2018 AA Club - Week 10

[scout]

Background: University staff and students in Britain are protesting against the inequality that exists between them and heads of departments exemplified by gaps in pay and exorbitant tuition fees.

The Observer is right that universities are not run by those who teach in them (“Academics are right to fight poor pension deal”, Editorial, last week).

Most of our highly paid deans and pro-vice-chancellors have not conducted an undergraduate tutorial in years, and many more highly paid staff neither teach students nor carry out academic research. Deans, heads of department and promotion committees were elected, but now they are appointed from above.

Teaching is often hourly paid. Decision-making is centralised and remote from both the academic and administrative staff who interact with students, so policies to improve efficiency cause disruption and waste. Student fees are being spent on consultations and surveys, and the generation of benchmarks and targets.

Countless documents record strategic visions no poet would immortalise. The corridors echo with the banal hyperbole of public relations. Our cathedrals of learning worship metrics that do not measure anything of value.

Professor James Ladyman
Department of philosophy
University of Bristol

[kat01]

I am horrible at writing these.. and i didnt write anything on the last paragraph because i had no idea what to say! Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Recent debate has occurred over the inequality that exists between university staff, students and the heads of departments. James Ladyman, in his opinion piece “Letters: universities are Cathedrals of public relations not learning" uses an outraged and assertive tone to contend that the head of departments in universities are not doing enough to deserve these high pay rates. This article is targeted towards members of the general British public, especially university students and staff.

Ladyman begins by attacking these highly paid university staff who he believes do not contribute enough to the growth of the university, yet are receiving the most money. His expert authority as a professor at the university of Britol strengthens his credibility, and supports his arguments as he has first hand experience on the issue. The fact that these staff “neither teach students or carry out academic research" is intended to arouse anger towards those members of the university who decide the pay rates, because these staff who do not do enough, yet are being rewarded with these high pay rates.

Ladyman then arouses anger towards the university for not giving teachers the authority they deserve. Including that “decision making is centralised and remote from the staff who interact with students" is intended to evoke anger towards the university because these teachers are not being considered, even though they are the ones being directly affected by these decisions. Ladyman arouses sympathy for the teachers who are expected to deal with the new policies being implemented which only seem to cause “disruption and waste,” and for the students who are suffering as a result. He also intends to evoke anger in the readers because “students fees are being spent on consultations and surveys"- the students’ money is being wasted on things which do not benefit them.

[clarke54321]

I am horrible at writing these.. and i didnt write anything on the last paragraph because i had no idea what to say! Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Recent debate has occurred over the inequality that exists between university staff, students and the heads of departments. James Ladyman, in his opinion piece “Letters: universities are Cathedrals of public relations not learning" uses an outraged and assertive tone to contend that the head of departments in universities are not doing enough to deserve these high pay rates. This article is targeted towards members of the general British public, especially university students and staff. This is a lovely succinct opening paragraph. It is all that an introduction should be

Ladyman begins by attacking these highly paid university staff who he believes do not contribute enough to the growth of the university, yet are receiving the most money your identification of argument is excellent. To strengthen your writing even further, try and combine argument and technique. From your writing, you have the potential to do this. Eg. "With the intent of attacking these ......... from the outset, Ladyman employs (technique X, Y or Z).. His expert authority as a professor at the university of Britol strengthens his credibility, and supportsperhaps too definitive. He seeks/attempts/strives for this position to give him a sense of credibility. his arguments as he has first hand experience on the issue. The fact that these staff “neither teach students or carry out academic research" is intended to arouse anger towards those members of the university who decide the pay rates, because these staff who do not do enoughtry and be more specific here. What aren't they doing enough of? Try and be as intimate as possible with the evidence that you are referring to., yet are being rewarded with these high pay rates.

Ladyman then arouses anger towards the university for not giving teachers the authority they deserve while this is a completely plausible argument, I'd again encourage you to talk about the main technique by which Ladyman achieves this. It will ensure that your writing doesn't become too competitive.. Including that “decision making is centralised and remote from the staff who interact with students" is intended to evoke angertry and vary this (you've already made frequent references to anger) towards the university because these teachers are not being considered, even though they are the ones being directly affected by these decisions ensure that you are bringing these types of effects back to the readers directly. That is, anger is being evoked from who?. Ladyman arouses sympathy for the teachers who are expected to deal with the new policies being implemented which only seem to cause “disruption and waste,” and for the students who are suffering as a result before you move on, be sure to tease out all the connotations attached to disruption and waste. More centrally, I'm asking you to elaborate on how you get to sympathy. . He also this is a very minor point, but I'd encourage you to reflect on the way you progress through your paragraph. Using connectors such as 'also' and 'further' are fine. But you can get more punch out of..'this feeling is corroborated further through the use of X' or 'To further reinforce the undesirable notion that X is an immediate problem, Ladyman.....'intends to evoke anger in the readersagain, this is too repetitive because “students fees are being spent on consultations and surveys"- the students’ money is being wasted on things which do not benefit them.

Well done on the analysis! I'm in transit at the moment, so I'm sorry for the quality of the correction. Hopefully this helps you out in one way or another

[Anonymous]

Well done on the analysis! I'm in transit at the moment, so I'm sorry for the quality of the correction. Hopefully this helps you out in one way or another

i will work on improving my expression.. Thank you so much!! That helped me a lot!

[Anonymous]

I feel as if I'm reading too deeply into this and making connections out of thin air. I also didn't know how to go about structuring my piece, as the prompt was really subtle and toned done in the way that it was persuasive, so I waited for someone else to write first (btw thanks kat01). Also, I kept reading Ladyman as Layman, so when I read the last paragraph and thought to myself, "couldn't he have written this in layman's terms?", I'd thought I'd made a connection. Need to brush up on both my writing and reading skills.

Thanks in advance for critiquing this piece.

Debates have sparked in response to the rising concern about the disparity between income for university staff and heads of department as well as unreasonably high student tuition fees. In response to an editorial in the Observer regarding this topic, Professor James Ladyman from the Department of philosophy in the University of Bristol has written an opinion piece to express in an a decisive and controlled tone that the income inequality experienced by university staff and the rising tuition fees are unjustifiable and undeserved, thereby aiming his piece to students as well as his fellow staff.

Ladyman begins by asserting is a measured tone that highly paid university staff members don't contribute to the university, sometimes having not "[taugh]t students nor [carried] out academic research" "in years". As Layman himself holds a position within a university, this attack holds more credibility, as he may have seen this firsthand, although this isn't explicitly stated in his piece except for his use of inclusive language. This would work to rile teaching staff who would've otherwise been ignorant of the inconsistency in their teaching responsibilities.

Ladyman also points out how "deans, heads of department and promotion committees" are now appointed instead of being elected, and thus implies that they've changed the rules so that they could potentially remain in a high paying position, which would elicit fury in the readers, as they realise that they've no way of breaking this cycle through traditional means of electing an incorrupt staff member to make changes. This is further exemplified by the claim that decision making is non-inclusive of university staff who are in direct contact with students.

Ladyman builds on his previous argument by juxtaposing the highly paid staff who contribute little to the school with teachers who are often "hourly paid" despite interacting with students on a regular basis, which would prompt readers to reach the conclusion that this is an unfair system and thereby protest against the income inequality. 

As for the students, Layman states that the rise in tuition fees are wasted on "consultations and surveys", which should be the univeristy's responsibility, especially when it has no effect on the students. This would therefore be very upsetting for students, who've realised the money they've paid in school fees is of no benefit to them.

Ladyman ends his piece on a more philosophical note, by claiming that all is for naught, or at least nothing good, although not in such layman's terms, in order to cement his assertion that there is an unfair use and distribution of money around universities.

[Anonymous]

I feel as if I'm reading too deeply into this and making connections out of thin air. I also didn't know how to go about structuring my piece, as the prompt was really subtle and toned done in the way that it was persuasive, so I waited for someone else to write first (btw thanks kat01). Also, I kept reading Ladyman as Layman, so when I read the last paragraph and thought to myself, "couldn't he have written this in layman's terms?", I'd thought I'd made a connection. Need to brush up on both my writing and reading skills.

Thanks in advance for critiquing this piece. I am also a high school student and I'm by no means an expert.. but i thought i would try to help you while you wait for someone to correct it!

Debates have sparked in response to the rising concern about the disparity between income for university staff and heads of department as well as unreasonably high student tuition fees. In response to an editorial in the Observer regarding this topic, Professor James Ladyman from the Department of philosophy in the University of Bristol has written an opinion piece in an a decisive and controlled tone to contend that the income inequality experienced by university staff and the rising tuition fees are unjustifiable and undeserved, thereby aiming his piece to students as well as his fellow staff.

Ladyman begins by asserting is a measured tone that highly paid university staff members don't contribute to the university, sometimes having not "[taugh]t students nor [carried] out academic research" "in years". Try be more specific about the argument he uses.. include the rest of the problem (they haven't taught in years yet are highly paid?") As Layman himself holds a position within a university, this attack holds more credibility, as he may have seen this firsthand. This would work to rile teaching staff who would've otherwise been ignorant of the inconsistency in their teaching responsibilities. (what is the impact? How are readers left feeling?)

Maybe try starting your paragraph with the argument, not the technique he uses.
Ladyman also points out how "deans, heads of department and promotion committees" are now appointed instead of being elected, and thus implies that they've changed the rules so that they could potentially remain in a high paying position, which would elicit fury in the readers, as they realise that they've no way of breaking this cycle through traditional means of electing an incorrupt staff member to make changes. This is further exemplified by the claim that decision making is non-inclusive of university staff who are in direct contact with students.

Ladyman builds on his previous argument by juxtaposing the highly paid staff who contribute little to the school with teachers who are often "hourly paid" despite interacting with students on a regular basis, which would prompt readers to reach the conclusion that this is an unfair system and thereby protest against the income inequality. Maybe include this in one of your paragraphs instead of basing a whole paragraph on this?

As for the students, Layman states that the rise in tuition fees are wasted on "consultations and surveys", which should be the univeristy's responsibility, especially when it has no effect on the students. This would therefore be very upsetting for students, who've realised the money they've paid in school fees is of no benefit to them. Include how this aims to position the readers to agree with him

Ladyman ends his piece on a more philosophical note, by claiming that all is for naught, or at least nothing good, although not in such layman's terms, in order to cement his assertion that there is an unfair use and distribution of money around universities. I really like this

[Anonymous]

I tried changing the colour of the font, but clearly it didn't work.. lol so sorry!! ^^

[Anonymous]

Hello! Sorry this is my first one of the year. I'm sorry if its not great. Thanks in advance for marking this

There had been much recent debate about the inequality between university students and teaching staff, and department heads in Britain. Professor James Ladyman, who is a direct stakeholder in this issue, being a Department Head himself, writes in a letter to the editor, a reply to a previous article. In keeping with his position at a University, he writes is a formal style. While writing in a predominantly authoritative and calm tone, it does shift to have a more mocking edge towards the end. Ladyman is contending that the high wages of certain non -teaching staff is underserved and doesn’t reflect a significant contribution to the University’s standing. He is addressing readers of The Observer as well as anyone who is following the debate.

Ladyman intends to make his contention clear and memorable by having a clear structure that places the contention, that ‘universities are not run by those who teach them’ and they should be, at the very beginning of the letter. This ensures that the reader is not confused about the direction of the piece, and thus enables Ladyman’s subsequent persuasive endeavours to be effective at positioning the reader to agree with Ladyman’s position.

Ladyman argues that the ‘deans and pro-vice-chancellors’ aren’t an essential part of the University’s role. He does so by juxtaposing their lack of ‘tutorial’ and ‘academic research’ against the commonly held, assumed knowledge that University is a placing of teaching and learning. This thus makes the deans and pro-vice-chancellors appear dispensable to the reader, and thus undeserving of the high wage. This is continued by an overt appeal to democracy, noting that they were once ‘elected’, which positions the readers to consider that there are alternative options that are fairer. The alliterative phrase ‘appointed from above’ is attempting to play on anti-authoritarian values, to encourage the reader to reject the current controlling process.

Layman argues that the contribution of the deans and pro-vice-chancellors is overrated and underperforms. He does so by juxtaposing the highly respected role of teaching against his claims of inefficiency, disruption and waste caused by the non teaching staff. This is emphasised by Layman noting that teaching is paid by the hour, which infantilises it and associates it with youth jobs that carry little important. This positions the reader to change the standard of payment, to match their expectations of teaching. Here, Ladyman becomes somewhat mocking, using the general dislike of bureaucracy to encourage the reader to reject the assumed importance of the deans’ and colleagues work, with a cliche that we are becoming a ‘generation of benchmarks and targets’.

The hyperbolic ‘countless’ exaggerates to the reader the oxymoronic nature of the ‘vision’ statements of the universities, that contain no vision worth ‘immortali[sing]’. This intends to highlight the absurdity of this, which would make the role carried out by these people seem moronic to the reader. Ladyman concludes with a metaphor, of ‘our cathedrals of learning’,that hopes to create a strong, emotional tether for the religious, and generally strong imagery for all, that would make the contention reverberate with the reader, as to improve the likelihood that the reader will agree with the contention that the inequality between the wages of teachers and administrative staff needs to be resolved.

[scout]

I feel as if I'm reading too deeply into this and making connections out of thin air. I also didn't know how to go about structuring my piece, as the prompt was really subtle and toned done in the way that it was persuasive, so I waited for someone else to write first (btw thanks kat01). Also, I kept reading Ladyman as Layman, so when I read the last paragraph and thought to myself, "couldn't he have written this in layman's terms?", I'd thought I'd made a connection. Need to brush up on both my writing and reading skills.

Thanks in advance for critiquing this piece.

Debates have sparked in response to the rising concern about the disparity between income for university staff and heads of department as well as unreasonably high student tuition fees. In response to an editorial in the Observer regarding this topic, Professor James Ladyman from the Department of philosophy in the University of Bristol has written an opinion piece to express in an a decisive and controlled tone that the income inequality experienced by university staff and the rising tuition fees are is (in reference to 'the income inequality')unjustifiable and undeserved, thereby aiming his piece to at students as well as his fellow staff.

Ladyman begins by asserting is a measured tone that highly paid university staff members don't contribute to the university be careful with very conclusive statements like this. It would be more accurate to say that they don't contribute as much as their pay would suggest, sometimes having not "[taugh]t students nor [carried] out academic research" "in years". As Layman himself holds a position within a university, this attack holds more credibility, as he may have seen this firsthand, although this isn't explicitly stated in his piece except for his use of inclusive language. This would work to rile teaching staff who would've otherwise been ignorant of the inconsistency in their teaching responsibilities. might it also elicit guilt in these teaching staff? for the fact that they're essentially earning 'free money' to some extent?

Ladyman also points out how "deans, heads of department and promotion committees" are now appointed instead of being elected, and thus implies that they've changed the rules so that they could potentially remain in a high paying position, which would elicit fury in the readers, as they realise that they've no way of breaking this cycle through traditional means of electing an incorrupt staff member to make changes. I know what point you're trying to make; it's a very important point and you kind of got there in the end. But try to make your explanation clearer - try to think of single words that could best describe what's happening here. Do you sense a kind of bureaucracy being established in universities, perhaps?This is further exemplified by the claim that decision making is non-inclusive of university staff who are in direct contact with students.

Ladyman builds on his previous argument by juxtaposing the highly paid staff who contribute little to the school with teachers who are often "hourly paid" despite interacting with students on a regular basis beyond their designated teaching periods (sometimes additional, seemingly minor comments like this can add clarity to your reasoning), which would prompt readers to reach the conclusion that this is an unfair system and thereby protest against the income inequality.

As for the students, Layman states that the rise in tuition fees are wasted on "consultations and surveys", which should be the univeristy's responsibility, especially when it has no direct effect on the students learning (which is what tuition fees should be invested in!). This would therefore be very upsetting for students, who've realised the money they've paid in school fees is of no immediate benefit to them (since it's arguable that money spent in "surveys" etc. may prove useful to students in the long-term (if the results are used to guide program design or planning). Whether these long-term benefits will occur is, as you rightly point out, questionable  .

Ladyman ends his piece on a more philosophical note you seem to be alluding to the phrase "our cathedrals of learning" -
you could definitely squeeze out a juicy analysis out of that! "cathedral" is a heavily connoted word. What implications does it hold and what do they say about the inherent responsibilities or purpose of universities?, by claiming that all is for naught, or at least nothing good, although not in such layman's terms, in order to cement his assertion that there is an unfair use and distribution of money around universities.

[scout]

Hello! Sorry this is my first one of the year. I'm sorry if its not great. Thanks in advance for marking this

There had been much recent debate about the inequality in income between university students and teaching staff, and department heads in Britain. Professor James Ladyman, who is a direct stakeholder in this issue, being a Department Head himself, writes in a letter to the editor, a reply to a previous article. In keeping with his position at a University, he writes is a formal style. While writing in a predominantly authoritative and calm tone, it does shift to have a more mocking edge towards the end clear up your expression a bit. Ladyman is contending that the high wages of certain non -teaching staff is underserved and doesn’t reflect a significant contribution to the University’s standing. He is addressing readers of The Observer as well as anyone who is following the debate.

Ladyman intends to make his contention clear and memorable by having a clear structure that places the contention, that ‘universities are not run by those who teach them’ and they should be, at the very beginning of the letter. This ensures that the reader is not confused about the direction of the piece, and thus enables Ladyman’s subsequent persuasive endeavours to be effective at positioning the reader to agree with Ladyman’s position. this paragraph does demonstrate your understanding of Ladyman's structural tactics, which is good! But it isn't the most important part of AA so you can afford to be much more succinct here.

Ladyman argues that the ‘deans and pro-vice-chancellors’ aren’t an essential part of the University’s role. He does so by juxtaposing their lack of ‘tutorial’ and ‘academic research’ against the commonly held, assumed knowledge 'preconception' or 'belief' would be more accurate that University is a placing of teaching and learning. This thus makes the deans and pro-vice-chancellors appear dispensable to the reader, and thus undeserving of the high wage. This is continued by an overt appeal to democracy democratic values, noting that they were once ‘elected’, which positions the readers to consider that there are alternative options that are fairer. <-- good --> The alliterative phrase ‘appointed from above’ is attempting to play on anti-authoritarian values, to encourage the reader to reject the current controlling process.

Layman argues that the contribution of the deans and pro-vice-chancellors is overrated, since they and underperform. He does so by juxtaposing the highly respected role of teaching against his claims of inefficiency, disruption and waste avoid using the direct wording of the article itself when analysing caused by the non teaching staff. This is emphasised by Layman noting that teaching is paid by the hour, which infantilises it and associates it with youth jobs that carry little important <-- be careful here.
 I thought you were contradicting Ladyman's contention for a sec, until I read your next sentence. Streamline the two sentences to avoid this confusion. This positions the reader to want to change the standard of payment, to match their expectations of teaching. Here, Ladyman becomes somewhat mocking, using the general dislike of bureaucracy to encourage the reader to reject the assumed importance of the deans’ and colleagues work, with a cliche that we are becoming a ‘generation of benchmarks and targets’. not sure what this line is for

The hyperbolic ‘countless’ exaggerates to the reader the oxymoronic nature of the ‘vision’ statements of the universities, that contain no vision worth ‘immortali[sing]’. This intends to highlight the absurdity of this, which would make the role carried out by these people seem moronic informal language to the reader. Ladyman concludes with a metaphor, of ‘our cathedrals of learning’,that hopes to create a strong, emotional tether for the religious, and generally strong imagery for all yes... keep going with your analysis! You flagged a key opportunity for an awesome analysis but you didn't use that method of detailed analysis that you used all along! Why the reference to cathedrals specifically?, that would make the contention reverberate with the reader, as to improve the likelihood that the reader will agree with the contention that the inequality between the wages of teachers and administrative staff needs to be resolved.