February 05

Flex Time: goals for the week of 02/05-02/12
OK, we're going to try a flex time arrangement. Here are the goals we need to accomplish in the next week:

• Understand Drucker's argument and key terms such as "knowledge worker" and "social sector."
• Understand the basics of connection, and how it functions in relation toy our project/argument.
• Understand the ways in which you can bring Drucker and Pollan into relation, with a view towards using these relations to form a project supported by connections.
• Turn in final draft of Paper One, by Friday morning.

It's up to you to accomplish these goals when you can (except, of course, turning in your paper). We're going to shoot at accomplishing the goals through forum discussion, but I am going to let all of you mostly take the lead in this discussion. That means fewer direct assignments from me and more openness in how all of you direct the discussion.

Global Draft Comments/How Grading Works
I always try to make some global comments on drafts, that reflect problems or issues I see across all student papers. For this first draft, I have to say, first of all, that I was really pleased with the overall quality of the drafts. The general level of writing ability in the class is quite strong, and I think that just about everyone is moving towards project/argument.

BUT, the one comment I would say universally is that you should aim to be more explicit in the ways in which your project relates to the issue of standards of knowledge. Talichka does an exemplary job at setting this up in her introduction:

The most fundamental and obvious thing Michael Pollan is talking about in "Playing God in the garden" and Phillip Angell in "Monsanto's response" is knowledge. To be more specific, they are introducing us to their standard of knowledge. Pollan values the most the kind of knowledge that will not just give him an answer he is looking for, but the knowledge he gets from experience. Angell has completely given into the knowledge of science and let it guide him through life. That is why neither of the two authors is right, because they are using two different standards to prove their point. For us to solve the problem in the real world we can't just use one standard or the other because that is a one-dimensional way of solving the problem. And since our problem is multi-dimensional, we have to use a mixed version of the two, formatted to better solve all aspects of the problem. That is why to solve the conflict between Pollan and Angell we need to assume that only the scientific knowledge that can be in real life by an average human being.

Notice how the relationship between her project is directly related to the two standards of knowledge she sees in Pollan and Angell: experience and science. This is the kind of explicitness I think we all need to aim for. Lots of people had the issue of knowledge in their papers, but it was submerged slightly--bring it to the surface.

Now, a note on grading. Here's a rough sense of how I grade. It will have to remain rough for now, but we will flesh it out more as we go through the semester:

• C: meet the paper requirements in terms of page length, etc.; explicitly responds to the assignment by engaging the question of knowledge; has some sense of project that moves beyond summary to make a contribution to the conversation about biotech; supports the project through some kind of engagement with the texts.
• B: All the above, plus: has a clearly stated project AND proves that project through solid work with the texts. Has some basic sense of organization.
• A: All the above, plus: has an original, strong project--one that reflects a confidence and authority about the texts or present an original thought on the issue, perhaps even proposes a solution THROUGH the texts; has solid engagement with the texts by working closely with quotation to tease out a standard of knowledge and then apply it to the texts; has concrete organization, such that it's clear to me how each paragraph function inthe paper and relates to the pursuit of the project.
• In general, excessive error can lower a grade by half a letter grade.

Now, on to Drucker.

next >>