This is the full prompt. I will provide all readings that are wanted to be used a s sources.
There are several themes in this group of readings about education. You get to choose your focus in the paper. You can focus on one primary theme shared by different authors, or discuss multiple themes/arguments/critiques. We value the desire and ability to discuss multiple themes if you choose to do that. Shared themes, arguments, or connections that establish conversation between these texts and authors include: the social/racial inequality of education, the value or importance of liberal arts education, the concern for student mental health, the (mis/over) use of data and standardized testing, education as a consumer product, etc.
Texts: Deresiewicz, Ravitch, Rose, Lugo-Lugo, and Murray.
Your paper really must establish a focus, at least initially, with an anchor text. Deresiewicz works well since his essay covers a number of issues that critics see throughout education; therefore, focusing on his argument/text (in your account) while making interesting connections to two (2) of the other readings listed above is a sensible approach. However, if you really want to use a different essay as your anchor text (which coincides with a specific analytical focus), you can do that, as well.
Paper Assignment: Analyzing and evaluating an author’s argument within a given context. Analyze your anchor text and relate this discussion to two of the other Module 2 readings (see list above).
Prompt: Your first task in this paper is to analyze the argument featured in William Deresiewicz’s “Don’t Send Your Kid to the Ivy League” (but see my note above about taking a different approach if you would like). Explain how the writer construct’s his argument, analyzing and describing its different elements, strategies and appeals that contribute to the overall strength of the argument.
Next, you need to discern and discuss elements of context embedded in the anchor text’s argument—the clues that suggest what the argument is responding to, both in the sense of what has been written previously and in the sense that it is written for a specific audience in a particular time and place—and evaluate how effectively the argument persuades this audience within this specific context. (Learning Outcomes addressed: 1–3, 5–6)
Commentary: When you receive an assignment such as this one, it’s useful to break it into its principal parts and think about how they should be structured and sequenced.
IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT PARAGRAPHING: BODY PARAGRAPHS SHOULD BE LESS THAN 1 PAGE IN LENGTH. Refer to our many discussions in class about this aspect of your composition and analysis. The same rule applies to introductions and conclusions. In every case, if you have more to say, organize your thoughts in tighter, clearer, and more meaningful prose.
Paper Introduction (~1/2 page)
First, you’ll need an introduction that opens up the topic and previews the scope of the paper. Details such as the name of the primary/anchor text, its genre, its author, and a few details concerning its publication are important here (section one of the rhetorical précis has a solid template to help you start a paper introduction – not the entire précis). For the “scope of the paper,” you should provide a very brief description of what you plan to do in this paper, touching-on the prompt and other points we will have discussed, such as the theme(s) and the other authors that you include in this paper.
The Account (~2 pages)
Next, you’ll need to concisely “articulate” Deresiewicz’s argument and “analyze and describe its elements.” Focus on the different parts or sections of his essay that mean the most to his argument and his most interesting and effective rhetorical appeals, etc. The idea is to give an accurate and detailed description of his argument in ~2 pages, using specific evidence (QUOTES) from the text (this is an account of an argument, which really is argument analysis). Some evaluation of the author’s argument should be included in this account, such that you comment on both the effectiveness of the argument in light of the audience and the context. If you feel the argument lacks strength in a particular way (that is reasonable given his rhetorical situation), feel free to add this commentary.
Contextual Analysis or Synthesis Section (2-3 pages)
The next section of the assignment focuses on “elements of context embedded in the argument.” This section asks you to make interesting (or at least reasonable) connections between the different texts in your paper; most of you will be working from Deresiewicz’s text to the other authors. Again, use two of our other readings that you think connect with Deresiewicz in interesting ways. Please note that these connections help determine the level of critical analysis your are developing in this paper. These connections between authors can entail a somewhat surprising or ironic connection that goes beyond what many readers might notice. We can explain ways that certain texts challenge other texts, and sor forth and so on. Again, this section highlights the critical reading and thinking part of this assignment. Your ability to analyze and synthesize different texts/arguments stands as a foundational pillar to the development of critical thinking.
Conclusion (~1/2 of a page)
The final paragraph serves as your conclusion. For this final “move” of your paper, address the following points in some manner, even briefly: clarify some of the highlights of your paper, referencing the larger conversation about education that we have discussed and that may even go beyond the scope of our discussion. You can also relate your own experience, briefly, to this study.
Lastly, please clarify the role of critical thinking in our Education Module. Did you reinforce those values that define critical thinking? We discussed these values, the importance of critical thinking, at the beginning of the semester. In analyzing these readings, grappling with the different themes discussed throughout, comment on how your work in this Module has reflected some of what John Dewey articulates here, regarding the definition of critical thinking: the “active, persistent, and careful consideration of [different] beliefs or supposed forms of knowledge in light of the grounds which support [them] and the further conclusions to which they tend” (Dewey). Be thoughtful with your conclusion, addressing the points I mention above. This should not be long-winded, wandering and confused. Be thoughtful and concise.
Your paper should be 5-6 pages (not including the Works Cited page). Apply MLA format (double-spaced, one-inch margins, page numbers, etc.) and edit and proofread carefully.
READINGS are attached below, they are,
William Deresiewicz’s “Don’t Send Your Kids to the Ivy League”
Charles Murray’s “Are Too Many People Going to College
Diane Ravitch’s “The Essentials of a Good Education“
Mike Rose’s “I Just Wanna Be Average“
Carmen R. Lugo-Lugo’s “A Prostitute, a Servant, and a Customer-Service Representative: A Latina in Academia“