What does he mean by this? Perhaps confronting your professors? Edmundson states, "The students and the professors have made a deal: Neither of them has to throw himself heart and soul into what happens in the classroom" (Edmundson 408). This is one idea of Edmonson's that I disagree with. Not all students and professors act as if they don't care about the curriculum, sometimes both students and professors actually care and want to learn or teach to the best of their ability.
Society has always been solely focused on how terrible cheating is but it has never considered the pressures that essentially cause students to cheat. Many pressures contribute to academic dishonesty such as the pressure to succeed, pressure for positive recognition, and the pressure to complete the task even with the teacher's inadequacy to explain the material. There are various forms of academic cheating; methods of this act are certainly not limited. Cheating can range from taking credit for someone else’s work knowing that it is not your own or being untruthful in order to extend a deadline. However, the use of reference materials (such as books or notes) that are prohibited during an exam, copying answers off of someone else’s test, and or falsifying data are more specific methods of cheating.
They additionally think if no one, not even the teacher, is putting in the effort for them to succeed than they shouldn’t either. Because of the inactivity from the students and teachers the students go as far as isolating themselves so they do not have to interact with their classmates and their teachers. They think that isolation is better than having to participate because they don’t need assistance to be a failure. In the essay “I Just Wanna Be Average” by Mike Rose, he talks about his time spent being, “placed in the vocational track, a euphemism for the bottom level [in school]. (346)” Many of classmates, including himself, did not care for the lessons being taught.
In “The Indispensable Opposition”, Walter Lippmann states that "the right to speak freely and to act in opposition is a noble ideal rather than a practical necessity." However, students of the Millennial generation have given educational institutions a hard time with this. Students are bringing a movement to campuses that “scrubs campuses clan of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense” (Lukianoff and Haidt). This process is meant to protect the emotions of students and prevent conversation over controversial or possibly “triggering” subjects. The blatant censorship that students are demanding from their professors and peers prevents ideas and information being spread, ruining the educational experience.
Dell seems not to be showing off how smart he is, but is just a man concerned that he hasn't seen these ideas explained clearly, and thinks that a basic understanding of the subject makes life a little more comprehensible. The tone is that of a heart-to-heart talk between friends; he has some concerns he'd like to get off his chest, and thinks perhaps you'll profit from hearing them. I think the down-to-earth yet colorful style of the book attracted me even more than the subject matter. In so many ways I was taught in school that pretension was part of what made writing good; this was a beacon saying that there was integrity in stating things plainly and honestly as you saw them, and admitting that you don't know everything. A hard lesson to learn, and all the harder when your whole youth is about maintaining a false front for your own survival.
At least when he referenced Sports Illustrated he had personal experiences to tie back into the writing. His choices of examples feel very out of place because he only mentions them once, leaving the reader slightly confused as to the meaning of choosing those literary works. Graff puts too much emphasis on sports as a substitute for actual school learning and doesn’t give good reasons as to why this is the case. The author spends a long time trying to explain why he stunted himself to fit in with schoolkids near him, but doesn’t spend long linking this to the other topics in his article. Graff tries to pawn off talking about sports as being the same as a deep discussion about Socrates’ or Shakespeare’s writings.
Students are encouraged to see writing for college as a game rather than as an integral part of their education. We don’t want that. The CCCC also worries that programs like Turnitin will make college faculty complacent by shifting responsibility for detecting plagiarism onto technology. It’s only a matter of time before students learn to beat the software. I have personally tested it with my students, asking them to cheat; many of their transgressions went undetected by Turnitin.
Dana Stevens article has good arguments, but gets overshadowed by personal views and rude comments makes her article only relate to a sympathetic and ignorant audience. Steven Johnson might use out of date television shows as examples, but does a better job at, informing, teaching and proving his point that, television can make you smarter. Johnson can gain the trust an antagonistic, sympathetic, apathetic and ignorant audience through his article, therefore, making his argument more valid than Dana Stevens.
Although the male parent is concerned that his daughter Felicia is not learning enough at Rosewood school, his message is greatly undermined by his poor delivery, and disparaging remarks toward a faculty member. The parent also fails to see his daughter’s own role in the matter, which he conveniently explains away. The man’s conference paper veers off topic when he shares personal information, which serves no purpose. His conference paper does have shortcomings, but the man does make some good arguments that will be examined as well. The aim of my paper is to evaluate the paper’s strengths and
It doesn’t refute opposing claims because there isn’t any opposing claims brought up in the piece he only talks about his plan and his plan only. His argument is weak overall, but that is because it is meant to be weak because he has a whole other meaning behind what he is saying. The strength in his arguments was that he got the reader’s attention like he wanted then at the end told them how he really felt about the whole issue. What he was really good at was getting his readers attention because if he didn’t grab their attention then the whole point of the essay would be pointless. He could have been less descriptive in the parts where he talked about cooking children but other than that he did a pretty swell job at what he did.