I'm sorry it took me so long to do this. I wanted to give it some thought. You may not have time to supplement your winter quarter reading for Core, but perhaps something for the summer...
If you enjoyed our foray into philosophy and want to learn more about unicorns, I suggest the following:
Slavoj Zizek, On Belief
Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan
Plato, The Republic
James Twichell, Twenty Ads that Shook the World
If you enjoyed Jane Austen, I think one of the most instructive things you can do is read a couple of books written slightly later, and concerning similar themes, that are nonetheless utterly, utterly different:
Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights
Lord Byron, Don Juan
If you enjoyed Toni Morrison, you should read more of her books, but also read non-fiction books that ask similar questions about the interplay between race, class, culture, and identity in the U.S.
Toni Morrison, Song of Solomon, Beloved, Jazz
Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers
Barack Obama, Dreams from My Father
HBO, The Wire (I guess that's not a book)
Monday, January 19, 2009
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Participation grades ("writing")
As the syllabus explains, there is a second 10% participation score that belongs to your writing grade. (Along with the 3 essays.)
There are three sub-categories here: discovery tasks, drafts, and peer review.
I'm giving an "A" for discovery task to anyone who submitted a reasonable effort at both of them. "C" if you missed one, "F" if you missed both. Reasonable effort means basically that you answered each question and didn't submit a blank document to EEE. I mean, I'm sure you didn't, but as Ronald Reagan said (somewhat nonsensically), "trust but verify."
For the drafts, you get an "A" if you submitted an ideas draft and a working draft for each of the three papers. One letter grade down for each one missed. I have never had a class that was so diligent about turning in completed ideas and working drafts. Please hold onto this habit; it will serve you well in the future. Even if drafts are not assigned, you ought to internalize some form of that process.
For the peer reviews, the default grade was A-. A couple gave more detailed/useful comments and got an A (apparently the Roses were very good partners to have for your paper... this gives me high hopes for the Rose/Rose collaboration on paper 3). A few gave less detailed/more cursory comments and got a B+ or B. But overall you did pretty well with this.
So I took those three sub-grades and averaged them together, basically. The overall average for writing participation was very nearly a straight A.
My favorite comment from the peer reviews, by the way, courtesy of Wes:
I think this next question is a load of rubbish. Who cares about the title of an essay that isn’t going to be published? You might as well call it “Laser Donkey Battles: The Austen Years” for the hell of it.
He makes a fair point. It would be silly to overemphasize the title to an unpublished essay. Then again, you could make the same argument for any other aspect of the essay! Such essays are, in the end, partly training exercises for writing similar essays in the future, partly assessment exercises, partly heuristics for promoting thought, and partly ways to nurture writing skills portable to other academic disciplines and professional fields (perhaps). I too think the two-part format can be rather stupid, and in fact I have made fun of it repeatedly to my fellow grad students. But it is a standard format in the humanities disciplines, a "unicorn" if you will. And it is somewhat useful, insofar as the second part tells the reader what the essay is about and the first part allows you to exercise some creativity. To make a long story short, the first part is indeed superfluous, but the second part isn't. All we're really trying to do is get students to write the mini-thesis in the title, and if they want to get a bit creative, that moves to the first part.
There are three sub-categories here: discovery tasks, drafts, and peer review.
I'm giving an "A" for discovery task to anyone who submitted a reasonable effort at both of them. "C" if you missed one, "F" if you missed both. Reasonable effort means basically that you answered each question and didn't submit a blank document to EEE. I mean, I'm sure you didn't, but as Ronald Reagan said (somewhat nonsensically), "trust but verify."
For the drafts, you get an "A" if you submitted an ideas draft and a working draft for each of the three papers. One letter grade down for each one missed. I have never had a class that was so diligent about turning in completed ideas and working drafts. Please hold onto this habit; it will serve you well in the future. Even if drafts are not assigned, you ought to internalize some form of that process.
For the peer reviews, the default grade was A-. A couple gave more detailed/useful comments and got an A (apparently the Roses were very good partners to have for your paper... this gives me high hopes for the Rose/Rose collaboration on paper 3). A few gave less detailed/more cursory comments and got a B+ or B. But overall you did pretty well with this.
So I took those three sub-grades and averaged them together, basically. The overall average for writing participation was very nearly a straight A.
My favorite comment from the peer reviews, by the way, courtesy of Wes:
I think this next question is a load of rubbish. Who cares about the title of an essay that isn’t going to be published? You might as well call it “Laser Donkey Battles: The Austen Years” for the hell of it.
He makes a fair point. It would be silly to overemphasize the title to an unpublished essay. Then again, you could make the same argument for any other aspect of the essay! Such essays are, in the end, partly training exercises for writing similar essays in the future, partly assessment exercises, partly heuristics for promoting thought, and partly ways to nurture writing skills portable to other academic disciplines and professional fields (perhaps). I too think the two-part format can be rather stupid, and in fact I have made fun of it repeatedly to my fellow grad students. But it is a standard format in the humanities disciplines, a "unicorn" if you will. And it is somewhat useful, insofar as the second part tells the reader what the essay is about and the first part allows you to exercise some creativity. To make a long story short, the first part is indeed superfluous, but the second part isn't. All we're really trying to do is get students to write the mini-thesis in the title, and if they want to get a bit creative, that moves to the first part.
Two items of note
I'm sure Aristotle would disapprove of these riots in Greece, but the case for us is probably more complicated.
Jane Austen definitely would not approve of contemporary romantic comedies.
Jane Austen definitely would not approve of contemporary romantic comedies.
Participation grades ("lecture")
Participation is sometimes known to teachers as "the wiggle grade" or to students as "the bullshit grade." I try to make things a bit more transparent.
Per the syllabus I handed out on the first day of class, the "lecture" participation grade is determined by homework (completion only) and by vocal involvement in class discussions, with the "most helpful student" poll serving as a bonus. The quizzes wound up being ungraded, so I left those out.
So that's basically 5% for homework and 5% for speaking in class.
I divided the 19 of you into frequent speakers/contributors ("A"), occasional speakers/contributors ("B") and reluctant speakers/contributors ("C"). Per the syllabus, more than two absences to discussion eroded these grades, by one letter grade per day absence, in fact. Wes & Shae were the only ones affected, but they were also first and second in the poll, respectively, so I canceled out their absences. Stephanie was also tied for second, but attended every class except the day she was Laura. For her I'll cancel out a missed homework. And also for Ivan, who took me up on my mixtape proposal. So in the end, the 5% speaking grade fit exactly into my original A/B/C categories. (There were 5 As, 10 Bs, and 4 Cs.)
There were 14 homework assignments by my count. I'm throwing out the last 3 group homeworks because I can't remember who was responsible for what... I'll just assume everyone did those. That leaves 11, and I'll give you a free pass on one of those. From there, I'm starting everyone with an "A" for homework and subtracting one letter grade for each missed assignment of the remaining 10. That makes 12 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs, and 2 Ds. Well, then I have to change Ivan from a B to an A, don't I? And that leaves us with Stephanie again. Hmmm, where does the extra credit go? I guess I'll code in an A+ for your participation... I think that raises it a tiny fraction.
The average grade for lecture participation, taking both talking and homework into account, is more or less a B.
Per the syllabus I handed out on the first day of class, the "lecture" participation grade is determined by homework (completion only) and by vocal involvement in class discussions, with the "most helpful student" poll serving as a bonus. The quizzes wound up being ungraded, so I left those out.
So that's basically 5% for homework and 5% for speaking in class.
I divided the 19 of you into frequent speakers/contributors ("A"), occasional speakers/contributors ("B") and reluctant speakers/contributors ("C"). Per the syllabus, more than two absences to discussion eroded these grades, by one letter grade per day absence, in fact. Wes & Shae were the only ones affected, but they were also first and second in the poll, respectively, so I canceled out their absences. Stephanie was also tied for second, but attended every class except the day she was Laura. For her I'll cancel out a missed homework. And also for Ivan, who took me up on my mixtape proposal. So in the end, the 5% speaking grade fit exactly into my original A/B/C categories. (There were 5 As, 10 Bs, and 4 Cs.)
There were 14 homework assignments by my count. I'm throwing out the last 3 group homeworks because I can't remember who was responsible for what... I'll just assume everyone did those. That leaves 11, and I'll give you a free pass on one of those. From there, I'm starting everyone with an "A" for homework and subtracting one letter grade for each missed assignment of the remaining 10. That makes 12 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs, and 2 Ds. Well, then I have to change Ivan from a B to an A, don't I? And that leaves us with Stephanie again. Hmmm, where does the extra credit go? I guess I'll code in an A+ for your participation... I think that raises it a tiny fraction.
The average grade for lecture participation, taking both talking and homework into account, is more or less a B.
Final Exam (grades)
Like the midterm, I was really picky the first time I swept through the bluebooks because it helped me differentiate the scores for each answer more clearly. But when I ran all the averages, it became obvious to me, much like the last time, that though I had ranked everyone's exam in the correct order, I had set the median for the actual scores too low. [Note: this is not the same as "curving," in which one would begin with a set goal for the median... this is just me saving myself the time of going back into each individual question and adjusting the score slightly upwards... I'm recentering the scores to reflect my impression that the overall performance of the class was higher than the initial score I calculated]
So I'm adding a 3% correction again. Because those exams were really f***ing good! You have done the trailer proud.
So I'm adding a 3% correction again. Because those exams were really f***ing good! You have done the trailer proud.
Final Exam (essay)
In case it wasn't clear, Budweiser, Skoal, and Nascar are the favorite vices of "Bubba," the fictional trailerpark philosopher. Bubba deserves credit for coming up with three essay questions of roughly equal popularity on a final exam... he's never succeeded in doing that before. On the other hand, Bubba was surprised to find that these essays resembled the short answer questions... quite a bit more what than how or why. The better thinking for most of you actually happened in the passage analysis. He blames himself for that, or maybe everyone just ran out of time.
BUDWEISER (6 answers)
-I was really surprised that Plato only appeared once. Everybody really knows their Aristotle! Some made Descartes too much of an idealist. He is a dualist; he doesn't believe that the material world exists because the mind invented it, or some such, or that all there is in the world is thought... remember the sixth meditation, in which he shows how we could know, with some reliability, a material world. A couple of you saw Descartes as a step "backwards" from Aristotlean hylomorphism, which is interesting. But to D's credit, he is trying to absorb a much more sophisticated version of materialism than A had to, and he's being honest that it's difficult to do so. It isn't until you get to Kant and Hegel that you get an ontology that is once again capable of explaining the interrelationship between minds and bodies... but it could be just as easily said that the problem of Cartesian dualism has never been adequately solved. I'm glad nobody chose Austen and Aristotle, because they would have been too similar. I'm a bit skeptical of the argument a couple of you made that Morrison is an idealist because she disagrees with racism, which is a distinction between material attributes. I think the point may be that beneath the surface of every idealism, there is a material basis, such that the idealism itself is a kind of sham. But it's certainly debatable.
SKOAL (6 answers)
Again, everybody knows their Aristotle, although I must remind you once again that virtue is intrinsic and developed rather than something you acquire in a "point" system. You guys also do well with Plato, but not as well with relating his ideas to those of the other writers. I was surprised to find only one mention of Descartes... I had thought he would serve as a whipping post here for failing to construct an ethical system, but the rest of you chose to go another way. I was impressed by the way that many of you challenged my lazy Austen=Aristotlean idea by pointing out her emphasis on women and on a new form of empiricism. Well done, though like the short answers there was a creeping Romanticization of Austen... I assure you she does not want her heroines to "follow their hearts." As with the purple question, there were a number of good theories about Morrison's ethical position. This question also seemed to promote a better analysis of philosophy vs. novels than the Budweiser question, perhaps because of the obvious way that novels use characterization to promote or subvert ethical norms.
NASCAR (7 answers)
-This question had the most divergent set of answers. They were good... I was happy to see that you went in your own directions rather than simply parroting the discussion we had on the lawn on the last day. Though it was a bit frustrating to me that you largely dodged the most obvious point, which was the relationship between why and how (in simplest terms, why does Plato write a symposium? why does Aristotle write Platonic-style dialogues? why does Descartes write meditations? why do Austen and Morrison write novels?) Careful with dates by the way... one person said there were no revolutionaries in 17th-century England. Tell it to this guy, who was beheaded by 17th-century English revolutionaries! And careful with logic... remember the syllogism exercise I gave you way back when? If Plato believes that "anything we see is not true," it does not follow that he believes that "anything we do not see is true." He can't see a purple space monster, but I'm guessing he doesn't consider this to be one of the true concepts/ideas that undergird reality. Another Plato quibble... Plato didn't "invent" dualism. He invented philosophical dualism. Dualism is the basis of nearly all religious systems, some of which predate Plato. An unseen world of goodness/truth/power/beauty, etc. etc. Likewise, Aristotle did not invent teleology... it was the entire basis of Greek society. He just gave it philosophical expression.
BUDWEISER (6 answers)
-I was really surprised that Plato only appeared once. Everybody really knows their Aristotle! Some made Descartes too much of an idealist. He is a dualist; he doesn't believe that the material world exists because the mind invented it, or some such, or that all there is in the world is thought... remember the sixth meditation, in which he shows how we could know, with some reliability, a material world. A couple of you saw Descartes as a step "backwards" from Aristotlean hylomorphism, which is interesting. But to D's credit, he is trying to absorb a much more sophisticated version of materialism than A had to, and he's being honest that it's difficult to do so. It isn't until you get to Kant and Hegel that you get an ontology that is once again capable of explaining the interrelationship between minds and bodies... but it could be just as easily said that the problem of Cartesian dualism has never been adequately solved. I'm glad nobody chose Austen and Aristotle, because they would have been too similar. I'm a bit skeptical of the argument a couple of you made that Morrison is an idealist because she disagrees with racism, which is a distinction between material attributes. I think the point may be that beneath the surface of every idealism, there is a material basis, such that the idealism itself is a kind of sham. But it's certainly debatable.
SKOAL (6 answers)
Again, everybody knows their Aristotle, although I must remind you once again that virtue is intrinsic and developed rather than something you acquire in a "point" system. You guys also do well with Plato, but not as well with relating his ideas to those of the other writers. I was surprised to find only one mention of Descartes... I had thought he would serve as a whipping post here for failing to construct an ethical system, but the rest of you chose to go another way. I was impressed by the way that many of you challenged my lazy Austen=Aristotlean idea by pointing out her emphasis on women and on a new form of empiricism. Well done, though like the short answers there was a creeping Romanticization of Austen... I assure you she does not want her heroines to "follow their hearts." As with the purple question, there were a number of good theories about Morrison's ethical position. This question also seemed to promote a better analysis of philosophy vs. novels than the Budweiser question, perhaps because of the obvious way that novels use characterization to promote or subvert ethical norms.
NASCAR (7 answers)
-This question had the most divergent set of answers. They were good... I was happy to see that you went in your own directions rather than simply parroting the discussion we had on the lawn on the last day. Though it was a bit frustrating to me that you largely dodged the most obvious point, which was the relationship between why and how (in simplest terms, why does Plato write a symposium? why does Aristotle write Platonic-style dialogues? why does Descartes write meditations? why do Austen and Morrison write novels?) Careful with dates by the way... one person said there were no revolutionaries in 17th-century England. Tell it to this guy, who was beheaded by 17th-century English revolutionaries! And careful with logic... remember the syllogism exercise I gave you way back when? If Plato believes that "anything we see is not true," it does not follow that he believes that "anything we do not see is true." He can't see a purple space monster, but I'm guessing he doesn't consider this to be one of the true concepts/ideas that undergird reality. Another Plato quibble... Plato didn't "invent" dualism. He invented philosophical dualism. Dualism is the basis of nearly all religious systems, some of which predate Plato. An unseen world of goodness/truth/power/beauty, etc. etc. Likewise, Aristotle did not invent teleology... it was the entire basis of Greek society. He just gave it philosophical expression.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Final Exam (passage analysis)
SOAP (5 answers)
-----
I was surprised by the extent to which people looked at this question from Soaphead's perspective, but that was definitely one way to go. Morrison does ask us to try to see things through the eyes of her characters, even the distasteful ones. One of the interesting things that emerged from this question was that some saw Soaphead as a target of satire, while others saw him as a satirist himself. As with the other Morrison questions, a couple of you missed the point pretty widely by identifying M's ideology with that of cleanness or "innocence" in the conventional sense. But mostly, lower scores reflected a lack of focus on the "how" details of the passage, probably a result of time management issues more than anything.
Some of the details you guys paid special attention to: "like buying shoes," "white laughter," "like a streak out of blue heaven."
CAT (5 answers)
-----
The cat is black, but it also has blue eyes! That was a puzzler a few of you worked on. Most had something to say about the relative class status of Junior and Pecola's families, or about this being one of P's many experiences of abuse or trauma.
CANDY (9 answers)
-----
This one yielded the best answers, for whatever reason. All of you picked up on the linkage between the Mary Jane's logo and the "bluest eye" ideology, but the really interesting bits were how you analyzed the notion of consuming the candy/image, and how you analyzed the role of the grocer. Some noted the dandelion as P's projection of her experience of inferiority. Others noted how the scene began with a convention asymmetry between children and adults, or a conventional scene of desire, the kid at the candy store, and went in a darker or more complex direction. Others pointed out that this is one of only two times in the novel when Pecola is described as angry.
Side note: I disagree with the idea that comparing the candy-eating to an orgasm represents the "perversion" of innocence or some such. We have to look at this from Morrison's perspective, wherein it probably represents: 1) extreme pleasure, 2) double-consciousness, the externalization of pleasure outside the self. The pleasure, in other words, is really Mary Jane's, whereas Pecola's pleasure is only vicarious. I think that's the perversion here. Also, surely there was some other way to talk about the many levels of social hierarchy in 1940s Ohio than by simply calling the grocer a "gross immigrant." I don't think Morrison would much approve of that tactic... I agree that the description of him is grotesque, but remember, this is free indirect discourse from Pecola's perspective, so be careful of writing your own answers in free indirect discourse! Yakobowski is a sort of villain here, but I don't see what good it does to redirect the racism towards him.
-----
I was surprised by the extent to which people looked at this question from Soaphead's perspective, but that was definitely one way to go. Morrison does ask us to try to see things through the eyes of her characters, even the distasteful ones. One of the interesting things that emerged from this question was that some saw Soaphead as a target of satire, while others saw him as a satirist himself. As with the other Morrison questions, a couple of you missed the point pretty widely by identifying M's ideology with that of cleanness or "innocence" in the conventional sense. But mostly, lower scores reflected a lack of focus on the "how" details of the passage, probably a result of time management issues more than anything.
Some of the details you guys paid special attention to: "like buying shoes," "white laughter," "like a streak out of blue heaven."
CAT (5 answers)
-----
The cat is black, but it also has blue eyes! That was a puzzler a few of you worked on. Most had something to say about the relative class status of Junior and Pecola's families, or about this being one of P's many experiences of abuse or trauma.
CANDY (9 answers)
-----
This one yielded the best answers, for whatever reason. All of you picked up on the linkage between the Mary Jane's logo and the "bluest eye" ideology, but the really interesting bits were how you analyzed the notion of consuming the candy/image, and how you analyzed the role of the grocer. Some noted the dandelion as P's projection of her experience of inferiority. Others noted how the scene began with a convention asymmetry between children and adults, or a conventional scene of desire, the kid at the candy store, and went in a darker or more complex direction. Others pointed out that this is one of only two times in the novel when Pecola is described as angry.
Side note: I disagree with the idea that comparing the candy-eating to an orgasm represents the "perversion" of innocence or some such. We have to look at this from Morrison's perspective, wherein it probably represents: 1) extreme pleasure, 2) double-consciousness, the externalization of pleasure outside the self. The pleasure, in other words, is really Mary Jane's, whereas Pecola's pleasure is only vicarious. I think that's the perversion here. Also, surely there was some other way to talk about the many levels of social hierarchy in 1940s Ohio than by simply calling the grocer a "gross immigrant." I don't think Morrison would much approve of that tactic... I agree that the description of him is grotesque, but remember, this is free indirect discourse from Pecola's perspective, so be careful of writing your own answers in free indirect discourse! Yakobowski is a sort of villain here, but I don't see what good it does to redirect the racism towards him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
