LA on MLC principal

[nisha]

Feedback would be much appreciated:)

Article:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sacking-of-mlc-principal-rosa-storelli-is-rich-drama/story-e6frfhqf-1226479417642


Analysis:

The misplacement of funds leads to the sacking of the principal from an “elite” private school has ignited controversy as to whether those of the “upper class” should receive such substantial “salaries”. The opinion piece, “Sacking of MLC principal Rosa Storelli is rich drama” by James Campbell published in The Herald Sun contends in a predominantly critical and sarcastic tone that the “headmistresses” who run private schools should not be paid such a large “remuneration” and that this excessive for the work that they do. This opinion piece disparagingly complemented by the photograph of Ms. Storelli standing on a staircase symbolizes her halt in rising up her levels of achievement. The piece, targeted at the wider public –those of which whom who are not a part of the “elite” class- argues through past history and analysis of the actual worth that the school is obtaining from paying their “boss” this amount. This piece specifically caters for those unaware of the happenings and “rich drama” that occurs behind closed doors and aims to awaken these notions.

The opinion piece commences by criticizing Ms. Storelli’s salary labeling it as “a hell of a lot of money” or “scandalous” words which connote a sense of inequity and injustice against those that “run a girls school”. Campbell then backs up his argument by using statistics, stating “pay… grew over the decade 1992-2002 from 22 times the average …to 74 times” which positions the reader to be impressed by the seemingly irrefutable evidence. Consequently, readers may feel a sense of offense towards Ms. Storelli for her seemingly bloated “salary” when Campbell compares his own experience, “when my old man was complaining endlessly…for all the money he was shelling out…headmistress…was a prestigious but not especially well-paid position”. The opinion piece continues by satirically condemning their “inflated” salaries by asking rhetorically, “Why the cost of educating [the] little darlings has soared”. This repetition of the same idea emphasizes the outrage towards those of the “elite” class which serves to compound the suggestion of the selfish behavior on part of Ms. Storelli, that readers have been positioned to accept. In turn, readers may further harbor a sense of dislike over the Ms. Storelli as well as those who are “spoiled” to receive such hefty incomes, which suggests that it is not only the “schoolgirls” who are overindulged.

Campbell subsequently states that “through this ugly spat” the readers are shown what happens behind the closed doors of the “elite” class. He re-iterates his contention that it is an “obscene salary for a schoolteacher”. Such language depicts the “scandal” as a crime where the “elite” have “no compunction” to “inflate” their own salaries whilst “jacking up the school fees”.  This portrays the “elite” class as callous and heartless as we are given a “glimpse into the way the managerial class in this country has managed to show the rest of us a clean pair of heels”. This allusion draws parallels between the pay packet of Ms. Storelli and the aristocratic notion she and many others of her high society possess. It aims to show the reader how “the elite” class inherit money from the “federal government” to purchase items and then use these same items to walk over the “public” by further “taking more” money. This allusion generates the perception for the reader to become aware of the activities and motivations(and how they take advantage of these) and thus Campbell aims to position the reader to feel this way. In addition to this, the photograph of Ms. Storelli supports his view. The frame is set to focus on her, as she is dressed in business clothes (symbolizes her competence in the cut-throat business world), but allows a hint of the background through the stairs and railing. But it is the lighting and the significance of the background that speaks Campbell’s view. Her cold and seemingly troubled air hints at the fact that this dispute has come as a roadblock to her stairwell to success. The contrast to the dark near her in the photograph to the light of the higher stairs suggests that she is unable to fully be on the right path of success unless she deal with the matter at hand, seriously. Not only this, he further mentions that the situations will soon become so “obscene” that “few but [the board of directors themselves] can afford to send their children to school”. Constructively blending in a use of hyperbole works as a scare tactic to further accentuate Campbell’s view, allowing the audience to be stepped through his logic and agree with his final deduction.

The thrust of Campbell’s article resides in his seemingly casual but critical demeanor, which pains his intentions credibly as he subsequently to mock those of the “elite” class for receiving such substantial payments. By simultaneously doing this, he appeals to the reader’s sense of justice where he positions his audience to dislike those receiving such “obscene” salaries and works to open their eyes on how they exploit “the system” to rise the steps of achievement as Ms. Storelli’s photograph points out. It is through the composition of these satirical and visual elements that Campbell intends to raise awareness of the prevalence of this issue and that the “headmistress” should not be paid so substantially for the “drama” that she does.

[VivaTequila]

Analysis:

The misplacement of funds leads to the sacking of the principal from an “elite” private(*1) school has ignited controversy as to whether those of the “upper class” should receive such substantial “salaries”(*2). The opinion piece, “Sacking of MLC principal Rosa Storelli is rich drama” by James Campbell published in The Herald Sun contends in a predominantly critical and sarcastic tone that the “headmistresses” who run private schools should not be paid such a large “remuneration” and that this excessive for the work that they do. This opinion piece disparagingly (is) complemented by the photograph(*3) of Ms. Storelli standing on a staircase(, which) symbolizes her halt in rising up her levels of achievement(*4). The piece, targeted at the wider public – those of which whom who are not a part of the “elite” class - argues through past history(*5) and analysis of the actual worth that the school is obtaining from paying their “boss” this amount(*6). This piece specifically caters for those unaware of the happenings and “rich drama” that occurs behind closed doors and aims to awaken these notions(*7).

*1 - You should name the principle and the school
*2 - Clarify whether or not you mean the schools or the principals should receive these salaries; opening sentence could generally be expressed better although it's not half bad
*3 - Even with my correction the sentence still isn't structurally 100% correct
*4 - Needs to be eloquently expressed
*5 - "Past History" isn't a term that you've coined, and nor is it obvious enough to use without explaining what it is that the author is using. I don't know what Past History is in this context, so you need to explain it.
*6 - I would have rephrased this sentence to read something more like...

The article is targeted at the general public and panders to those who detest elitists in that the author's construction examines recent history () to show the audience (explain why it leads the audience to detest elitists

I generally don't like what you've done. You've said it "attracts the general public (but not) elitists". That's the same as saying "the article doesn't attract elitists". You should be saying who it DOES target, not who it DOESN'T target.
*7 - You've written: 'The article is structured to help those who don't know what's happened (the rich drama that's unfolded behind closed doors) and aims to awaken these notions (i.e. aims to awaken the drama that occurs behind closed doors). Your expression is vague; why or how does the piece specifically cater to those who don't know what's happened? If it goes into lengthy detail of the chronology of events, then say so, don't just state it as a fact and leave it hanging. And then be careful when you discuss "these notions" because it's very clunky expression and I don't know what you're saying - be specific.

Some sentences were brilliant and easy 9/10 material, but the overall drawbacks really outweighed it, so I would probably give this a 6.5. It's done everything required of a LA Introduction, albeit with lots of expression errors.

The opinion piece commences by criticizing Ms. Storelli’s salary(,) labeling it as “a hell of a lot of money” or “scandalous” words which connote a sense of inequity and injustice against those that “run a girls school”. Campbell then backs up his argument by using statistics, stating “pay… grew over the decade 1992-2002 from 22 times the average …to 74 times” which positions the reader to be impressed by the seemingly irrefutable evidence(fantastic so far). Consequently, readers may feel a sense of offense towards Ms. Storelli for her seemingly bloated “salary” when Campbell compares his own experience, “when my old man was complaining endlessly…for all the money he was shelling out…headmistress…was a prestigious but not especially well-paid position”. The opinion piece continues by satirically condemning their “inflated” salaries by asking rhetorically, “Why the cost of educating [the] little darlings has soared”. This repetition of the same (The repetition of this) idea emphasizes the outrage towards those of the “elite” class which serves to compound the suggestion of the selfish behavior on part of Ms. Storelli, that readers have been positioned to accept. In turn, readers may further harbor harbour a sense of dislike over the (towards?) Ms. Storelli as well as those who are “spoiled” to receive such hefty incomes, which suggests that it is not only the “schoolgirls” who are overindulged.

Much better paragraph, no major issues to point out except some expressive errors. 7.5/10

Campbell subsequently states that “through this ugly spat” the readers are shown what happens behind the closed doors of the “elite” class(*1). He re-iterates his contention that it is an “obscene salary for a schoolteacher”. Such language depicts the “scandal” as a crime where the “elite” have “no compunction” to “inflate” their own salaries whilst “jacking up the school fees”(fantastic sentence).  This portrays the “elite” class as callous and heartless as we are given a “glimpse into the way the managerial class in this country has managed to show the rest of us a clean pair of heels”. This allusion draws parallels between the pay packet of Ms. Storelli and the aristocratic notion she and many others of her high society possess(*2). It aims to show the reader how “the elite” class inherit money from the “federal government” to purchase items and then use these same items to walk over the “public” by further “taking more” money. This allusion generates the perception for the reader to become aware of the activities and motivations(and how they take advantage of these) and thus Campbell aims to position the reader to feel this way. In addition to this, the photograph of Ms. Storelli supports his view. The frame is set to focus on her, as she is dressed in business clothes (symbolizes her competence in the cut-throat business world), but allows a hint of the background through the stairs and railing. But it is the lighting and the significance of the background that speaks Campbell’s view. Her cold and seemingly troubled air hints at the fact that this dispute has come as a roadblock to her stairwell to success. The contrast to the dark near her(*3) in the photograph to the light of the higher stairs suggests that she is unable to fully be on the right path of success unless she deal with the matter at hand, seriously. Not only this, he(*4) further mentions that the situations will soon become so “obscene” that “few but [the board of directors themselves] can afford to send their children to school”. Constructively blending in a use of hyperbole(hyperbolic language) [EXAMPLE] works as a scare tactic to further accentuate Campbell’s view, allowing(convincing) the audience to be stepped(guided) through his logic and agree with his final deduction.

*1 - No distinct clauses, so can't make sense of it. A classic case of lorem ipsum.
*2 - Lorem ipsum
*3 - Weak expression - you can do better than "the dark near her". Something like "her proximal dark environs is contrasted with" would work better.
*4 - Clauses don't agree

7/10

The thrust of Campbell’s article resides in his seemingly casual but critical demeanor(demeanour), which pains his intentions credibly() as he subsequently to mock those(??) of the “elite” class for receiving such substantial payments. By simultaneously doing this, he appeals to the reader’s sense of justice where he positions his audience to dislike those receiving such “obscene” salaries and works to open their eyes on how they exploit “the system” to rise the steps of achievement as Ms. Storelli’s photograph points out(reveals) (great sentence). It is through the composition of these satirical and visual elements that Campbell intends to raise awareness of the prevalence of this issue and that the “headmistress” should not be paid so substantially for the “drama” that she does.

One sentence killed the paragraph, this would probably have impressed me if not for that dastardly sentence. I'd give this a 6.5...

Overall I guess this would score a 6.5-7. You are well on the way to scoring a brilliant mark - your analysis is, at times, flawless, but there are sentences which just roundhouse-kick-you in the face. It's easy stuff to fix before the exam - just read it and make sure it makes sense. Try to stop using semi-colloquial language like "which the author POINTS OUT" etc. Your vocabulary is decent and your expression second to none - when you get it right.