posted
Hi, I'm Homonculus. I'm a 17yr old boy living in the States. I'm not American and I go to college in Maryland. I'm in a predicament and a friend of mine suggested I post here. Here it is:
I recently had an assignment for an ENGL101 class which was to write a definition paper. This paper entitled us making up our definition of a word of our choice. It was to be a purely subjective paper, except we weren't allowed to make any "action arguments" (such as "we must" or "we should").
Anyway, my word of choice was Honor and I proceded to write the paper without really mentioning any political situations. I did however use the Abu Ghraib incident to exemplify my definition of dishonorable actions. Now, I have to mention that this paper is supposed to be purely subjective.
The professor is supposed to be purely objective in grading this paper. His job is to make structural remarks and sentence structure comments. Which is fine, he had all of the above there. The professor however, gave me a D for a paper this paper which I poured my heart and soul into. I tried to find out why I got such a mark, so I looked through all the comments.
There was one that caught my eye. It came after the paragraph where I mentioned Abu Ghraib, "Perhaps suicide bombing also begs for a critique"
Now, is it just me or is this outside the line of an "objective" comment. Please give any advice you can spare, I'm really worried about this, since this grade has completely toppled my momentum.
The paper can be revised and regraded, but can only get a maximum grade of a C.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say you looked through "all" the comments. Were the others more related to technical/writing issues?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm an English major, so I've been there before. Your prof's job is not just to check sentence structure, etc. It sounds like he didn't think you included enough evidence when you mentioned the Abu incident, and this is an extremely important part of writing a good paper. I'm not saying your paper deserved a "D" but that's my take on it.
I was a TA for a freshmen english class a few semesters ago, and often ran into situations like this. Sometimes I had to mark up papers that had good ideas but not enough evidence or explanation of those good ideas. Why not schedule a talk with the prof. to find out in detail what his problem was with the paper?
posted
It's difficult to tell what tone the professor would have made that remark in if he had said it out loud. Is he just pointing out something else you might have addressed? However, I don't see why a discussion of Abu Ghraib as a dishonorable action requires you to point out that suicide bombing is itself dishonorable since the two are only tangentially related when it comes to honor. As long as you weren't trying to say that the U.S. is the most dishonorable country, I don't see why not mentioning suicide bombing is a problem.
Do you think this is why your professor gave you a D? Did he make any other comments on the structure of your argument? Did you have grammar or spelling mistakes?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer dkw, yes, all the other comments were just on technical issues. Like a topic sentence here and some wording there.
I'll post the paragraph in question:
quote:The concept of honor, although ancient, has had many different definitions throughout the centuries. In ancient Japan, warriors and civilians alike would sacrifice their lives in a matter of moments, in order to uphold their honor. For example, a Samurai could not bear the shame of being defeated in battle, so he would commit a form of suicide known as “Seppuku” in order to die with his honor intact and untainted. This could be a very recurring effect, and many men died solely because of this ideal. Now, realizing that this is a bit extreme, I will point out the exact opposite of being honorable. In the Iraqi prison of Abu Ghraib, prisoners were humiliated beyond repair, and prisoner treatment by consent of the commander was nothing short of revolting. How can a human being treat his or her fellow human with such disrespect and cruelty and not have a sense of moral guilt?
This is the original paragraph I handed in originally.
The comment seemed as if he felt insulted, which was in no way my intention.
posted
I started college having gotten an “A” or A+ on every paper I’d ever written in high school. On my first college paper I got a D+. I was shocked. I was sure it was because the teacher didn’t like my views on the topic. I was wrong. My writing improved drastically in that class, and when I finally got an “A” on a paper I knew I’d earned it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. There's nothing obviously objectionable in that paragraph, but I must confess that I'm having trouble following your logic. Perhaps its removal from context has made it more difficult to understand.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole paper is based on a definition of Honor as it being the ethical line between morality and duty. My targetted audience is a bunch of drafted graduate students in an officer's academy.
My argument in this paragraph is to point out recent events which involved individuals who acted dishonorably. I do this in order to persuade my audience to not repeat history.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your professors tone may have been caustic but, if so, it may be due simply to the fact that your own tone and diction shifted dramatically at that point in your writing. In other words, it was perhaps overly evident that this was a very personal issue to you and he may have been trying to provoke you into viewing the "opposite" perspective. I know if I were your prof I would have perhaps made such a comment just because you sounded so heated in your writing. Though admittedly with a good deal more tact.
I agree that you should speak with your teacher, though, only they will know what the intention of the comment was.
Edit to add that while your own post just cleared some of that up, it's still uncertain whether or not it was appropriate in the context of the rest of your paper? Perhaps you could post it in its entirety?
quote:My audience is made up of a group of both men and women that have been drafted into an officer’s training academy for the Army. The group has an age that ranges from 20 to 25 years old. This group is also educated, most of them with a college diploma. Since they are joining the Army, these people have at least a small idea of the concept of honor. However, because honor is a very abstract term, it requires a thorough analysis and definition. Since my audience is mostly made up of recruits, they might be receptive to the definition of honor. However, seeing that they have all just been drafted, they might consider the paper to be more of a lecture than a clear cut definition. In this aspect, I am challenged by the audience to deliver a definition that is of interest to each of their personal beliefs and not something that is brought forth to pacify them.
When facing a world that seems to have lost its way, we rely on the hope that something might bring us to the light. We are, as humans, capable of unspeakable acts against our fellow beings, and yet we are competent enough to achieve great things that further promote the beauty of life. In today’s day and age, it is sometimes difficult to grasp that a single word could solve many of the problems plaguing humanity. This word is “honor”. There can be no doubt that we have forgotten this word’s true meaning and its importance in guiding our decisions. We now use it as a mere label, rather than a code upon which we should base our lives. Our honor should stand as an ethical boundary between our senses of morality and duty, which may often be in conflict. Only by truly incorporating the real meaning of honor can one truly comprehend its huge significance. Its meaning has widely diverged through the centuries, and, today, it is absolutely vital that we fully comprehend its meaning in order to, not only live out peaceful, fulfilling lives, but to save our souls. Honor is a product of many factors. In order to further understand this term, one must dwell deeply on its meaning and its components. Every human being has a set of ethical rules, which we each abide by. These can be influenced by many factors, such as religion, culture, and upbringing. These rules depend on our individual concepts of right and wrong. Once we have determined our own principle thought for what right conduct is, we must tread further into our own psyche. In order to establish what proper conduct is, we should examine the morals we believe in and single out those which we truly feel strongly about. Honor is an ideal that has morality burning within its core. We must embrace our moral standards and beliefs and set upon them a general code for understanding and subsequently apply them to our actions. Without the firm knowledge of ethical behavior, we have no way of developing a sense of honor. Such an abstract concept is for each of us to grasp, and the fact that its incorporation into our culture is non-existent has seriously harmed our society. There is one concept one must understand before delving deeper into the meaning of honor. Honor is a principle that goes hand-in-hand with the way we interact with others. For instance, imagine a person living in complete isolation. This person lives by himself and provides solely for himself. He has no interaction whatsoever with other human beings, so it is safe to assume that this man has no ideal of honor. Since this person has no need for such an ideal, he does not practice it. It is only by the interaction with society that we can earn an understanding of honor and, therefore, follow its principle. The concept of honor, although ancient, has had many different definitions throughout the centuries. In ancient Japan, warriors and civilians alike would sacrifice their lives in a matter of moments, in order to uphold their honor. For example, a Samurai could not bear the shame of being defeated in battle, so he would commit a form of suicide known as “Seppuku” in order to die with his honor intact and untainted. This could be a very recurring effect, and many men died solely because of this ideal. Now, realizing that this is a bit extreme, I will point out the exact opposite of being honorable. In the Iraqi prison of Abu Ghraib, prisoners were humiliated beyond repair, and prisoner treatment by consent of the commander was nothing short of revolting. How can a human being treat his or her fellow human with such disrespect and cruelty and not have a sense of moral guilt? In order to be a person of honor, one must realize the value and significance of its purpose. One cannot simply have honor. It is something one must believe in and base all actions upon. One must have integrity in all things in life, whether they are small, everyday decisions or the substantial interaction we have with our fellow humans. Everyday interaction ranges from friendly small talk to life altering decisions. We should treat every situation and interaction as a test on our integrity and ethical responsibility. If we all made our decisions with a silent obligation to adhere to our own morality, humanity would not be on its path to self-destruction. If our advancement in the business world did not depend on consciously deceiving and misguiding our opposition, even our fellow workers, we would be a step ahead. If our character-building decisions were built around an axis of honor, we would be a step ahead. If the way we treated and thought of our fellow brethren were filled with respect and reverence, we would be a step ahead. If we found it within ourselves to base our lives upon a principle that is likely to become our salvation, we would, undeniably, be a step ahead. This means that we must enter a state of mind, where elemental and primal factors are built upon the foundation of honor. Our treatment of fellow human beings must be a reflection of those morals and ethical values in which we have come to so strongly believe in. Only by doing so can we truly begin to understand the exact significance of honor. We must advocate the equal treatment of fellow humans and prosecute the malignant dogma which allows some of us to treat others with ideas of hatred and indifference. We are obliged to stand as a prime example of the great potential humanity has to offer. We must immediately cease actions which stand against our moral fibers and stand up for what is right and not what is deemed to be right. In a world that is based solely on choices, we must find a borderline that clearly marks the breach of our ethical code. Honor is this borderline; it is what balances principles, such as morality and duty. One must be able to decipher what it means to do the right thing, and if the circumstance allows it, question the balance of factors at hand and rely on one’s sense of honor to decide upon the appropriate action. The code of honor is not something that can be easily explained, and it cannot be imposed upon others. If this were possible, we would always be receiving another’s set of beliefs, instead of realizing by ourselves, what our morals and ethics are. The code is a product of free will, and only by practicing it can we be truly human. We have to look deep within our souls and analyze what constitutes our own morality and our own ethical credibility. It is within the shelter of this code of honor, which is unaffected by the opinions and ideals of others, that we will finally find our salvation. It is time for us to accept our faults and tribulations and come to terms with what is important, and at this moment, I see nothing more important than the preservation of our own souls, as well as our humanity.
posted
Hmm... It seems to me that your professor's comment was made either 1. to get you to expand into the present day from the reference to Seppuku or 2. as I said earlier, that it was a prompt to get you to mention the actions of the "other side" in Iraq/the Middle East simply because it was clearly an issue of importance to you, as well as something that would have been important to your audience. Hope that helps some. Either way, the comment doesn't seem to be malicious or sarcastic and is probably the only content-oriented note because that is the only paragraph where you site specific instances of honourable or dishonourable actions and, thus, stands out in your paper quite a bit.
Edit to say that the only cause for a caustic remark from your professor that I can see are your repeted references to souls and salvation which lend a rather fervently religious tone to parts of the essay and are made with a force only seen otherwise in your comments about Iraq. I suppose the connection of the two ideas seems rather unnecessary to the paper, if that was your profs intention.
But I see your point. I have written a revised version, where I greatly reduced the whole mystic aspect of the paper and added points to make sure that the Abu Ghraib paragraph wasn't taken the wrong way. I revised all the notes he said, but I was sure not touch the examples, due to the fact that it has nothing to do with MY definition of the term.
posted
I have not read your essay, but this comment stuck out to me:
quote:The professor however, gave me a D for a paper this paper which I poured my heart and soul into.
Pouring your heart and soul into a paper is not necessarily a reason to get a good grade. As I have explained to my students many times, in college, you don't get an A for effort.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be the professor was drawing a parallel between the suicide of Japanese warriors "seppuku" and the suicide of...well...suicide bombers.
It could also be a barbed comment regarding the perceived one-sided criticism of your paper.
However, put the suspect comment in context with all the other evaluations. Did the professor make a lot of comments on your paper? Was this the only one?
If you feel the grading was unfair, you could approach other professors for an impartial opinion before deciding whether or not to move up the food chain.
quote: It was to be a purely subjective paper, except we weren't allowed to make any "action arguments" (such as "we must" or "we should").
From your paper:
quote: In order to further understand this term, one must dwell deeply on its meaning and its components.
and
quote: We must embrace our moral standards and beliefs and set upon them a general code for understanding and subsequently apply them to our actions.
and
quote:There is one concept one must understand before delving deeper into the meaning of honor.
and
quote: In order to be a person of honor, one must realize the value and significance of its purpose.
and
quote: We should treat every situation and interaction as a test on our integrity and ethical responsibility.
As for the comment on suicide bombers...my guess is that the professor wanted you to look at both sides of the issue (in particular since you could compare them to the ritual suicide.
As for the grade, you said that you were told not use use phrases like "we must" or "we should" yet you use those phrases all through the paper. I pulled out several examples, but they are far from the only ones.
Other problems, the paper seems choppy to me. The line about torture was one example. You go from talking about honor, and then suddenly jerk to the other spectrum talking about torture. It didn't seem to fit there, it just seemed like you wanted an excuse to make a value judgment on the torture ...so you stuck it in. I'm not saying that you were wrong in saying that the torture was a bad thing, I just didn't think it fit where you put it. You also repeat phrases over an over (like "one must")
Also, English teachers generally don't like clichéd phrases like "goes hand in hand."
Also, you say in your intro that your paper said that it would be directed towards those in the military. It is not written in a way that would get through to that audience. Your tone would likely just anger the audience that you were writing to.
Writing college level papers is a lot different from writing in high school. It takes a lot to figure out exactly what the teachers want. Rather than being concerned about your political message...pay attention to the technical issues that your teacher raises. And if your teacher tells you not to use certain phrases...make sure you don't use them. Also avoid passive voice, it really seems to tick off English teachers for some reason.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
One bit of unsolicited advice for you would be to do a global sub of the word "humor" for "honor" in your essay and see if you can carry the same message. That would be a feat and a half.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed what Lupus said also, you did use action statements like "we must" and "we should", against instructions.
Part of this could be due to your choice of topic, defining honor is not easy, especially if you are supposed to avoid the above phrases.
I took his comment to mean you could critique modern-day suicide bombers, in contrast to the Abu Ghraib scandal. Take him up on that in the rewrite.
You could segue from seppuku to kamikazes to suicide bombers to Abu Ghraib. Note that at least some suicide bombers percieve their actions as honorable.
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What he likely meant for you to talk about was the difference between the Japanese ritual sacrifice and the act of suicide bombing. By comparing Seppuku with Abu Ghraib you are effectively comparing apples with oranges. The two examples have absolutely nothing in common with one another. However, ritual sacrifice and suicide bombings DO have a great deal in common with one another. Both involve the sacrifice of a person's life for some ideal or cause. However, one is viewed was viewed as honorable (and still so by many today), while the other is viewed as quite dishonorable by a large majority of the world. However, I don't think this one point is what caused you to recieve a D grade for the paper. It's seems to me to be unnecessarily didactic. In specific, you make mention of Seppuku, but you don't explore WHY it is seen as honorable. This is contrasted heavily with an almost in depth exploration of what makes Abu Ghraib dishonorable. But anyway, here's what I've learned about English papers in the time I've been an English Major. The grades you receive on your paper will follow the following formula... A: Meets all assignment criteria, has no technical or gramatical issues, and most importantly, includes highly original ideas and evidence of exceptionally deep thought. B: Meets the assignment's criteria, has a few technical or gramatical issues, shows good ideas and some thought/research. C: Meets the assignment, but has a number of structural issues as well as grammar problems. Ideas are fairly basic with little proof or support or the research wasn't particularly good. D: Doesn't completely meet criteria of the assignment. May come close to those criteria, but falls short in some way. There are a number of technical/grammar errors. Ideas are not supported with facts or research. F: You didn't even read the assignment did you? Learn to read before you try to write.
If the assignment was to specifically avoid the "we must" / "we should" wording, you did not meet the requirements for you assignment and as such, your teacher gave you a D grade. Please realize, teachers do not give bad grades because of a single problem with a paper. They give bad grades because of a multitude of problems.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thank you all for the advice and I'm taking every point into consideration. I have to say, that when I wrote the paper, I didn't realise the usage of musts and shoulds. It was after the paper had been graded that the prof pointed out such statements. The whole issue on shoulds and musts hadn't been made 100% clear. It wasn't in the written assignment requirements, it was mentioned orally in class.
As far as the suicide bombing related to Seppuku, there is one reason why I didn't mention it in the paper. My definition of Honor was explained through the various examples and examples used in the paper. I didn't feel that suicide bombing had much to do with the point I was making. If I wanted to mention Suicide Bombing in the Middle East, I would've used Kamikaze bombers instead of Samurai. I mentioned Abu Ghraib, not only because its a recent event, but because I wanted it to be a sort of wake up call so that hisory is not repeated.
I will post at a later stage the IAW (the course's book) on what a D paper is. Oh, I must also say that I was in no way expecting an A. I was never aiming so high for a first assignement and what I meant about pouring my heart and soul into is that it wasn't just the effort. It was the time and study of the IAW that I did before going into the paper.
Please keep the comments coming.
Edit - I must also mention that in the revised version I completely took out all musts and shoulds.
posted
This post will have criticism. It is meant to be helpful, NOT snarky. It is just my own opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
Boris pointed out good criteria to justify grades with. Since you got a "D," lets examine what a D paper is again.
quote: D: Doesn't completely meet criteria of the assignment. May come close to those criteria, but falls short in some way. There are a number of technical/grammar errors. Ideas are not supported with facts or research.
You said
quote:This paper entitled us making up our definition of a word of our choice. It was to be a purely subjective paper, except we weren't allowed to make any "action arguments" (such as "we must" or "we should").
Anyway, my word of choice was Honor and I proceded to write the paper without really mentioning any political situations.
First off, I agree with Lupus. You had plenty of action arguments. The end of your paper is...
quote: It is time for us to accept our faults and tribulations and come to terms with what is important, and at this moment, I see nothing more important than the preservation of our...humanity.
That is very action oriented and does not "meet the criteria" of the assignment."
Let's look further.....
quote: I am challenged by the audience to deliver a definition that is of interest to each of their personal beliefs and not something that is brought forth to pacify them.
I have read and reread your article, and I think you have failed in your thesis. I find NO definition of honor. None. I find components of honor; in fact, I can find two components of honor. It is based on individual ethical rules and is an interaction with people.
quote: Without the firm knowledge of ethical behavior, we have no way of developing a sense of honor.
Honor is an ideal that has morality burning within its core.
Honor is a principle that goes hand-in-hand with the way we interact with others.
Those components of honor are all fine and well, but is that the extent of your definition? If so, you never succinctly summarize the definition of honor. I had to hunt through a bunch of emotional/religious judgmental sentiment to guess what you mean by honor. The paper is rife with judgments, and you provide no supportive arguments for your beliefs. The audience is just supposed to agree with you, and frankly, many will find fault with unsupported claims.
quote: When facing a world that seems to have lost its way, we rely on the hope that something might bring us to the light.
We now use it as a mere label, rather than a code upon which we should base our lives.
but to save our souls.
prisoner treatment by consent of the commander was nothing short of revolting. How can a human being treat his or her fellow human with such disrespect and cruelty and not have a sense of moral guilt?
If we all made our decisions with a silent obligation to adhere to our own morality, humanity would not be on its path to self-destruction.
Such an abstract concept is for each of us to grasp, and the fact that its incorporation into our culture is non-existent has seriously harmed our society.
Your paper reads almost as a persuasive essay on why we need to change, without any real supportive arguments.
I would disagree with most of your laments, like honor just being a label. I would also STRONGLY argue against the idea that if everyone started using their own personal morality, it would somehow prevent self destructive behavior.
I am sure Osama is doing what he thinks is morally appropriate. Plenty of people are willing to justify the prison scandal. You are assuming that once people get in touch with what they strongly believe, their moral codes will harmonize into a universal standard. You do not address your own assumption.
Again, I am not trying to be rude. My comments may be half baked. Constructive criticism needs to be honest. I hope this helps. Lupus gave very good advice. I would re-read his/her post.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you probably have here and turned in was an exploratory draft. It is a very important and invaluable step of the writing process. It is not the last step, however. Keep writing until you run into your thesis. Your initial writing can serve as a tool for organizing and developing your thoughts. The paper you hand in does not have to reflect your writing process--as in, it doesn't have to all be in the same order as how you wrote it. Much of what you write probably shouldn't even end up in your final draft.
When I taught writing, I made the mistake of encouraging my students to come up with a thesis first--but there are many other ways!! Writing a bunch of "junk" first can really help your papers be fresh and original. Just don't turn in the junk.
Then, after you've come up with some good material, outline it out on paper or in your head, and write a new draft. Then revise... revise... revise. Then edit.
Well anyway... I kinda went on and on there...
On another note, I would often make notes about the content of the papers I was grading, but more often than not, the grade was based on grammar and mechanical aspects of the paper. It's amazing how few students grasp the concept of organizing their ideas. I think the real problem is that they're not taking adequate time to organizing their thoughts and turning in that first draft junk paper with a quick edit. *sigh* Revising is NOT the same as editing.
-Katarain
P.S. I'm at work, so really shouldn't even be posting, but my job bores me...so I didn't actually take time to really READ your paper, my comments are based on my former students and other comments ABOUT your paper. So it's not personal..and probably doesn't even apply to you, but it might.. So I'm just wasting my time.. Eh. whatever...
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right! Thanks guys, I really appreciate it. Thanks for all the constructive comments and look out for me in the future!
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hope to see more of you! That username is too good to be wasted on a one-time series of posts. Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
