The video was formatted so that the viewer could watch both faces as one spoke and the other listened. This format is probably fairly easy to put together, as you don’t have to cut in and out on whoever is speaking. It also allows you to watch the listener’s reaction to the speaker. But while listening to Will speak, I was easily distracted by Mark pulling his hair back or adjusting his glasses. This format does not work for me, either because I’m not able to focus enough or simply because video is a distracting media.
Another distracting part of the video was how what some of what was talked during the video contradicted their linked to articles. Mark mentions how individualistic society has become, with people focused on succeeding in school and in their own fields. Will mentions in “The Disadvantages of an Ivy League Education” how students have lost the ability to be alone. They are constantly instant messaging, texting, or talking on their cell phones. As an example he mentions a student who writes her essay at a friend’s house. Either could easily write alone, but prefer having another presence near.
When Mark talks about how society is all about the individual Will does not bring up his ideas about how students are obsessed with reaching out to each other and being connected 24/7. The lack of discord, or any general disagreement also made this video hard to watch. Both Mark and Will bring up interesting talking points, but neither refutes what is mentioned. They add onto the idea with their own, and cite interesting examples, but everything they say just proves the other one is right. A more effective and interesting way to present their ideas would have been to argue the opposite side.
An interesting thought they talk about, one which mine have never drifted of their own accord, was “Is there room for the big questions in the college?” They cite how universities were originally meant for teaching clergy, and how even after they expanded into broader teaching students still went to church every Sunday where they were exposed to thoughts of “What is the good life?” and “What is good society?”. Today these questions are only mentioned on campus during freshmen orientation and upon graduation.
Neither Mark nor Will mention where these questions could be brought up in college today. Many students are not religious, and many who are still don’t go to church every Sunday. Outside of church, these questions seem out of place. These questions seem appropriate in a philosophy class, or perhaps during freshmen counseling sessions. But would students want to hear about life’s questions in either of these contexts?
The University being a place for teaching careers and how to become “leaders” rather than “thinkers” is also mentioned. These ideas play into the University not mentioning life’s big questions because students no longer view college as a place to broaden their thinking, but as an essential step before entering the work force. University’s looking for students who will be focused on succeeding within their given parameters, rather than introspection and existential thinking. Preaching to students about what makes up a good life or society would seem obnoxious or pretentious to those with that outlook.
Mark brings up the idea of monoculture during the “Computers, drugs, and Modern Student Culture” section of the video. He says on campus he sees students who all dress the same, there are few students who stand out with punk or hippie outfits. During class no one tells him he is wrong. Everyone buys into digital culture by bringing their laptops to class and using their cell phones constantly. This is an interesting idea I wish had been elaborated on more - monoculture could also be used to explain why there “is no room for the big question in college” anymore. Instead of students fulfilling their subconscious desire to come together through going to church, they’ve come together in daily life.
Charity Needs Help With:
*Ideas/suggestions for how to write an intro/thesis
*Transitions between idea of video format, conflicting ideas, big questions, and monoculture
*A Conclusion…
4 comments:
I think that your essay does need some work in terms of organization. lets see I'll just number them maybe.
1. Obviously an intro, maybe mention how monoculture ties into the "academic industrial complex" cuz it definatly should be mentioned if you're going to talk about it. And that is where you should define your main argument as well
2. figure out what you're main argument is. you talk about a lot of different things in the video so maybe use you're 3rd and 4th paragraph as your ideas and use what you've mentioned in the 1st and 2nd paragraph to tie into you're main idea because I feel like you're main argument isn't against video as a type of medium but the actual discussion it self so that should be something to focus on. embed your distaste for video in you're main argument.
3. As far as the order and transistions that you talk about go with the contradictions, then the big question that then ties into monoculture while mentioning in the contradictions and big question idea how video didn't work for you. Obviously you're not going to have huge paragraphs but maybe as a small paragraph within you're idea should be the video becuase from what you've written it doesn't seem all that important. If it is, then make it more important.
4. As far as a conclusion goes, sometimes it helps for me to write that first... That way you know what your idea is, how you want to argue it and then making the intro is easy as well. I know its weird but I tried it once and thats usually how I do things... I mean if you're having trouble you might as well try it, just to see.
5. Also, second paragraph first sentence, "another distraction part..." you may want to rewrite that, sounds a little confusing. Just change the word choice and I think it would be more clear because I had to read it a couple of times before I could understand what you were saying.
I can see where you're going with it and it seems pretty strong.Good luck!
An introduction should summarise the content of your post. It should establish what kind of arguments you'll be talking about while at the same time creating a hook that pulls the reader in. You want to portray your arguments in such a way that makes the reader want to know more.
I get the feeling that you're summarising the video too much and not arguing enough about the points brought up. It's informative, but not argumentative. Especially towards the end. You talk about what Mark says, and express some wishes, but you could spend a whole other paragraph afterwards discussing personal examples or possible explanations as to the cause.
Well in the first to paragraphs there is no thesis. There is no argument or anything being proven. But guess blog is more of a criticism. Maybe start by stating that there are problems in the video via thesis.
Also there is no conclusion. There is nothing that wraps the blog up or states the purpose of the entire blog.
Interesting division with the apparent contradictions between individualistic and never wanting to be alone. But analyze these terms: are these automatically contradictory? Can one be an individual in a crowd or social setting?
Try to condense the sections that refer to the original arguments, and get straight to your argument.
You want a bit more cogency here: I don’t feel that your arguments are forceful enough, especially in the second half of the paper.
Shouldn’t the monoculture paragraph come right after the paragraph at the beginning about individualism versus never wanting to be alone?
Intro: Hook someone. Make someone want to read your essay. Maybe just a really strong idea would be a good hook. Or something interesting: language, joke, anecdote.
You should connect the idea of monoculture with never wanting to be alone and individualism. Doesn’t monoculture contradict individualism as well?
Post a Comment