This is a B
If you came to this page directly, be sure you read the "Before
you begin" page. Otherwise, download the entire sample paper
in PDF or Word
format.
Here's the introduction and the first body paragraph of a B paper. The
student was asked to write an essay that considered the relationship between
contemporary and traditional cultures, drawing on the work on Alexander
Stille's "The Ganges' Next Life" and two other readings
assigned during the course of the semester.
"A Mix of Poison and Food
is Still Deadly"
Looking back upon the history of achievements and
innovations of Man, nearly all of his existence has been utterly stagnant.
Thousands of years ago, the life of a human remained relatively unchanged
for centuries on end. In the last two hundred years, however, mankind
has begun to change; innovation and invention became more ideal as living
conditions grew less harsh. In the last century, man came to grips with
the changes and ideas these new innovations can bring, and their impact
upon old traditions and cultures. New technology and old traditions
brought the world into a new type of warfare: A World War. And not only
one, but two of them. In Alexander Stille's "The Ganges' Next Life,"
he discusses the mix of old traditions and new education from technology
in a Hindu hydraulic engineer. This man bathes daily in a river, the
Ganges, according to his old Hindu beliefs, which he knows to be horribly
polluted and disgusting according to his education. Like this man, technology
is creating conflict within those it 'infects.' Technology is sweeping
the world at an amazing pace, and often faster than societies are ready
for it. In "Global Realization" by Eric Schlosser, he shows
the sweeping effects of globalization and technology upon society and
culture, and oftentimes, the conflict it creates with societies not
ready to let go of old, outdated traditions. Old traditions limit the
scope and ability of technology, forcing it to be used in cumbersome
ways, which detriment both the user and people around him. The conflict
this creates, much like the conflict between religion and science, can
sometimes turn hostile, as people resist change, and turn to the leading
destroyer of old culture and traditions: Technological globalization.
In Mary Kaldor's "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races and Arms Control,"
she discusses the new type of war brewing throughout the world, fueled
by resistance to change. Instead of governments or states waging war,
small groups attack symbols of what they perceive as instruments of
change, blending technology and old traditions of holy war or otherwise
in a destructive way. Technology and tradition are constantly at war
with each other; its groups feverishly try to negate the other's existence.
In order for new ideas to be used effectively, old ideas must be shunned
for being outdated. Either one must live in a technological culture,
fueled by change and innovation, or live in a purely traditional or
fundamentalist culture, fueled by tradition and intellectual stagnation.
Any mix creates internal conflict and resentment, as people resist the
unpredictable nature of change. This conflict may turn external, causing
people to strike back in unconventional methods.
Nearly all conflict in the world is created by two things: change, and
the resistance to change. But more pronounced is change's effect on
the 20th Century, as change really took roots with increased innovation
and invention, sweeping around the world with immeasurable speed, in
"the process known as globalization. By globalization , I mean
the increasing interconnectedness, the shrinking of distance and time,
as a result of the combination of Information and Communications Technology
(ICT) and air travel," (Kaldor, 2). As change and innovation create
numerous 'friends' around the world so quickly, it also creates enemies
just as fast, in traditional or religious groups. Nearly all that tradition
and religion stands for in their belief structure is negated by technological
change and science, pitting both against each other; one demanding belief
in things without fact, one demanding thought and development of fact.
But more importantly, people fear the change associated with technology
and globalization. Just as the Church resisted new ideas from Galileo
because they defied teachings of the Bible, tradition resists new ideas,
and had to be brought by technology into the 21st Century like a child
in a tantrum: kicking and screaming. McDonald's, a seemingly innocent
symbol of globalization and change, is often seen as the most evil of
threats, creating resentment in all cultures. "In France, a sheep
farmer and political activist named Jose Bove led a group that demolished
a McDonald's under construction in his hometown of Millau. Bove's defiant
attitude, brief imprisonment, and impassioned speeches against "lousy
food" have made him a hero in France," (Schlosser, 17). But
his hero wasn't truly against the 'lousy food' as he said he was. His
fight was against change, probably because McDonald's doesn't serve
sheep-burgers, and Bove would probably go out of business. But instead
of blaming the outdated practice and traditions of Bove's occupation,
he blames the company that forced him to change. "McDonald's has
become an easy target," (Schlosser, 17) because of its symbolic
nature of technological and fundamentalist states in response to the
unpredictable nature of change. Communism is one example, and the religious
group the Taliban is another. But perhaps the greatest separation between
old traditional ideas of thought and technology is the economic rift
between the two. The most technologically advanced countries are the
most prosperous in the world, while the most traditional or fundamentalist
are oftentimes the least prosperous; but instead of blaming their plight
upon old failing traditions, they place the blame on the new ideas of
thought. All this resentment turns into internal conflict; internal
pressure inside the mind, turning a person into a time bomb that waits
to be used.
Here's how we read the opening of this paper:
-
The introduction: What distinguishes this paper from the C
paper right off the bat is the relationship the student writer establishes
with the assigned readings. Here, it is clear that the student writer
is in charge of the discussion of globalization and that he will draw
on Stille and Schlosser as he sees fit to assist him in fleshing out
his position on the effects of rapid progress over the past two hundred
years. The student writer has his explanation for what happens when
technology and tradition come into contact. As he sees it, there is
a clear choice: "[e]ither one must live in a technological culture,
fueled by change and innovation, or live in a purely traditional or
fundamentalist culture, fueled by tradition and intellectual stagnation."
-
The body: In the second paragraph, the student writer begins
to unpack his opening statements on the relationship between technology
and tradition. The source of trouble between tradition and technology
may be found in response to change. Here the student author begins
to make connections between the threat that change poses, the threat
that globalization poses, and the economic and internal consequences
of these developments. Throughout, the student writer makes it clear
that he is in control and turns to the assigned readings where he
sees fit; the emphasis for this writer is in developing and expanding
on his understanding of why technological developments inevitably
produce social conflict.
-
Other observations: Because this writer has chosen to consider
the relationship between technology and tradition in the broadest
terms, he has not explored the implications of his own position or
offered a nuanced account of the issue. So, while it is striking that
the student writer has taken on the voice of authority here, it is
also important to note that he has not created an "action horizon"
where his ideas might be tried out. Thus, the thesis that technology
and tradition have always been at war completely ignores the discussion
in "The Ganges' Next Life," the central text for this assignment,
which offers an account of more peaceful ways of bringing together
technology and tradition. Thus, as was the case with the C sample
paper, here too we see the student writer drawing on the assigned
materials solely for support. The texts do not, in other words, help
to extend, challenge, or redirect the position that the student writer
is constructing in his essay.
Applying the grading criteria:
In order to better understand the following final assessment
of this paper, please refer to the section of the grading
criteria that discusses B papers.
Despite the fairly straightforward use of the assigned materials
for support, this paper qualifies as a B because:
-
it has "a sustained and meaningful structure and a project that
is more complex than one finds in a C-range paper," a project
that allows the student writer to put forth his own theory about
the source of social conflict.
-
it reflects the writer's ability "to work with quotation and
think connectively to contribute to [his] project," as may be
seen, for instance in the second paragraph cited above, where the
student writer establishes a connection between Kaldor's discussion
of growing global interconnectedness and Schlosser's discussion of
reactions to the spread of McDonald's beyond the United States.
The paper does not rise to the B+ level for the following
three reasons: the writer has not used all of the assigned texts; the
project is not "particularly well-developed" because the writer
has elected not to consider exceptions or qualifications to his position;
the writer has not consider the consequences or explored the "action
horizon" for his position, with the result that one is left with
the impression that the conflict between tradition and technology cannot
be changed or examined further.
Thus, this is a solid B paper: it represents the writer doing more connective
thinking than one finds in the C-range papers; it makes room for the student
writer's voice to be an active and equal partner in the discussion of
the essay topic along with the assigned readings; and it has a clear and
unmistakable sense of a project that is explained and expanded throughout
the course of the paper. And an A? Let's look at one.
next >>
|
