Thursday, September 19, 2013
The Papers . . .
I would love to reproduce some examples here, but I am paranoid. I will try to fictionalize without exaggerating. Let me try to reproduce what I have been reading for the last week, including all of Saturday:
"I beleive on the argument argued by the author of the article 'Hamster Fur: Application and Use' who is John Smith, and when John Smith wrote in his article 'Hamster Fur: Application and Use' that hamster fur had an application and it also had a use, I agreed."
"This is my thesis. I agree." (that one is nearly a direct quotation. I'd fear the kid would identify me, but that requires literacy)
"By weaving the fur, it makes the fabric stronger." (This construction shows up all over the place: the instrumental followed by the goddamned phantom pronoun. Gah, I hate it.)
"In reading the story by Smith called 'Hamster Fur' I agreed but I disagreed on the fact that hamster fur is not made of alpaca hair." (Smith, obviously, never even hints that it might be. In fact, he says "Hamster fur is very distinct from alpaca fur, for the following reasons." It's also not a story, goddamn it.)
"Can we ever really understand hamster fur? it is a mystery, and like a mystery, we embrace it's mystery, and that is why. I say the hamster isn't in the fact of hamster, but moreso. Consequently, I agree with Smith."
Some of it is just not being familiar with the discourse of academia. But a lot of it is the lazy refusal to think or be clear. They won't -- maybe they can't? -- consider an audience outside of themselves. And so they can never be clear.
And somehow, they expect a good grade.