Monday, July 18, 2011
Movie Censorship in the Wall Street Journal
Last Thursday's Wall Street Journal published an article by Bruce Bennett on pre-Code movies and their censorship in New York State. Click on the link next to the Journal above to read the online version of the article. I supplied some of the information used by Mr. Bennett and I am quoted in the article.
It's nice to know that all those hours logged in the archives pay off when non-academic readers learn about historical research!
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Ever wonder why I harp on the Consitution so much in class?
If you've ever wished I would just stop talking about the Constitution so often in class, here's my explanation for taking so much of your time on this subject:
"Fewer than half of American eighth graders knew the purpose of the Bill of Rights on the most recent national civics examination, and only one in 10 demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the checks and balances among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, according to test results released on Wednesday." [Source: NYTimes, 5 May 2011]
It is clear that there is decreasing attention paid to the Constitution in American elementary and secondary education. And, if we don't know how the government is supposed to work, how can we hold our government accountable when it fails to live up to its goals? How will we know if rights are being denied?
This is serious stuff.
And so I'll go on lecturing on the Constitution and making students actually read the darned thing.
"Fewer than half of American eighth graders knew the purpose of the Bill of Rights on the most recent national civics examination, and only one in 10 demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the checks and balances among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, according to test results released on Wednesday." [Source: NYTimes, 5 May 2011]
It is clear that there is decreasing attention paid to the Constitution in American elementary and secondary education. And, if we don't know how the government is supposed to work, how can we hold our government accountable when it fails to live up to its goals? How will we know if rights are being denied?
This is serious stuff.
And so I'll go on lecturing on the Constitution and making students actually read the darned thing.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
What is criminal justice?
By that provocative title I mean what constitutes justice for those charged with crimes? Recently, the US Supreme Court heard several cases about what constitutes minimum standards of representation for the indigent.
Another case has just come before the US Supreme Court asking that very question.
Richard Rosario seemed to have a pretty airight alibi when he was accused of murder in the Bronx in 1996. He claims to have been 1,000 miles away from the murder scene. But two eyewitnesses picked him out of a lineup. Rosario can show that he was in Florida for the entire month surrounding the murder. And dozens of people volunteered to vouch for Rosario's whereabouts in Florida but prosecutors did not follow up, relying instead on the eyewitnesses. Now, my criminal justice major students will know that eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable, and uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is the single leading cause of wrongful convictions. It is also, according to experts, the evidence best refuted by alibi.
That should have boded well for Rosario. Yet the prosecutors went ahead with his murder trial. His court-appointed lawyer asked for and got money to send an investigator to Florida to check out the alibi witnesses but never followed through. When a new court-appointed lawyer was assigned to Rosario's case, she mistakenly believed that the investigator-funds request had been denied. Rosario was convicted.
On appeal, the alibi witness information was alllowed but the judge refused to overturn the conviction, saying that Rosario's defense had been "skillful" and that the lack of alibi testimony at the murder trial was not material to his appeal because the lawyers' mistake had not been intentional.
What? you may be wondering. What difference does it make that the mistake was not intentional? It still resulted in Rosario having a less-than-rigorous defense. A federal district judge later agreed with the appeals judge that individual mistakes do not matter in judging whether a defendant was adequately represented, only the overall performance matter. But if that individual mistake could cost the defendant the trial, should that not be taken into consideration? Apparently not, according to a full federal court review that took place last year.
Now the case is before the Supreme Court. We'll have to wait to hear what the nine think about the adequacy of counsel for the poor.
Source: Adam Liptak, The New York Times, May 2, 2011.
Another case has just come before the US Supreme Court asking that very question.
Richard Rosario seemed to have a pretty airight alibi when he was accused of murder in the Bronx in 1996. He claims to have been 1,000 miles away from the murder scene. But two eyewitnesses picked him out of a lineup. Rosario can show that he was in Florida for the entire month surrounding the murder. And dozens of people volunteered to vouch for Rosario's whereabouts in Florida but prosecutors did not follow up, relying instead on the eyewitnesses. Now, my criminal justice major students will know that eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable, and uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is the single leading cause of wrongful convictions. It is also, according to experts, the evidence best refuted by alibi.
That should have boded well for Rosario. Yet the prosecutors went ahead with his murder trial. His court-appointed lawyer asked for and got money to send an investigator to Florida to check out the alibi witnesses but never followed through. When a new court-appointed lawyer was assigned to Rosario's case, she mistakenly believed that the investigator-funds request had been denied. Rosario was convicted.
On appeal, the alibi witness information was alllowed but the judge refused to overturn the conviction, saying that Rosario's defense had been "skillful" and that the lack of alibi testimony at the murder trial was not material to his appeal because the lawyers' mistake had not been intentional.
What? you may be wondering. What difference does it make that the mistake was not intentional? It still resulted in Rosario having a less-than-rigorous defense. A federal district judge later agreed with the appeals judge that individual mistakes do not matter in judging whether a defendant was adequately represented, only the overall performance matter. But if that individual mistake could cost the defendant the trial, should that not be taken into consideration? Apparently not, according to a full federal court review that took place last year.
Now the case is before the Supreme Court. We'll have to wait to hear what the nine think about the adequacy of counsel for the poor.
Source: Adam Liptak, The New York Times, May 2, 2011.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Who versus That
No, this is not the name of a new case I want my Law and Lawyers class to learn. But it is an item that's been on my mind lately as I've been grading papers. It seems that students today have never been taught the word who. When I hear or read something like
He was the student that talked all through the class,
I just shudder. "The student that"? It sounds so harsh.
Doesn't it sound much nicer to say,
He was the student who talked all through the class?
In formal and in spoken English, who has always been the word used when referring to people; that has been used when referring to all other things--animals, inanimate objects, etc.
I always correct my students on this but I feel it's a losing battle. But, really, people, do we want to become,
the people that lost control of our language?
Or would we rather be,
the people who proudly used proper, respectful English?
And one more thought: who is three letters; that is four letters--more to enter into a text message.....
He was the student that talked all through the class,
I just shudder. "The student that"? It sounds so harsh.
Doesn't it sound much nicer to say,
He was the student who talked all through the class?
In formal and in spoken English, who has always been the word used when referring to people; that has been used when referring to all other things--animals, inanimate objects, etc.
I always correct my students on this but I feel it's a losing battle. But, really, people, do we want to become,
the people that lost control of our language?
Or would we rather be,
the people who proudly used proper, respectful English?
And one more thought: who is three letters; that is four letters--more to enter into a text message.....
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Exam writing advice
This post is for all my students, present, past, and future. I am writing to offer advice today on how to write essay or short-answer or identification exams.
First, read the question carefully. Then read it again--carefully. Then read it a third time, underlining any important words such as "most" or "major." Then don't start writing.
But, I'm pressed for time, I hear you say. And, yes, of course, there are time constraints on exams. Some of us can work quickly, and some of us need more time to compose our thoughts. Knowing the clock is ticking can make many quite nervous. But, still I say don't start writing--unless it is to make a list.
If you take the time to think about exactly what the question is asking and then start to formulate an answer by pulling an idea from here and a component from there, you will wind up with a much better answer. So, don't start writing right away.
Essay and short answer questions are designed to make you think. They are not intended to be the kind of answer that you can memorize and then just write down. So, taking time to think about the answer--wracking your brain, if you will, is crucial.
There are two most important components to an essay or short answer. The first is that your answer pertains to what the question is asking and ONLY what the question is asking. The second is that your answer is complete. If you leave something critical out, you will not get full credit.
Once you've determined that your list is complete and pertains to only that subject the question is asking about, then you can start writing. And then the writing should go pretty smoothly and quickly.
This method sounds as if it will take too much time, but for most people it will probably take less time or the same amount of time. And it will result in a significantly better score.
So, be sure to take the time to think about all the possible components that would need to go into a complete answer, make lists of those things, then look at the list and cross out any that don't specifically pertain to that individual question.
Then you can start writing. If there is interest, I will write more about answering essay-type answers for history exams in the future. If you want more tips, just let me know by leaving a comment or mentioning this blogpost to me after class.
First, read the question carefully. Then read it again--carefully. Then read it a third time, underlining any important words such as "most" or "major." Then don't start writing.
But, I'm pressed for time, I hear you say. And, yes, of course, there are time constraints on exams. Some of us can work quickly, and some of us need more time to compose our thoughts. Knowing the clock is ticking can make many quite nervous. But, still I say don't start writing--unless it is to make a list.
If you take the time to think about exactly what the question is asking and then start to formulate an answer by pulling an idea from here and a component from there, you will wind up with a much better answer. So, don't start writing right away.
Essay and short answer questions are designed to make you think. They are not intended to be the kind of answer that you can memorize and then just write down. So, taking time to think about the answer--wracking your brain, if you will, is crucial.
There are two most important components to an essay or short answer. The first is that your answer pertains to what the question is asking and ONLY what the question is asking. The second is that your answer is complete. If you leave something critical out, you will not get full credit.
Once you've determined that your list is complete and pertains to only that subject the question is asking about, then you can start writing. And then the writing should go pretty smoothly and quickly.
This method sounds as if it will take too much time, but for most people it will probably take less time or the same amount of time. And it will result in a significantly better score.
So, be sure to take the time to think about all the possible components that would need to go into a complete answer, make lists of those things, then look at the list and cross out any that don't specifically pertain to that individual question.
Then you can start writing. If there is interest, I will write more about answering essay-type answers for history exams in the future. If you want more tips, just let me know by leaving a comment or mentioning this blogpost to me after class.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
For my pre-law students
This post is directed toward my pre-law students but it's an interesting read for anyone thinking about pursuing any type of career in law or social justice. The link below goes to an interview from the New York Times . The subject is a recent law school graduate who has wholeheartedly taken on an area of legal services need.
Law and Lawyers students: remember my insistence that there is no glut of lawyers today--there's actually a need for lawyers in public service law? This interview is an example of what I mean:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/nyregion/24entry.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y
Law and Lawyers students: remember my insistence that there is no glut of lawyers today--there's actually a need for lawyers in public service law? This interview is an example of what I mean:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/nyregion/24entry.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Whatever Happened to "the Bottom Line"? Now it's "the End of the Day"
A few years back, everyone was abuzz about the bottom line. We'd hear the pundits on talk radio and TV news programs talking like this:
"Well, Charlie, the bottom line is this: we're in deep trouble."
OR
"There's more to argue over, but the bottom line is that we can't keep spending so much."
OR,
"Let's get right to the bottom line and cut the xxxxx (you can fill this one in).
When was the last time you heard one of these pundit-types say this much overused phrase?
I'll bet it's been quite a while because now all the pundit-types are switching to a new favorite and hideously overused phrase. Now, it's "at the end of the day." I would bet money that political commentators and politicians (they can be some of the worst abusers of the English language) use "at the end of the day" at least twice every two minutes they speak.
Let's all resolve to be aware of and ferret from our vocabulary such bloviated, unnecessary, ridiculous cliches. Please.
"Well, Charlie, the bottom line is this: we're in deep trouble."
OR
"There's more to argue over, but the bottom line is that we can't keep spending so much."
OR,
"Let's get right to the bottom line and cut the xxxxx (you can fill this one in).
When was the last time you heard one of these pundit-types say this much overused phrase?
I'll bet it's been quite a while because now all the pundit-types are switching to a new favorite and hideously overused phrase. Now, it's "at the end of the day." I would bet money that political commentators and politicians (they can be some of the worst abusers of the English language) use "at the end of the day" at least twice every two minutes they speak.
Let's all resolve to be aware of and ferret from our vocabulary such bloviated, unnecessary, ridiculous cliches. Please.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
"There's things going on"
At the Grammy Awards the other night, the surprise winner for best new artist, Esperanza Spalding, was interviewed. Excitedly she told an NPR correspondent, "there's things going on in jazz right now that..."
So what is it with the (relatively recent) move toward people using a singular verb followed by a plural noun? We hear this all the time, don't we? Hasn't it become so common that we don't even notice it anymore--more importantly, we don't notice it as wrong?
How grammatically wrong can it be to say "there's things"? If you think about it, you quickly realize that you wouldn't dream of saying "there is things..." and yet most people will say, as Ms. Spalding did, "there's things..." Or "there's lots of reasons for..." or "there's times when I really want..." Really, I could go on and on with the examples, but I'm sure you get my drift by now.
If you wouldn't write "there is things going on" why would you say "there's things"? We all need to realize that something like this really does degrade our language. I'm all for the evolution and the improvement of language. Something like using the plural pronoun "they" after a singular subject, as in:
Each citizen needs to voice their concerns
is wrong. It needs to be
Each citizen needs to voice his or her concerns
Or, better yet:
All citizens should voice their concerns.
BUT, this modification to spoken English serves a purpose: we feel that we're being sexist when we say "Each citizen needs to voice his concerns" (which was, by the way, the only correct way to say/write this until the 1960s or so when people became concerned about gendered language and the preference for the masculine). So, in spoken English, while the grammarian in me still winces each time I hear it, I can accept
Every citizen needs to voice their concerns
in spoken English. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist that repetition there.) Written English needs to remain his/her.
As you can see, then, I'm not a total purist about spoken English. But, I do recoil every time I hear a singular verb with a plural noun. That's just plain wrong and we all need to pay attention to it and correct it in our own voice.
So what is it with the (relatively recent) move toward people using a singular verb followed by a plural noun? We hear this all the time, don't we? Hasn't it become so common that we don't even notice it anymore--more importantly, we don't notice it as wrong?
How grammatically wrong can it be to say "there's things"? If you think about it, you quickly realize that you wouldn't dream of saying "there is things..." and yet most people will say, as Ms. Spalding did, "there's things..." Or "there's lots of reasons for..." or "there's times when I really want..." Really, I could go on and on with the examples, but I'm sure you get my drift by now.
If you wouldn't write "there is things going on" why would you say "there's things"? We all need to realize that something like this really does degrade our language. I'm all for the evolution and the improvement of language. Something like using the plural pronoun "they" after a singular subject, as in:
Each citizen needs to voice their concerns
is wrong. It needs to be
Each citizen needs to voice his or her concerns
Or, better yet:
All citizens should voice their concerns.
BUT, this modification to spoken English serves a purpose: we feel that we're being sexist when we say "Each citizen needs to voice his concerns" (which was, by the way, the only correct way to say/write this until the 1960s or so when people became concerned about gendered language and the preference for the masculine). So, in spoken English, while the grammarian in me still winces each time I hear it, I can accept
Every citizen needs to voice their concerns
in spoken English. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist that repetition there.) Written English needs to remain his/her.
As you can see, then, I'm not a total purist about spoken English. But, I do recoil every time I hear a singular verb with a plural noun. That's just plain wrong and we all need to pay attention to it and correct it in our own voice.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
"being that" you're writing a paper....
You can thank my daughter for this blog post. She is a truly good writer, but she has one really bad habit in her grammar: she uses the phrase "being that." Now, what's wrong with that, you might ask? After all, we often hear people saying something like this:
Being that it's Saturday, I really want to go out for breakfast.
Great idea, but wrong grammatically. In fact, you should strike the phrase "being that" from your vocabulary.
So, what should you write (and say) instead? Very simple,
Since it's Saturday, I really want to go out for breakfast.
OR
Because it's Saturday, I really want to go out for breakfast.
Being that Since I just took the time to write out this post, please don't use the awful phrase "being that."
Being that it's Saturday, I really want to go out for breakfast.
Great idea, but wrong grammatically. In fact, you should strike the phrase "being that" from your vocabulary.
So, what should you write (and say) instead? Very simple,
Since it's Saturday, I really want to go out for breakfast.
OR
Because it's Saturday, I really want to go out for breakfast.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Newspaper research now much easier!
In the spirit, I suppose, of all things becoming digital, I have news about digitized newspapers, fully searchable, from 1860-1922. The Library of Congress (LOC) has recently announced the addition of even more pages to its database of 414 newspapers from 22 states and DC during the Reconstruction, Gilded Age, and Progressive Eras. So, if you're doing any research in this timeframe, please bookmark this page:
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/
Happy researching!
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/
Happy researching!
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The simple beauty of not finding something
This may sound like an odd posting, but sometimes in the world of research it's good to know that something is not going to lead anywhere.
I have been researching several people for a book on ideologically motivated deportations during the early years of the Cold War (I know that some style books don't actually capitalize the term Cold War anymore, but continuing to do so is my little act of stylistic disobedience. It just doesn't make sense not to capitalize Cold War!) Anyway, in doing this research, I went hunting for an archival collection of papers for a certain person.
Whenever I locate an archival source, I get excited--travel, new places, new documents to peruse. But I also get worried--travel and its expense and the time of learning a new archive's systems. So, I send off an email to the archivists half hoping the answer will be "yes--we have tons of material on that topic" and half hoping the answer will be "no--there's nothing here."
Today, I must admit to being relieved when I learned that an archive in Miami does not have anything related, despite the collection's description that sounded promising. First, travel money for research is drying up faster than airline perks. Second, I detest hot weather and that archive would have meant Miami in the summer. And third, sometimes it's just good to check something off the list as a dead end. Now I can go looking for a more productive tree to bark up.
I have been researching several people for a book on ideologically motivated deportations during the early years of the Cold War (I know that some style books don't actually capitalize the term Cold War anymore, but continuing to do so is my little act of stylistic disobedience. It just doesn't make sense not to capitalize Cold War!) Anyway, in doing this research, I went hunting for an archival collection of papers for a certain person.
Whenever I locate an archival source, I get excited--travel, new places, new documents to peruse. But I also get worried--travel and its expense and the time of learning a new archive's systems. So, I send off an email to the archivists half hoping the answer will be "yes--we have tons of material on that topic" and half hoping the answer will be "no--there's nothing here."
Today, I must admit to being relieved when I learned that an archive in Miami does not have anything related, despite the collection's description that sounded promising. First, travel money for research is drying up faster than airline perks. Second, I detest hot weather and that archive would have meant Miami in the summer. And third, sometimes it's just good to check something off the list as a dead end. Now I can go looking for a more productive tree to bark up.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Are college students studying less than earlier generations?
Here's an interesting tidbit of an article from the New York Times asking for readers' opinions about the state of higher education today. It talks about recent studies that have shown college students today are studying less than previous generations have and that they are not being as challenged by college course workloads.
Here's the article where you can weigh with your opinion:
You can leave your opinion here, on this blog, as well. I'll look forward to your comments.
Here's the article where you can weigh with your opinion:
You can leave your opinion here, on this blog, as well. I'll look forward to your comments.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Despite what you might have been told, commas are still necessary
I frequently rail about comma usage, and this post will be a continuation of that particular obsession of mine. But, don't stop reading! I have a great example.
I am currently reading a law journal article about legal education before 1860, and I came across this sentence:
"By the time of the Revolution English law had come to be generally well regarded and each colony had a bar of trained, able, and respected professionals..."
That is punctuated exactly as I found it. But one of the most important goals in writing, is to make sure that whatever you put down on paper does not cause the reader to stumble. You always want to avoid having the reader go through your sentence and say, "huh?" But that's exactly what I did when I read "Revolution English law." What on earth is that, I wondered. Then I realized that the writer and copy editor neglected to place an important comma.
By now, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. The opening part of the sentence should have been:
"By the time of the Revolution, English law had come..."
This is why I'm always harping to students to put a comma after an introductory clause or phrase. That's where--if you were speaking--you would have taken a pause. So, because we read pretty much the way we're used to hearing our language spoken, we need that comma. Otherwise, we wind up with a sentence that sounds as if it's talking about "Revolution English law."
I am currently reading a law journal article about legal education before 1860, and I came across this sentence:
"By the time of the Revolution English law had come to be generally well regarded and each colony had a bar of trained, able, and respected professionals..."
That is punctuated exactly as I found it. But one of the most important goals in writing, is to make sure that whatever you put down on paper does not cause the reader to stumble. You always want to avoid having the reader go through your sentence and say, "huh?" But that's exactly what I did when I read "Revolution English law." What on earth is that, I wondered. Then I realized that the writer and copy editor neglected to place an important comma.
By now, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. The opening part of the sentence should have been:
"By the time of the Revolution, English law had come..."
This is why I'm always harping to students to put a comma after an introductory clause or phrase. That's where--if you were speaking--you would have taken a pause. So, because we read pretty much the way we're used to hearing our language spoken, we need that comma. Otherwise, we wind up with a sentence that sounds as if it's talking about "Revolution English law."
Monday, December 6, 2010
Essay Exam Advice #2: Get to the point and stay there!
One of the greatest frustrations of grading essay exams is the student whose essay displays lots of knowledge but not on the topic of the question. So, here's
Tip #2: Write only about those things that pertain directly to the question.
You may be tempted to display just how broad your erudition has become since you started taking Professor Brilliant's class, but don't give in. Neither Professor Brilliant nor I will be impressed unless you stick directly to the question at hand.
And, if you follow tip #1 from my earlier post, the dreaded result in tip #2 should not happen!
If you separate your time into thinking/outlining time and writing time, and then follow the jottings of your thinking time, you will not be tempted to stray into extraneous areas.
So, please remember: extraneous detail wastes your time, wastes the professor's time, and doesn't get you any more points. In fact, it may get you fewer points (notice that I did not use the word less which would be incorrect here) because it will take away time that you could more beneficially spend elsewhere on your exam.
As always, my best wishes on all your exams!
Tip #2: Write only about those things that pertain directly to the question.
You may be tempted to display just how broad your erudition has become since you started taking Professor Brilliant's class, but don't give in. Neither Professor Brilliant nor I will be impressed unless you stick directly to the question at hand.
And, if you follow tip #1 from my earlier post, the dreaded result in tip #2 should not happen!
If you separate your time into thinking/outlining time and writing time, and then follow the jottings of your thinking time, you will not be tempted to stray into extraneous areas.
So, please remember: extraneous detail wastes your time, wastes the professor's time, and doesn't get you any more points. In fact, it may get you fewer points (notice that I did not use the word less which would be incorrect here) because it will take away time that you could more beneficially spend elsewhere on your exam.
As always, my best wishes on all your exams!
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Essay Exam Advice
We are rapidly approaching final exam time, so I'm going to lay off the grammar goodies for a while and focus instead on writing better in-class and take-home exams. So, here's tip #1. You've heard it a thousand times before, and this number 1001, but it's so important that I don't feel bad about haranguing with it one more time.
1. OUTLINE before you write.
I can hear y'all groaning from here as you read this. But don't stop here. Read on, please!
I think the best advice I can ever give on writing a good essay exam question answer is to
separate your time into thinking time and writing time.
DO NOT start to write immediately upon reading the question. If you do that, your thoughts will be scattered, you won't think of other possibilities that should be included, and your answer will be disorganized. And believe me, as one who's graded lots of essay exams, you don't want your grader to have to sift through disorganization. Some of us are reading dozens or tens of dozens of exams, so you want to make your essay answer as clear and as well organized as possible. How to do that? Separate your time.
1.a. Thinking time
Most professors will ask a question that requires thinking rather than the regurgitation of what was on a Powerpoint slide. We don't want that. We know you can memorize. When we give an essay question, we want to know whether you can think about what you've learned and pull it together. If you take the time to think about the question and try to pull in as many ideas that relate to that question as possible, you'll have a much fuller and more comprehensive answer.
That word comprehensive is key! An adequate answer will not do if you want an A. You need a comprehensive answer: one that shows that you've thought about, analyzed, and compiled a complete list of reasons, causes--whatever the question is asking you for. As you think about the question and what might apply, jot it down. Then decide whether all the jottings actually do apply, cross out those that don't (they won't get you any points anyway) and then you can start your writing.
1. b. Writing time
Here your goal is to take your list of jottings and put them into a coherent form. That means organizing. Now's the time you decide whether you're going to write from:
Most important to least important
Least important to the big bang--most important
Chronologically first proceeding to most recent
Or some other form that you think might work (although I strongly recommend one of these three).
So, there you have it. If you follow this suggestion, your essays will be better, your grades will probably be higher, and you will have a much easier time taking the exam.
Try this strategy--it takes some practice like any other skill--and then let me know what you think.
Good luck on all your exams!
1. OUTLINE before you write.
I can hear y'all groaning from here as you read this. But don't stop here. Read on, please!
I think the best advice I can ever give on writing a good essay exam question answer is to
separate your time into thinking time and writing time.
DO NOT start to write immediately upon reading the question. If you do that, your thoughts will be scattered, you won't think of other possibilities that should be included, and your answer will be disorganized. And believe me, as one who's graded lots of essay exams, you don't want your grader to have to sift through disorganization. Some of us are reading dozens or tens of dozens of exams, so you want to make your essay answer as clear and as well organized as possible. How to do that? Separate your time.
1.a. Thinking time
Most professors will ask a question that requires thinking rather than the regurgitation of what was on a Powerpoint slide. We don't want that. We know you can memorize. When we give an essay question, we want to know whether you can think about what you've learned and pull it together. If you take the time to think about the question and try to pull in as many ideas that relate to that question as possible, you'll have a much fuller and more comprehensive answer.
That word comprehensive is key! An adequate answer will not do if you want an A. You need a comprehensive answer: one that shows that you've thought about, analyzed, and compiled a complete list of reasons, causes--whatever the question is asking you for. As you think about the question and what might apply, jot it down. Then decide whether all the jottings actually do apply, cross out those that don't (they won't get you any points anyway) and then you can start your writing.
1. b. Writing time
Here your goal is to take your list of jottings and put them into a coherent form. That means organizing. Now's the time you decide whether you're going to write from:
Most important to least important
Least important to the big bang--most important
Chronologically first proceeding to most recent
Or some other form that you think might work (although I strongly recommend one of these three).
So, there you have it. If you follow this suggestion, your essays will be better, your grades will probably be higher, and you will have a much easier time taking the exam.
Try this strategy--it takes some practice like any other skill--and then let me know what you think.
Good luck on all your exams!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Grammar Goody--the second person
I'm sure you've heard this one before, but it seems we all need reminding. This is one of those cases that contradicts my assertion that we should write the way we talk. Actually, we should write the way we talk when we think we're being recorded for posterity--in other words, on our best behavior!
Anyway, here's something that's perfectly acceptable in informal spoken English but should be avoided at all cost in written English--the use of the second person. The first person is "I" and "me," the second person is "you" (or for my Southern friends, "y'all," and the third person is "they" and "them."
So, here's what I'm arguing against:
When you remember that Reagan was an actor, you understand why he was such a good communicator.
That's grammatically correct but frowned upon as a use of the no-no second person. So, how can you write this instead? How about:
When we remember that Reagan was an actor, we can see why he was such a good communicator.
Or, even better:
Reagan's training as an actor explains why he was such a good communicator.
It's always a good idea to write in the third person only, unless you are specifically instructed that first person is also acceptable. But never use the second person. YOU got it?
Anyway, here's something that's perfectly acceptable in informal spoken English but should be avoided at all cost in written English--the use of the second person. The first person is "I" and "me," the second person is "you" (or for my Southern friends, "y'all," and the third person is "they" and "them."
So, here's what I'm arguing against:
When you remember that Reagan was an actor, you understand why he was such a good communicator.
That's grammatically correct but frowned upon as a use of the no-no second person. So, how can you write this instead? How about:
When we remember that Reagan was an actor, we can see why he was such a good communicator.
Or, even better:
Reagan's training as an actor explains why he was such a good communicator.
It's always a good idea to write in the third person only, unless you are specifically instructed that first person is also acceptable. But never use the second person. YOU got it?
Monday, November 29, 2010
the Pentagon Papers Redux: The New York Times is Publishing More Secret Documents
In 1972, The New York Times won a significant victory for freedom of the press when it fought a federal government injunction against publication of the stolen Pentagon Papers (an internal Pentagon history of US involvement in the Vietnam War). That court victory opened the doors for what The Times has announced today it will be doing over the next several weeks: publishing secret documents related to US diplomacy.
Here's the story and The Times's rationale for its publication of these documents.
(Please note: the editing software of this blog does not allow me to format the headline. That means that "The New York Times" above cannot be italicized, but, according to the Chicago Manual of Style, which is what historians use, it should be. Please remember to always italicize titles in your writing. See my blog post from )
Here's the story and The Times's rationale for its publication of these documents.
(Please note: the editing software of this blog does not allow me to format the headline. That means that "The New York Times" above cannot be italicized, but, according to the Chicago Manual of Style, which is what historians use, it should be. Please remember to always italicize titles in your writing. See my blog post from )
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Grammar Goody # whatever (I can't keep track anymore): Ordinals in dates
I am really perplexed by the sudden appearance of this typical mistake: the use of ordinals in dates. This is what I mean:
The tragedy occurred on September 11th, 2001.
That, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Sure, it's correct in spoken English, but not in written English. (The ordinal, by the way, is that "th" after the number--or it could be "rd" with the number 3 or "st" with the number 1.
The only correct way to write out a date is like this:
The tragedy occurred on September 11, 2001.
So, please drop the ordinals! They're just plain wrong.
The tragedy occurred on September 11th, 2001.
That, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Sure, it's correct in spoken English, but not in written English. (The ordinal, by the way, is that "th" after the number--or it could be "rd" with the number 3 or "st" with the number 1.
The only correct way to write out a date is like this:
The tragedy occurred on September 11, 2001.
So, please drop the ordinals! They're just plain wrong.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Free Speech for Middle Schoolers or Lewd Speech?
Here's an interesting controversy brewing over the use of those popular wristbands that say "I (heart) boobies." Do schools have the right to ban these wristbands as lewd speech (which the Supreme Court has allowed schools to do) or is this a violation of students' rights to free expression?
Here's the article.
What do you think? I know some breast cancer survivors who see this entire campaign as frivolous and demeaning. They say it is bringing sex into a campaign meant to deal with a disease (see how I avoided the dreadful word sexualizing?) Yet, it's also brought increasing attention, which is, after all, its point.Or is this the wrong kind of attention?
Here's the article.
What do you think? I know some breast cancer survivors who see this entire campaign as frivolous and demeaning. They say it is bringing sex into a campaign meant to deal with a disease (see how I avoided the dreadful word sexualizing?) Yet, it's also brought increasing attention, which is, after all, its point.Or is this the wrong kind of attention?
Grammar Goody #10--Capitalization, part 2
Job titles: this is a tricky one, but it has an easily remembered rule.
Capitalize job titles only if they precede the name of the person who holds that job. If not, don't capitalize.
Here are two examples of the correct form.
Andrew Cuomo will be the new governor of New York State.
Governor David Paterson will be leaving office in January.
So, if you're writing about someone who is the dog catcher in your town, you would say that he is the town's dog catcher. But his official name would be Dog Catcher Francis Fido.
Many, many people get this one wrong and believe that job titles are always capitalized. Sorry, but that is not the case. Even the word president when des
Capitalize job titles only if they precede the name of the person who holds that job. If not, don't capitalize.
Here are two examples of the correct form.
Andrew Cuomo will be the new governor of New York State.
Governor David Paterson will be leaving office in January.
So, if you're writing about someone who is the dog catcher in your town, you would say that he is the town's dog catcher. But his official name would be Dog Catcher Francis Fido.
Many, many people get this one wrong and believe that job titles are always capitalized. Sorry, but that is not the case. Even the word president when des
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)