation and must be avoided, and are prohibited. [2]The respect and trust accorded a professor by a student, as well as the power exercised by the professor in an instructional or evaluative role, make voluntary consent by the student suspect. [3]In their relationships with students, members of the faculty are expected to be aware of their professional responsibilities and to avoid apparent or actual conflict of interest, favoritism or bias."
(http://catalog.emich.edu/content.php?catoid=1&navoid=39#1)
I think this whole paragraph exercises what Williams calls "the institutional passive"(39)-- using the passive voice to sound formal and collective. However, I think it's pretty ineffective in this passage and thus should be changed.
My revised version reads:
[1b] Sexual relations (or requests for sexual relations) between faculty members and their current students are prohibited because of the distinct opportunity for exploitation. [2b] A claim of voluntary student consent would be suspect since the instructor is in a position of power and students trust and respect faculty members. [3b] As such, the university expects that faculty members act professionally and responsibly to avoid apparent or actual conflict of interest, favoritism, or bias.
1- This sentence is waaay to long. It uses too many clauses with too many modifiers. The initial idea--sexual relations-- is then defined it two more ways, when at most two of those are necessary (as i rewrote it) and one would likely be sufficient. The next part of this sentence is confusing due to the long list of abstract/modifying words used to describe the teacher/student relationship, "with whom they also have", and then goes off the deep end entirely with the use of "fraught" (this is a policy, you want it to be as accessible as possible!) and the unnecessary and confusing repetition of "must be avoided and are prohibited". Prohibited is clearly sufficient.
2- This sentence has many of the same problems as the one before it. It's passive, and wordy. The actual subject of the sentence, student consent, isn't introduced until the very end of the sentence, which Williams discusses as inappropriate in his discussion of beginnings and endings. So I moved the subject to the beginning, and the new information to the end of the sentence. This cleared up most of the wordyness, as many of the extra words were working tolerate the beginning of the sentence to the end.
3- The original sentence is unnecessarily passive, which makes it confusing. The root of this, I think, is that there is no "character" to do any expecting of faculty, so I gave the verb a do-er, the university. This allowed me re phrase the sentence in more active voice. Williams recommends very careful use of passives, and I think this is a good example of that. (pg 37)
in closing, turgid.
"[1]Sexual relations (which includes contact of a sexual nature) or requests for sexual relations between students and faculty members with whom they also have a current instructional or evaluative relationship are fraught with the potential for exploitation and must be avoided, and are prohibited. [2]The respect and trust accorded a professor by a student, as well as the power exercised by the professor in an instructional or evaluative role, make voluntary consent by the student suspect. [3]In their relationships with students, members of the faculty are expected to be aware of their professional responsibilities and to avoid apparent or actual conflict of interest, favoritism or bias."
(http://catalog.emich.edu/content.php?catoid=1&navoid=39#1)
I think this whole paragraph exercises what Williams calls "the institutional passive"(39)-- using the passive voice to sound formal and collective. However, I think it's pretty ineffective in this passage and thus should be changed.
My revised version reads:
[1b] Sexual relations (or requests for sexual relations) between faculty members and their current students are prohibited because of the distinct opportunity for exploitation. [2b] A claim of voluntary student consent would be suspect since the instructor is in a position of power and students trust and respect faculty members. [3b] As such, the university expects that faculty members act professionally and responsibly to avoid apparent or actual conflict of interest, favoritism, or bias.
1- This sentence is waaay to long. It uses too many clauses with too many modifiers. The initial idea--sexual relations-- is then defined it two more ways, when at most two of those are necessary (as i rewrote it) and one would likely be sufficient. The next part of this sentence is confusing due to the long list of abstract/modifying words used to describe the teacher/student relationship, "with whom they also have", and then goes off the deep end entirely with the use of "fraught" (this is a policy, you want it to be as accessible as possible!) and the unnecessary and confusing repetition of "must be avoided and are prohibited". Prohibited is clearly sufficient.
2- This sentence has many of the same problems as the one before it. It's passive, and wordy. The actual subject of the sentence, student consent, isn't introduced until the very end of the sentence, which Williams discusses as inappropriate in his discussion of beginnings and endings. So I moved the subject to the beginning, and the new information to the end of the sentence. This cleared up most of the wordyness, as many of the extra words were working tolerate the beginning of the sentence to the end.
3- The original sentence is unnecessarily passive, which makes it confusing. The root of this, I think, is that there is no "character" to do any expecting of faculty, so I gave the verb a do-er, the university. This allowed me re phrase the sentence in more active voice. Williams recommends very careful use of passives, and I think this is a good example of that. (pg 37)
in closing, turgid.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Mr. Strunk and Mr. White in the essay
Two Strunk and white elements that I agree with:
fifteen and sixteen
Two Strunk and white elements that I disagree with:
eleven and nine
fifteen and sixteen
Two Strunk and white elements that I disagree with:
eleven and nine
peer review recap 1
I found the process of peer review to be moderately helpful.
I like reading other people's writing, and it often helps me structure my thoughts better. I found it useful to have access to other peoples take on the same topic.
the comments I received were relatively sparse; I'm sure there was a greater volume to be said about it.
the feedback I left was perhaps too specific, I'm sort of worried that the owners of the papers may find my comments too critical. There were often more to say than i said, but i refrained for fear of offending people or appearing a nit-picky knowitall. On the other hand, I wish I had received some very detailed, nit-picky comments.
I like reading other people's writing, and it often helps me structure my thoughts better. I found it useful to have access to other peoples take on the same topic.
the comments I received were relatively sparse; I'm sure there was a greater volume to be said about it.
the feedback I left was perhaps too specific, I'm sort of worried that the owners of the papers may find my comments too critical. There were often more to say than i said, but i refrained for fear of offending people or appearing a nit-picky knowitall. On the other hand, I wish I had received some very detailed, nit-picky comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
