I hope that everyone has a happy, healthy and safe holiday break. I must acknowledge and appreciate all of the students who brought gifts and holiday cheer for me and my family. Thank you so much.
AP Lang– Remember to revise and edit your synthesis essays before you get to the end of break. They are due on Friday, 1/3/14.
Honors 10– Remember to work on your poem or monologue. While it is not a lengthy assignment, you shouldn’t leave it until the last minute. All of the supporting documents are now linked on the course specific page. Due Thursday, 1/2/14.
The video below will make you laugh. (Added bonus: The subject matter indirectly makes a heck of a case for rhetorical analysis.)
Andy Borowitz’s Real Fake News
Good folk of the Honors English 10 variety…I’ve posted all sorts of useful goodies on the course specific page: i.e. your individual assignments, a scholarly article on the topic.
Young scholars of 9th period:
I now have all of your presentations. Finally. Good show.
presentations received matrix 9th period
A former student of mine is doing a gender identity survey for AP Psych. If you would, please take a moment to click on the link below and fill out the quick, anonymous survey. Thanks.
Gender Identity Survey
Snow has stolen some class. So, suffer me some consideration, re: Columnist Response #3. Feast on some fecund feedback.
1) “Talks about how”- Why? Too colloquial and imprecise. Too often “how” can (and should) be replaced with “that.” It’s not a matter of degree. If you are identifying an argument, you must be precise. Vagaries deduct from analytical value. i.e. “Parker argues how Obamacare is wrong” Should read: “Parker argues that Obamacare is misguided…”
2) “She goes on to say”- Why? Concision. While not technically wrong, this particular phrase gives me the howling fantods.
3) “This” or “That” or “These” at beginning of a sentence– Why? It is too easy to leave demonstrative pronouns without clear referents. This can create needless vagaries (see?). Vagaries deduct from analytical value. Q.E.D. If you do this, take special care that the referent is conspicuously self-evident. Why not just add a further clarification? i.e. “Will’s piece begins with Republican Rep. Steve Scalise’s analogy of Obama’s ‘singular–actually, his single achievement,’ which associates Obama’s efforts on healthcare issues with a person who shows up to a fire only to criticize the flammability of the house. This illustrates Will’s oversimplification…” Second sentence should read: “This seemingly related but imprecise comparison oversimplifies…”
4) “This proves”- Why? Everything I said in my third point, plus you are making a strong claim regarding causality. Any time you make a causal claim (using proves or because) in analytical writing you need to take special care. Often you won’t have enough evidence to make a rigorous, logically valid claim. I’m not saying you should never make causal claims (ears up, I just used a double-negative) but you should hesitate and check to see if you need to use a qualifier. Skeptical? Check with David Hume.