Isaiah Swann
Thompson
AP Lang, Block 1, Skinny B
6 May 2015
DAP for “The Many Fallacies of Vocational Education”
“The Many Fallacies of Vocational Education” was written in response to Mike Rose’s “I Just Wanna Be Average,” an essay which challenged the idea that the vocational track is an adequate replacement for higher education. At least from a superficial perspective, this rhetorical analysis paper seemed very well-written and polished; however, there were multiple mistakes that tarnished the paper and reduced the overall quality of the paper. From the simple paragraphs to the often times confusing syntax, my paper can be improved significantly.
On one hand, my response had many strengths. For example, I feel as though I did a great job of providing support for my opinions and assertions. I used information from outside sources and grounded that information to the text. Additionally, I had an adequate supply of vocabulary words, such as egregious and reclamation.
On the other hand, there were many opportunities for improvement. Whenever I did provide examples from the text, I did not do a good job of stating my commentary in a manner that could be understood by the reader. Additionally, there were many instances in which I did not do a good job of elaborating: “He goes on to say that the vocational track was built to train its students for non-esteemed work / jobs: ‘if you’re a working-class kid in the vocational track; ... other students are picking up cues from your school and your curriculum and interacting with you in particular ways’ (Rose 3).” I provided some background information and introduced the quotes I included, but I did not provide any further commentary afterward, and therefore my paper was lacking in both length and strength.
Thompson
AP Lang, Block 1, Skinny B
6 May 2015
DAP for “The Many Fallacies of Vocational Education”
“The Many Fallacies of Vocational Education” was written in response to Mike Rose’s “I Just Wanna Be Average,” an essay which challenged the idea that the vocational track is an adequate replacement for higher education. At least from a superficial perspective, this rhetorical analysis paper seemed very well-written and polished; however, there were multiple mistakes that tarnished the paper and reduced the overall quality of the paper. From the simple paragraphs to the often times confusing syntax, my paper can be improved significantly.
On one hand, my response had many strengths. For example, I feel as though I did a great job of providing support for my opinions and assertions. I used information from outside sources and grounded that information to the text. Additionally, I had an adequate supply of vocabulary words, such as egregious and reclamation.
On the other hand, there were many opportunities for improvement. Whenever I did provide examples from the text, I did not do a good job of stating my commentary in a manner that could be understood by the reader. Additionally, there were many instances in which I did not do a good job of elaborating: “He goes on to say that the vocational track was built to train its students for non-esteemed work / jobs: ‘if you’re a working-class kid in the vocational track; ... other students are picking up cues from your school and your curriculum and interacting with you in particular ways’ (Rose 3).” I provided some background information and introduced the quotes I included, but I did not provide any further commentary afterward, and therefore my paper was lacking in both length and strength.