Before I get to the main point of this post, I just want to say that I can't believe this is my last TOW. It has been a long year of TOW writing, but it went so fast. Is this really TOW #30 already?
Dear New APELC Student,
So you have decided to take AP English Language and Composition this year. Good for you! This is a valuable and interesting class that will greatly help you improve your understanding of written English and your skills as a writer. It may be challenging at times but it will also be very rewarding.
AP courses are unique in that they have two goals: preparing you for the AP exam in May and educating you to have a lasting mastery of the subject matter. This means that while you will be discussing and learning about aspects of writing, you will also be practicing to be able to apply those to the essays on the exam. Prepare yourself to write a lot. There will be a handful of longer-term, take home essay assignments throughout the year, but there will be a lot of practice timed-essays in the style of the AP exam. You will have these several times a month, even multiple days a week at some points in the year. And then there are the Text of the Week assignments, which, as the name reveals, are due every week. (This right now sounds like an overwhelming amount of writing and work, but trust me, it is completely manageable.) This constant writing gives you so much opportunity to practice and improve your skills, to apply the concepts discussed in class. If, at the beginning of the class you find yourself struggling and not receiving the results you want on graded assignments, keep pushing forward. This class is designed to foster growth over the course of the year. Your writing will improve through practice and being in class.
I honestly think that if you put in the work and focus on learning, the grades will take care of themselves. And you will learn a lot this year. If you do the readings for homework, put effort into your practice essays, and pay attention and participate in class, you will be rewarded with deeper understandings, different perspectives, and new skills. My experience with all my AP classes has been that you get out of the course what you put into it. All the effort and handwork you put into your homework and projects and writing during the year will pay off not just on exam day but in all the growth you will notice in your writing and your understanding. Try not to stress yourself out, and in those moments when you do feel stressed, think of how rewarding it will be the day you walk out of that exam room feeling confident about how you did. (Being done with the AP exam is one of the best feelings in the world.)
You can do this! Don't forget to have fun with this class. Yes, it can be fun! For every boring essay prompt there is something interesting to discuss. And just wait until Toga Day.
Good luck!
Sincerely,
Former APELC Student
Monday, June 9, 2014
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
TOW #29 Food Inc. Documentary Argument
The documentary Food Inc. reveals what the public doesn't see about the food production industry. Many of the practices used by corporations are hidden from the public because they have negative effects. Though the development of new food production practices over the past 50 years has increased efficiency and production, the implementation of these practices by current corporations are undeniably harmful to society.
Industrial production of food can have wide health risks. As shown in the documentary, food poisoning is a serious possibility. Feeding cows the cheaper option of corn rather than grass has increased the development of E.coli in cows, and when those animals are taken to slaughterhouses to be killed and their meat processed, this bacteria can spread to meat that will be shipped all over the country, and it can effect other foods to. Companies have had to recall products from ground beef to peanut butter: in the early 2000's, a batch of Peter Pan Peanut Butter was recalled because of the presence of salmonella. This potentiality of food poisoning is dangerous for all members of the population, and often tragically reaches young children.
Furthermore, the rise of industrial food production has changed the culture surrounding American food for the worse. Companies producing food used in fast food restaurants are often subsidized, making it easier for chains such as McDonald's and Burger King to buy cheap chicken and ground beef and sell it at incomparably low prices. This has been happening since the rise of fast food in the 1950's and has driven much of the United States away from the home grown healthy foods and to the drive-thrus. Because unhealthy food is cheaper than unhealthy food, many people, especially those low on the socioeconomic ladder, opt for the former. This increases health risks and perpetuates the unhealthy American attitude towards fast food.
It is true that new industrial practices have made food production more efficient. Mechanical processes and genetic engineering have allowed the US to produce more food than ever before, enough to feed the whole world. However, this has not been beneficial because of the dangers these processes can pose to workers, and the lack of responsibility with which this power is handled. Industrial food processors have some of the long, hard, and most dangerous jobs in the world, and the food corporations do not improve these conditions because they are focused solely on profits. When the meat-packing industry was gaining power in the early 20th century, it had enormous influence, and was focused on making profits, making their workers work in horrible conditions as revealed in Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. Food corporations, like the oil, steel, and railroad corporations of the Robber Baron days, create monopolies and use government influence to maintain their freedom from regulation and increase their profits. The few people in power control a majority of the resources and how they are produced, and motivated by the desire for money, little care is given to the quality and benefit of current industrial food practices.
Industrial production of food can have wide health risks. As shown in the documentary, food poisoning is a serious possibility. Feeding cows the cheaper option of corn rather than grass has increased the development of E.coli in cows, and when those animals are taken to slaughterhouses to be killed and their meat processed, this bacteria can spread to meat that will be shipped all over the country, and it can effect other foods to. Companies have had to recall products from ground beef to peanut butter: in the early 2000's, a batch of Peter Pan Peanut Butter was recalled because of the presence of salmonella. This potentiality of food poisoning is dangerous for all members of the population, and often tragically reaches young children.
Furthermore, the rise of industrial food production has changed the culture surrounding American food for the worse. Companies producing food used in fast food restaurants are often subsidized, making it easier for chains such as McDonald's and Burger King to buy cheap chicken and ground beef and sell it at incomparably low prices. This has been happening since the rise of fast food in the 1950's and has driven much of the United States away from the home grown healthy foods and to the drive-thrus. Because unhealthy food is cheaper than unhealthy food, many people, especially those low on the socioeconomic ladder, opt for the former. This increases health risks and perpetuates the unhealthy American attitude towards fast food.
It is true that new industrial practices have made food production more efficient. Mechanical processes and genetic engineering have allowed the US to produce more food than ever before, enough to feed the whole world. However, this has not been beneficial because of the dangers these processes can pose to workers, and the lack of responsibility with which this power is handled. Industrial food processors have some of the long, hard, and most dangerous jobs in the world, and the food corporations do not improve these conditions because they are focused solely on profits. When the meat-packing industry was gaining power in the early 20th century, it had enormous influence, and was focused on making profits, making their workers work in horrible conditions as revealed in Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. Food corporations, like the oil, steel, and railroad corporations of the Robber Baron days, create monopolies and use government influence to maintain their freedom from regulation and increase their profits. The few people in power control a majority of the resources and how they are produced, and motivated by the desire for money, little care is given to the quality and benefit of current industrial food practices.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
TOW #28 Food Inc. Documentary
Beginning with the rise of the fast food restaurant in the 1950's, the way we produce and market food has changed dramatically in the past half-century. Food Inc. is a documentary directed by Robert Kenner about the food industry of the United States. The film, targeted at the general American consumer public, presents a look at the story behind the products that sit on our supermarket shelves. It reveals the methods that are used by the big food corporations and the adverse affects these often have on public and environmental health, including how the companies treat their workers and the animals, as well as the increasingly mechanized and biologically engineered ways of raising and processing animals and plants.
The main purpose of the documentary is to inform consumers of the unpublicized ways that their food is produced and to encourage them to take make choices to prompt food companies to make safer and healthier decisions. Throughout the documentary, the giant food corporations are characterized as powerful, profit-hungry, bullies. As stories are told during the film, the actions of the corporations are described in plain white font that appears on the screen over simple background music. This makes the corporations seem like giant, faceless, impersonal organizations, and makes their actions seem more dramatic by presenting them in an understated way. Often throughout the film the phrase "[This corporation] declined to be interviewed for this film," appeared after the discussion of questionable methods and practices. The repetition of this statement emphasizes how the corporations are trying to keep information from the public and makes them look like the guilty ones. The power of the corporations is further demonstrated by the images of government officials influential in the food production are such as head of the FDA, who are then shown to have been lobbyists for or in other ways connected to the food companies themselves.
This characterization of the giant food corporations is contrasted with the presentation of regular people who reflect the ideals of traditional farmers and the average consumer. During the film, a number of farmers and growers are interviewed, many of whom resist the practices that have become standard in the larger corporations. They are filmed on their own land, in their own barns or houses, talking to the camera in between nature shots, contrasting starkly to the footage of the machinery and labs of the corporations. The documentary also focuses on a woman whose son died from food poisoning, using the story to get the audience motivated to take action because of the threat current production methods potentially poses to their own families. The documentary begins with a lot of shots of grocery stores and their aisles of products, connecting the information the audience is about to receive to their daily life, and it ends with the insistence that consumers have the power to make choices about what they eat and buy, encouraging the audience to use its power to influence the corporations and change the system.
The main purpose of the documentary is to inform consumers of the unpublicized ways that their food is produced and to encourage them to take make choices to prompt food companies to make safer and healthier decisions. Throughout the documentary, the giant food corporations are characterized as powerful, profit-hungry, bullies. As stories are told during the film, the actions of the corporations are described in plain white font that appears on the screen over simple background music. This makes the corporations seem like giant, faceless, impersonal organizations, and makes their actions seem more dramatic by presenting them in an understated way. Often throughout the film the phrase "[This corporation] declined to be interviewed for this film," appeared after the discussion of questionable methods and practices. The repetition of this statement emphasizes how the corporations are trying to keep information from the public and makes them look like the guilty ones. The power of the corporations is further demonstrated by the images of government officials influential in the food production are such as head of the FDA, who are then shown to have been lobbyists for or in other ways connected to the food companies themselves.
This characterization of the giant food corporations is contrasted with the presentation of regular people who reflect the ideals of traditional farmers and the average consumer. During the film, a number of farmers and growers are interviewed, many of whom resist the practices that have become standard in the larger corporations. They are filmed on their own land, in their own barns or houses, talking to the camera in between nature shots, contrasting starkly to the footage of the machinery and labs of the corporations. The documentary also focuses on a woman whose son died from food poisoning, using the story to get the audience motivated to take action because of the threat current production methods potentially poses to their own families. The documentary begins with a lot of shots of grocery stores and their aisles of products, connecting the information the audience is about to receive to their daily life, and it ends with the insistence that consumers have the power to make choices about what they eat and buy, encouraging the audience to use its power to influence the corporations and change the system.
Monday, May 19, 2014
TOW #27: TOW Reflection
Looking at my first and last TOWs and the progression in between, one thing that stands out to me is the change in structure and organization of content (also the length, but I'll get to that later). My TOWs for the first half of the year were also written in single paragraphs, but by the time I got to marking period three I started experimenting with organization and multiple paragraph structures. My first TOWs follow more closely the instructions and steps listed on our original assignment sheet for giving a little summary, identifying the author and audience etc. while my more recent TOWs are written more freely, more like a mini analysis essay that identifies the purpose and analyzes the piece in the way that it applies to this purpose, while including anything I thought that was worth noting. My later TOWs also presented more of a cohesive thesis.
After reading through many of my TOWs from over the course of the year, I noticed that there was a development of my understanding of how argument works, and its complexity. With most of my TOWs I was able to pretty clearly identify the purpose of the piece I was analyzing, but my earlier TOWs focused on a much more simple, easily stated purpose while in my later TOWs I tended to delve into the complexities of the purpose that interacted more with the context and the topic. Similarly, my understanding of how the author built his/her argument developed to be more complex. Much of my analysis in the beginning of the year is devoted to explaining the appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos, because these are the patterns I knew how to recognize. Over the course of the year I expanded my knowledge of and ability to recognize how different devices and strategies are used by authors, and I also began to move away from the idea of specifically labeled "devices" and analysed the ways I saw the authors developing their arguments based on the topic, their audience, the context and other relevant aspects. I definitely noticed the influence of the concepts we studied in class when I began seeing how arguments were based on certain assumptions and used other arguments to prove their own (Inductive/Deductive reasoning and Toulmin Model!).
Despite all this development, I have to say that I honestly think some of my earlier TOWs were of better quality. My more recent ones tend to be more rambling; some of them got pretty long, and they were less thought out before I started writing them. I think over the course of the year my ability to recognize and understand how arguments are put together improved, but the amount of effort I put into each individual TOW declined.
Overall though, I'm pretty happy with the progress I've noticed in my understanding and my ability to apply new ideas to my writing. The TOWs were good practice and I am pleasantly surprised at the visible indication of how much I have actually learned this year!
After reading through many of my TOWs from over the course of the year, I noticed that there was a development of my understanding of how argument works, and its complexity. With most of my TOWs I was able to pretty clearly identify the purpose of the piece I was analyzing, but my earlier TOWs focused on a much more simple, easily stated purpose while in my later TOWs I tended to delve into the complexities of the purpose that interacted more with the context and the topic. Similarly, my understanding of how the author built his/her argument developed to be more complex. Much of my analysis in the beginning of the year is devoted to explaining the appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos, because these are the patterns I knew how to recognize. Over the course of the year I expanded my knowledge of and ability to recognize how different devices and strategies are used by authors, and I also began to move away from the idea of specifically labeled "devices" and analysed the ways I saw the authors developing their arguments based on the topic, their audience, the context and other relevant aspects. I definitely noticed the influence of the concepts we studied in class when I began seeing how arguments were based on certain assumptions and used other arguments to prove their own (Inductive/Deductive reasoning and Toulmin Model!).
Despite all this development, I have to say that I honestly think some of my earlier TOWs were of better quality. My more recent ones tend to be more rambling; some of them got pretty long, and they were less thought out before I started writing them. I think over the course of the year my ability to recognize and understand how arguments are put together improved, but the amount of effort I put into each individual TOW declined.
Overall though, I'm pretty happy with the progress I've noticed in my understanding and my ability to apply new ideas to my writing. The TOWs were good practice and I am pleasantly surprised at the visible indication of how much I have actually learned this year!
Sunday, May 4, 2014
TOW #26 "Letting Citizens Decide"
 |
| North Carolina's 4th Congressional District |
Lowenthal starts off his article by comparing the drawing of congressional districts to an unfairly run baseball game. He writes "Can you imagine a baseball game where... the rules are not just set by the home team, but that the home team players are also the umpires[?] This is what is happening in nearly every state in the nation when it comes to drawing congressional district maps," (Lowenthal par. 1). With this analogy Lowenthal attempts to make a connection to his general audience right away, by attempting to explain the unfairness of this issue in terms that a person not associated with politics is more likely to understand. However, I think the analogy serves less to clearly explain the complicated process of drawing congressional districts and more to get the audience to react to the issue by linking it to something that many Americans get emotionally invested in: namely, sports. This intro helps to prime the audiences emotions to react with indignation towards the unfair aspects of the issue discussed in the article.
Through the body of the article, Lowenthal gives examples of who draws the districts now and how, citing the illogical shape of North Carolina's Fourth District (pictured above). He then explains the bill he proposed which would create standards for drawing the districts and allow committees of citizens to be in charge. Throughout these explanations, the article is infused with diction that appeals directly to the citizens ideas of their rights and freedoms to be involved in the government. For example, words like "control", "unfair", "undemocratic", and "electoral advantage" inspire resentment towards the current political practice and phrases such as "transparent, accountable, and democratic", "rebuild people's trust", and "fair and equal voice" help to encourage support in the audience for this legislation that the author believes will give them greater influence on the way the government is run.
I was left wondering at the end of this article why a California congressman would put this in a Philadelphia newspaper. It was personalized with the line "redistricting in most states, including Pennsylvania" but the rest of the article was about the country as a whole. This makes me wonder if this congressman is attempting to promote this legislation across the country and is submitting articles to cities in multiple states. The article appeals to Americans as a wider community who, as Lowenthal writes, "deserve true representation".
Sunday, April 27, 2014
TOW #25 "Should You Go With the Flow?"
Our language is full of overused sayings that we here all the time in everyday life. Sometimes they may seem appropriate for a situation, but other times they may seem to be contradictory or have negative implications. For example, Ronald Pies notes that the saying "go with the flow" can "become an excuse for apathy or indifference." In order to counteract this sense of the saying, in this essay from Tuft's University's Magazine, professor of psychiatry Ronald Pies analyzes the meaning and origin behind the concept of "going with the flow" to discuss how it applies positively to our lives.
Pies first explores the themes of going with the flow emphasized in ancient traditions such as Taoism and Buddhism. He quotes a Taoist name Elizabeth Reninger who defines the central concept as "'“a state of being in which our actions are quite effortlessly in alignment with the ebb and flow of the elemental cycles of the natural world.'" What this saying really means is that we should live in harmony with the natural order of things. This idea is spiritual in nature but has been secularized in our society today as the cliché "go with the flow."
Pies then applies this idea to real life by presenting a personal anecdote. He writes about a time when his mother was seriously sick and he needed to take care of her. The uncertainty of his situation was difficult as he didn't know when he would be needed. Pies uses this situation to show how the idea of "going with the flow" can be applied positively to our lives. During the time when his mother needed him, Pies just went with the natural order of his life; a child cares for his sick parent. This helped him to be flexible and adapt to the uncertainties of the situation.
But Pies explores the idea further by asking rhetorical questions. He began in the introduction of the essay by asking "How can we apply this phrase wisely?" As his personal anecdote showed, the idea can be encouragement in times of uncertainty and struggle to help oneself be flexible and do what needs to be done. But Pies recognizes that this saying can be used to support inaction where action is necessary and he asks, "But what does a morally responsible person do when confronted with prejudice, injustice, or hatred? Should one go with the flow, saying 'Oh, well, that’s life'?" These questions serve to stimulate the readers own internal contemplation of the idea before Pies gives his own answer. Pies then cites examples of nonviolent resisters such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who may have went against the flow of injustice but by resisting injustice were going with the flow of order and reason and human connection. Ultimately Pies concludes the essay by answering his first question but in a way that leaves the readers minds wide open to consider the implications of the idea of "going with the flow" in their own lives.
Article: http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/winter2014/think-tank/mind.html
Pies first explores the themes of going with the flow emphasized in ancient traditions such as Taoism and Buddhism. He quotes a Taoist name Elizabeth Reninger who defines the central concept as "'“a state of being in which our actions are quite effortlessly in alignment with the ebb and flow of the elemental cycles of the natural world.'" What this saying really means is that we should live in harmony with the natural order of things. This idea is spiritual in nature but has been secularized in our society today as the cliché "go with the flow."
Pies then applies this idea to real life by presenting a personal anecdote. He writes about a time when his mother was seriously sick and he needed to take care of her. The uncertainty of his situation was difficult as he didn't know when he would be needed. Pies uses this situation to show how the idea of "going with the flow" can be applied positively to our lives. During the time when his mother needed him, Pies just went with the natural order of his life; a child cares for his sick parent. This helped him to be flexible and adapt to the uncertainties of the situation.
But Pies explores the idea further by asking rhetorical questions. He began in the introduction of the essay by asking "How can we apply this phrase wisely?" As his personal anecdote showed, the idea can be encouragement in times of uncertainty and struggle to help oneself be flexible and do what needs to be done. But Pies recognizes that this saying can be used to support inaction where action is necessary and he asks, "But what does a morally responsible person do when confronted with prejudice, injustice, or hatred? Should one go with the flow, saying 'Oh, well, that’s life'?" These questions serve to stimulate the readers own internal contemplation of the idea before Pies gives his own answer. Pies then cites examples of nonviolent resisters such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who may have went against the flow of injustice but by resisting injustice were going with the flow of order and reason and human connection. Ultimately Pies concludes the essay by answering his first question but in a way that leaves the readers minds wide open to consider the implications of the idea of "going with the flow" in their own lives.
Article: http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/winter2014/think-tank/mind.html
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
IRB Intro Post: Fourth Marking Period
For my last and final IRB I have chosen to read When Languages Die by David Harrison, which explores the human knowledge that is an integral part of language and how that knowledge is lost when languages die out. I came across this topic when my eye was caught by an article about endangered languages in the April edition of American University's magazine. The article mentioned David Harrison, who is a linguist and professor at Swarthmore College, and described his work through the Living Tongues Institute to preserve languages who have few speakers left. As someone who is passionate about foreign languages, the idea of endangered languages intrigued me and I decided to pursue the topic further by selecting this book as my IRB.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)