Best Paper I've Ever Seen

[The Mad Monk]

That paper reminds me of something Laz once said about Pandas.

[Kropotkin]

Am I the only one that finds it much more amusing that Gepap is going into a long lengthy debate about the fact that the paper is crap than the paper itself?

[Solomwi]

Structure, persuasiveness, grammar, whatever the purpose of the paper is. For example, I gave an expository speech on use of psychrometric charts in undergrad public speaking. I was the only one in there, teacher included, who had heard of such before, but grading my speech didn't seem to be a problem.

The point is that the teacher may well not care what the topic is, other than specifying that it be interesting enough to hold the reader, perhaps.

[Japher]

"don't you think you guys are taking this ****e too seriously ?"

It IS GePap afterall

Besides, I think what GePap is beginning to argue is a rather important topic; grading systems and what is demanded out of students. You constantly hear parents and students complain that their kids have too much work. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I think that the standard of work is increasing and that is good, but at the same time the mentality and social aptitude of kids is decreasing. I think encouraging the kind of creative writting seen in this paper is worth of such and should not be just tossed aside for bad Schematics...

[Kropotkin]

Japher: I don't know, it wouldn't hold for swedish students in social sciences at least, the level of their work such gigantic elephant balls. Maybe the trend is better elsewhere where the system of higher education isn't used as a modern version of autobahn-constructions in the 1930s.

[GePap]

I am arguing becuase I hear people saying this is a great paper. Call it funny, call it witty, fine. BUt a great paper? NO, for an academic piece it is **** and anyone who turned this in to a teacher deserves to get a failing grade on it and the prof is right to post it as an example of what NOT to write.

The point is that the teacher may well not care what the topic is, other than specifying that it be interesting enough to hold the reader, perhaps.

Since you posted it, what class was it for?

[SpencerH]

Why assume its bad Schematics (should that word really be used in the context of writing)? It appears to be 'stream of conciousness' but perhaps the author carefully chose each word and skillfully constructed the piece in order to provoke just such a reaction as GePap has given.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by GePap

Since you posted it, what class was it for?

No idea. You have as much information as I do about this one. That, though, isn't what I'm arguing with you. If you'll notice, I also provided a link to the page where it's found.

It's a college student who skipped class for 6 weeks, got drunk and found out about a paper due, then wrote what turned out to be pretty funny. No more, no less.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Why assume its bad Schematics (should that word really be used in the context of writing)? It appears to be 'stream of conciousness' but perhaps the author carefully chose each word and skillfully constructed the piece in order to provoke just such a reaction as GePap has given.

Well, if he is so thoughtfull drunk, maybe he could have attempted to do the paper well-unless he is an ass.

[Kropotkin]

I seems to me like it could have been an essay for a class in moral philosophy.

[bipolarbear]

i'd give him an A for having hte cajones to turn that in.

[GePap]

So if a student handed you a turd in shrink warp, would you give him an A for having the guts to do it?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
this is a poor paper not becuase of what ideological slant he takes, but becuase it does not meet the standards of a good academic essay period. To grade an academic paper based on anything other than what a good academic paper is is simply wrong. If standing up for integrity in grading in our universities is being a "left wing reactionary", then GOOD.

OK, the ideologic part was a tease only. Seriously, this guy HAS an argument: the law of evolution shows that the specy is unfit for survival, and that therefore we shouldn't care for it. He tries to demonstrate it with two sub-arguments: it's being overcome by another specy of owls, and it needs an untouched habitat.

It's a poor paper, but it does have some of the characteristics to make it academically viable (a structure with a thesis and sub-arguments, some facts, an introduction and a conclusion), a fact you are blatantly ignoring to make your point. What I think is that your reaction towards the paper is biased because of the familiar tone and the 'neo-thrash' ideology behind it. As I said in my previous post, you would not have had the same, overly hostile reaction towards a paper who defended the opposite point of view with similarly weak arguments; you would simply have said "weak, C-" or something.

[East Street Trader]

Dammit, he ain't gettin a "D".

I will not settle for one wit less than a "B-".

And he gets to read it to the class as an example of how much better it is to speak with your own voice than in some stilted, over-coached fashion.

I had another quick read through and changed my mind. It probably is genuine.

Although if that is wrong and it is, after all, written by a professional for some purpose of illustration then B- is way off. We get into the realms of distinction or outright aclaim. One or two of the devices are really good. I mean not Mark Twain or anything, but really good none the less.

And I am still a bit torn. Look at that change of pace into facetiousness at the end. Real easy to think that is a pro rather than a kid.

Anyway, thanks for posting it. Lots of fun.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


OK, the ideologic part was a tease only. Seriously, this guy HAS an argument: the law of evolution shows that the specy is unfit for survival, and that therefore we shouldn't care for it. He tries to demonstrate it with two sub-arguments: it's being overcome by another specy of owls, and it needs an untouched habitat.

I don't think logging, which is certainly NOT part of natural selection, counts.

It's a poor paper, but it does have some of the characteristics to make it academically viable (a structure with a thesis and sub-arguments, some facts, an introduction and a conclusion), a fact you are blatantly ignoring to make your point. What I think is that your reaction towards the paper is biased because of the familiar tone and the 'neo-thrash' ideology behind it. As I said in my previous post, you would not have had the same, overly hostile reaction towards a paper who defended the opposite point of view with similarly weak arguments; you would simply have said "weak, C-" or something.

Wrong. when it comes to essays, I am NOT going to give mercy points. Looking at summer interns and having to read their writen samples, which I told them could be examples of their best writing, I have seen the poor quality of college level writing today. For example, one person used the word "filmic" FILMIC! Its CINEMATIC for god's sake!

The guy's laguage is good, but the substance is ****, and a big fat failure.