My Critique's Which Will Undoubtebly Save Your Grade
I don't think I'm going to go too far into detail with the two essays I read (now that I'm finished I realize that's a complete bullshit statement), but there are a few things I'd like to bring up.
Transportation:
Before I get into the main problem I want to talk about, I want to let you know what I'm going to say is purely from an objective standpoint because its probably going to be pretty hard not to take offense (but you might not since our paper is definitly lacking in, well a lot). Basically my biggest complaint was that your argument wasn't very apparant.
I'm not quite sure if you're main argument is about how different forms of transportation set in certain areas segregates us (which I would enjoy as it would be interesting), or if you're just discussing different forms of transportation in different areas. I understand having areas where low income is prevelant, lacking in public transportation and simultaneously having high income areas sporting single men driving in SUV's definitely shows some segregation, but I never seemed to receive that explanation clearly in your essay.
The next problem I had with the essay was the lack of examples from the readings. You did manage to mention "so and so's" essay related to what you were explaining, but you never actually gave an example from the essay.
Other than that and some grammar and spelling issues (which is to be expected in a first draft), I really have no other complaints about the essay. You show some fine examples about transportation in the urban, you just need to explain more effectively how it causes segregation, and show some examples from the readings.
Architecture:
Your paper kind of blew. Just messing around (or am I?). I guess I don't have a whole lot to say about your essay, there's really just two things aside from grammar and spelling I'm going to bring up.
In your introductory paragraph you explained how Young's essay produces a solution to both conflicts (I think you should explain Young's essay produces a model for your solution, which is really what's happening), and later you explain Young's model, and since you're in fact giving a solution you need to explain how each part of Young's model relates to your argument, right? Weeeeeell, when you explained how political responsibility "looks forward rather than backward," I wasn't really given any explanation. You're probably saying its pretty self-explanatory, but whenever you want to solve a problem its always a good idea to discuss it as in depth as possible.
I guess it might be me being nit picky, but there is one more thing I'd like to discuss. I noticed within your essay you often jumped between being "politically correct" and not. What I mean is you'd go back and forth between terms like African American and black, and Caucasian and white (although I think Caucasian and white was only in one instance), and to me as the reader, I wasn't spoken to well about the author's character. It seemed you preferred to not be politically correct (which to me is good), but the fact that you couldn't stick to your own beliefs by jumping between the two almost makes the reader not want to listen to your argument. Whether you want to be PC or not, I think its best if you stick to one way.
I guess that's about it for both papers, and even though it looks like I was trying to tear you guys apart I think both groups did pretty solid job. If you've even read this far I'm surprised because I've probably said more than you'd all like to care.
Transportation:
Before I get into the main problem I want to talk about, I want to let you know what I'm going to say is purely from an objective standpoint because its probably going to be pretty hard not to take offense (but you might not since our paper is definitly lacking in, well a lot). Basically my biggest complaint was that your argument wasn't very apparant.
I'm not quite sure if you're main argument is about how different forms of transportation set in certain areas segregates us (which I would enjoy as it would be interesting), or if you're just discussing different forms of transportation in different areas. I understand having areas where low income is prevelant, lacking in public transportation and simultaneously having high income areas sporting single men driving in SUV's definitely shows some segregation, but I never seemed to receive that explanation clearly in your essay.
The next problem I had with the essay was the lack of examples from the readings. You did manage to mention "so and so's" essay related to what you were explaining, but you never actually gave an example from the essay.
Other than that and some grammar and spelling issues (which is to be expected in a first draft), I really have no other complaints about the essay. You show some fine examples about transportation in the urban, you just need to explain more effectively how it causes segregation, and show some examples from the readings.
Architecture:
Your paper kind of blew. Just messing around (or am I?). I guess I don't have a whole lot to say about your essay, there's really just two things aside from grammar and spelling I'm going to bring up.
In your introductory paragraph you explained how Young's essay produces a solution to both conflicts (I think you should explain Young's essay produces a model for your solution, which is really what's happening), and later you explain Young's model, and since you're in fact giving a solution you need to explain how each part of Young's model relates to your argument, right? Weeeeeell, when you explained how political responsibility "looks forward rather than backward," I wasn't really given any explanation. You're probably saying its pretty self-explanatory, but whenever you want to solve a problem its always a good idea to discuss it as in depth as possible.
I guess it might be me being nit picky, but there is one more thing I'd like to discuss. I noticed within your essay you often jumped between being "politically correct" and not. What I mean is you'd go back and forth between terms like African American and black, and Caucasian and white (although I think Caucasian and white was only in one instance), and to me as the reader, I wasn't spoken to well about the author's character. It seemed you preferred to not be politically correct (which to me is good), but the fact that you couldn't stick to your own beliefs by jumping between the two almost makes the reader not want to listen to your argument. Whether you want to be PC or not, I think its best if you stick to one way.
I guess that's about it for both papers, and even though it looks like I was trying to tear you guys apart I think both groups did pretty solid job. If you've even read this far I'm surprised because I've probably said more than you'd all like to care.
posted by The Author at 10:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home