VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 10

(1/2) > >>

scout:

--- Quote --- 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.
--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: kat01 on March 08, 2018, 01:01:44 pm ---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.


--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: clarke54321 on March 08, 2018, 01:13:34 pm ---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 :)

--- End quote ---
:) 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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page