The never-ending question of grading art

Richard Braddock in "Research in Written Composition" presents his essay about the do's and don'ts of researching student compositions in the format of an actual report. He starts the essay by saying, "Reading a report, like driving over a bridge, is an act of faith- faith that the other fellow has done his job well" (193). But, after reading the article it seems that the readers of composition reports are approaching a rickety bridge visibly hanging from its last rusted nail.

There are so many variables and subjective areas in composition that it seems nearly impossible to write a report on any aspect of it. Which brings up another issue of grading, and the endless debate of how to grade art. Braddock lists seven assumptions a person should have when evaluating grades from one professor, and in this list he describes the extent of grading subjectivity. He states: "But a student's course grade may have been lowered for failure to do assignments, for cutting class, for poor work in the reading aspect of the course, for failure to take part in enough class discussion, for being personally obnoxious, for being in the class of a severe grader, etc." (208). Of course, no one expects every professor to grade the same way, but the issue is one teacher grading students differently based on the "obnoxiousness" or brown nosing of a student. And then professors wonder why students try to give them what they want instead of using their own creativity and rules in their writing.

Another variable that is as equally important to the attitude of the investigator is the type of student. How does lack of sensitivity to diverse students not only affect their desire to try, but attitude towards the professor. Maybe the obnoxious student is purposely acting out because they don't relate to anything the teacher is saying, and in turn doesn't think the professor cares about their ideas or culture. We addressed this topic briefly in class, and Braddock also mentions it as part of his assignment variable. He states: "Finally, investigators should be mindful of a possible motivational factor in the topic assigned. How many students will write their best when asked to deal with hackeyed topics like 'My Vacation' or 'My Autobiography'?" (198) He goes on to say it's probably not a good idea to have students write about whatever they want, because their is no restrictions to base the grading on and no way to grade the essays against each other. In class we discussed a composition class for only African-Americans. Then you get into issues like: Who is classified as "African-American" Why do they need a class of their own? Are you suggesting they learn differently or that they need special attention? Didn't we outlaw "separate but equal" a long time ago? Should they be graded on a different scale than other students? All in all, most teachers will agree grading art is a tricky line to cross, yet in the end it has to be done.

History of the Western World

THIS IS MY FIRST BLOG FOR ENGLISH 501. DON'T READ THE OTHERS... THEY SUCK.


Each time I learn about the "attic" or Greek orators I am intrigued by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Their philosophical ideas are techniques that I plan on using when I finally become a teacher.

To start, Socrates' opinion that people are born knowing and that knowledge can be brought out by a series of questions and answers is something I really want to agree with, but don't know how it is plausible. For instance, a person would have to have a certain degree of education in order to even participate in the question and answer situation. If the students do not understand the questions (because of their culture or vocabulary or whatever) they will have no means of extracting the information that is already inside of them. Then the question becomes: how do I ask the right question? What if our worlds do not cross (having the same language is just not enough) If this happens, am I not able to practice Socrates' theory? I hope not.

Plato, however, has a little too much emphasis in philosophy for me to fully follow him. I find the idea of Truth and the "ideal audience" intriguing. And isn't that a critical point in rhetoric? Who are you speaking to? Am I going to be daddy's little girl who wants to stay out a little later, or am I going to try to explain to my mother I am a responsible young adult, capable of a little leeway? I think this is how rhetoric ties into his philosophy. The idea of capital T in truth is a little more confusing. Is the absolute truth out there somewhere, waiting for us to discover it and interpret it correctly, or is it there, but unattainable? If it is unattainable, then does it really even matter if it's there or not? Aristotle's argument that truth is there but with a lowercase, not so absolute. Couldn't that be the same thing as Truth is there but simply unattainable? I think so. After all Aristotle derived his ideas from Plato, even if he does disagree with him.

I hope, through all of this, I will be able to take something from each philosopher and implement it in my teaching skills, allowing my students the room to disagree and derive their own ideas and beliefs from something I said.

The climax of culture

After reading Eagleton and the blogs the general conclusion I get is that culture has taken a turn for the worst. But, I do not know if I agree. In high school we used to have decades parties, and it seemed like every ten years had some kind of social contribution to add. I wonder if we can do the same with the 2000s.

I think a point we are missing is that all these different cultures, different groups of people as America continues to assimilate, are mixed into one so that it keeps growing and changing. I would argue that it has not leveled out and that it cannot level out because everyone will always have something different to add.

Of course it has been said all the time that we are in the age of technology, which I guess is the dominate part of our culture, but is there all that is to it? Are we anything else but technology... oh and sex?? At this point of time I can't think of anything else, so maybe I do agree. Maybe we have come to a cultural standstill.

Religion and Sex

Jonathan Goldberg's article places a lot of emphasis on religion, using Aan Bray's book. What was interesting in this article is the mix of politics, religion, and sexuality. Bray's book discusses the last events of a man's life before he was murderered then accused of being gay. The article touches on the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality. The greatest accusation the man faced was being called a homosexual, which instantly turned into a case of libel
What makes the statement that someone is homosexual an instantly slanderous statement. What about homosexuality can ruin a person's reputation? The article shows how homophobic society is, esspecially in religion.
For example, in Denver during the Martin Luther King parade, many gay and lesbian rights activists march for their rights as well. But, if you think about it Dr. King, an extremely faithful Christian, would probably not have supported the homosexual agenda, based strictly on his religous beliefs.
Will there ever be a point in which religion will accept homosexuality into their society?

Seperate but Equal

I particularly found several parts of Gates's article interesting. First, the part about Abraham Lincoln pulling together some black people to tell them because of their great racial difference, they should go back to Africa. By this point, however, the Africans that were shipped to the United States are not the same black people who overcame slavery. These black people have begun to assimilate, and have never been to Africa, and know nothing about Africa. The equivilant would be telling the Spanish, Italian, or Irish to go back to the respective countries their realatives came from.
This is actually is probably something the English wanted to say based on page 1894 of Gates when the comment was made that the difference could be made between Irish protestants and Catholics based on their race. Of course, this is rediculous. Even light-skinned black people sometimes passed as white without notice.
I think the argument could be made that black people were not allowed to be educated, not because they were inferior, but because it would prove they are of the same intellegence as white people. The example of the black girl Phillis Wheatley shows that black people can be properly educated and create works of literature. Does it define them as a race? Well, I would argue no. If having the ability and freedom to express yourself defines a race as being equal to other races, then it must hold true for all races. Someone's blog (sorry, I forgot who) talked about the concept of "writing themselves into being," applying to everybody regardless of race.

The Power of Words

What interests me most is the beginning of Part II when Bourdieu starts talking about the meaning of words and the uses of language in society. I always thought writing is a powerful form of expression, something that people will read and understand the context and emotion the author was trying to have understood. But Bourdieu states that is not always the case. He says, "The power of words is nothing other than the delegated power of the spokesperson, and his speech - that is, the substance of his discourse and, inseparably, his way of speaking- is no more than a testimony, and one among other, of the guarantee of delegation which is vested in him" (107). I think I have an example of what he is talking about.
An author could be passionately writing her views on a topic (this situation could in fact be happening to me right now), in her mind she knows exactly the tone and emotions she wishes to convey in her writing. Then, when she presents it to someone else who reads her work in a dry monotone voice, missing her sarcasm, humor, and whatever else she wanted expressed, the message losses its power and therefore its meaning on the listeners. If she herself had read the speech the way it is suppose to be read the writing would have had more power and effect on the listener, and made all the difference in the world.
What he is saying is the words by themselves mean nothing, but it is the combined forces of words plus the authorized speaker, "because his speech concentrates within it the accumulated symbolic capital of the group which has delegated him and of which he is the authorized representative" (111).

The Real

Just when I was thinking Terry Eagleton is generalizing a lot of novels written in that time, he says, "It is true some texts seem to approach the real more closely than others" (173). And the point that he makes is that books have their own truth, society, and rules, but in some instances it will parallel that of history. He states that literature has the freedom to veer away from history. I think this ability allows it to exaggerate what was going on socially at the time to make a point, or make a whole other reality to juxtapose with current society. Regardless, I think the text does and should serve a purpose, the author should have a message.

Eagleton tries to make a distinction between expressing ideology and making a production of it. It sounds like the same thing to me. Is the distinction what I said before: that the literature parallels history? The way he explains it it's like he is telling us what it doesn't do, "A dramatic production does not 'express,' 'reflect,' or 'reproduce' the dramatic text on which it is based," but then he goes on to explain that it is a production. So, I take that to mean it makes it's own real that may or may not be similar to its current society.