/lit/ - Literature

>>16101311
Have you tried Facebook groups?

>>16101311
Post your essay so we can see what's wrong with it.

>>16101330
i'm not sure what that means, and i don't have social media

>>16101311
>The professor said I was just restating the text, even though I went out and tried to make connections to the outside world, climate change, racism, etc. all that bullshit that academic leftists love.

Assuming this isn't bait, did you actually just ramble and make vague connections to "contemporary issues" rather than trying to make a sustained philosophical analysis and argument? What the hell did you write?

>>16101340
Hmm.

>>16101339
i can't, this is a mandatory class with thousands of students each semester at the biggest school in my state. I'm going to send it to my high school english teacher that i am friends with.
basically my prompt was to examine the relationships between a reading and american society as well as it's threat upon culture. even if half of my essay i was simply going over the work, the other half i spent going the extra mile and making connections to other works and the outside world as a whole. and i don't really see what i did wrong, isn't the whole point of "analyse" to examine the work that is discussed in the prompt? no where in the prompt does it say to make it an opinion piece or something.
i'm just really mad, and i know the professor will do jack shit to listen to my questions because his tenure has given him a delusionally sized ego
>>16101365
it's not bait. i didn't ramble and try to fluff up my essay with bullshit, i went with what was discussed in the text and extrapolated it to the modern day. part of it was criticising technology in the 60s and 70s, so for example i extended his criticisms to technology in the modern day and provided evidence on why the author would feel that way

i'm just really lost because all my life i've been told my work is good but i did exactly what i've always done and how i was told and got an F.

>>16101311
>>16101394
You are a literal bug, kys retard.

>>16101398
that's not very helpful. if you're saying i sound like a bluepilled faggot i assure you i merely act that way because i know there's no alternative if i want to pass college.
i can't wait till i finish these bullshit mandated classes and learn beekeeping or something actually real

bump before i go to bed

>>16101394
Bro it sounds like your mistake was agreeing with the text. The point of philosophy essays is to criticise the text. Say what is wrong with it.
It contains a critique of technology? Say no no no thats all wrong, technology has saved us.
One thing especially is to try to find somewhere the author contradicts themselves.
"On page 2 he says this but on page 5 he says this and they don't fit together."

>>16101311
god I am so glad my local college had a strange loophole where a FILM101 class counted as a 200 level english for no reason and that somehow transferred universities to my comp eng degree
suck it OP I'll never have to take a faggy english class in my life

>>16101723
the prompt didn't ask me to criticise, it asked me to analyse a text. and this isn't an official philosophy class, it's some mystery meat leftist indoctrination class where everything from national parks to classical music is racist (these the professor's words, not mine). philosophy is just the most prominent flavor in the shit-tasting slurry.
>>16101739
i've never had problems with english before, i really enjoyed my highschool literature classes and writing essays. this experience combined with the aforementioned indoctrination has made me really glad to be majoring in something that takes me out of academia and lets me go outside

>>16101311
>The professor said I was just restating the text
You’re probably guilty of being a white guy

>>16101311
>basically killed my chances of keeping my huge scholarship.
That's the point.

>>16101311
Can you post exactly what the analysis section of the rubric stated? Did it require some kind of argument reconstruction and counterargument?

>>16101794
>analyse
code for criticise
>The professor said I was just restating the text
your job was to FIND SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT

>>16101311
The essay is probably graded primarily on the quality of the arguments you make, and your understanding of the arguments being made by others, rather than whatever points your essays are usually graded on. I guess that's what they mean by 'analysis'. If it's an analytic phil then I doubt they give a single shit about your having related it to the current affairs or whatever you did.

>>16101311
I suspect this is bait, but...

Practical solution here is: go to the office hours of whoever graded your paper. Ask about what they are looking for that you didn't provide. Ask for specifics. Ask if you could see an A paper for the prompt from another student, or from a previous semester. Ask if the professor knows of a writing guide you can follow that would help you improve. (As a philosophy grad student, I can tell you that many possible most profs and TAs ask students to read Jim Pryor's "writing philosophy" guide and the MIT Philosophy Pink Guide)

>>16101311
I'm going to keep this concise. First of all, I can tell you're in STEM by the fact that you tried to optimize and game the system of writing a paper by giving an "academic leftist" what he wanted. Turns out, he didn't want that, because thats not what "analyze" means. Philosophy papers are not book reports, and linking philosophy to the outside world is the stuff of puff pieces on Medium or Twitter, not academic philosophy. What you should have done is picked a position and argued it using the text as given and drawing your own conclusion from it. Example, if you were writing on the Stoics: "Stoic happiness was based on their circular eschatology, and without this, would be less impactful." Read your text, defend your point, and thats that. THAT is analysis. A novel thesis and close reading, not bringing in random bullshit you think "leftists" want to read about.

I'll be honest, I think his grading is a little harsh for a 100 level course, not everyone is going to be writing good quality theses at this point and he really should have made this clear to you guys, but the fact remains that you approached this like a cynical and arrogant know-it-all and got treated appropriately.

>>16101311
>I went out and tried to make connections to the outside world, climate change, racism, etc. all that bullshit that academic leftists love.
so you tried to use your youtube knowledge of "cultural marxism in academia" to get a good grade but it backfired so hard that it will fuck you up financially? that's pretty funny.

>>16101311
>all that bullshit that academic leftists love
I've had students like you. You're a moron and always will be. Give up now, you'll never get it.

>>16103369
>that you tried to optimize and game the system of writing a paper by giving an "academic leftist" what he wanted
OP deserves to lose his scholarship, in other words

>>16101311
>flunked a 100-level course essay
>3 page essay is "big"
stem is a fucking embarrasment

>>16103369
like i said, this is not a strict philosphy class, and no where was i ever given any indication that i was supposed to write any differently than how i was taught. the bit about packing it with twitter talking points is a bit of an exagerration on my part; i criticise consumer culture and it's impact on the environmenr, but i'm nit being disingenuous about it since these are actual positions i hold and i believe the text agrees with me.
>>16103517
like i said above, i tried using a combination of my personal beliefs and what has been discussed in the class. i'm not some sweaty "debate me" right winger, i used to be a somewhat of leftist which is why i try to give these people what they want.
>>16101844
i mean i look white but my name is spanish so hopefully that's not why he did this.
>>16103329
i've asked a former english teacher for her opinion on my essay. i figure she will be more helpful than my TA, who is an ecology major, and my professor, who is an ex-hippy teaching holocaust studies. none of these people have anything to do with philosophy, and i should have been more clear that philosophy is a major component but the class as a whole is a vague humanities amalgamation

>>16103890
Lmao

>>16103890
Re: the last point, my point still stands. Go to the office hours of the person who is GRADING your essay. By all means, get as many opinions about your writing as you can. But, at the end of the day, apparently the TA/prof was looking for something you didn't provide. You need to figure out what that is. The only person to ask is your TA/prof. It's not that fucking hard.

>>16102063
here are some snippets from the prompt and rubric:
Body
>Prove what you say you are going to do [i.e., prove your thesis statement or claim].
>Avoid introducing extraneous and tangential material that does not support your claim.
>Remain focused on your topic and thesis statement.
>Support your claims about the text with evidence which you either quote (verbatim) or paraphrase (i.e., using your own words to summarize the main points of the reading).
>Do not simply state what you believe.
>Do not simply summarize the text.

I got a custom score of zero on the "critical thinking" part of the rubric, where the instructions were:
> Analysis of evidence in support of main claim/warrant
Once again I don't see what I did wrong according to any of these fields. These instructions are very normal, and I was taught to write essays like this all my life.
>>16103901
I'm thinking if my english teacher sympathizes with me, I can use some of her arguments to support my point when I email my TA (everything is online). If no change then I'll atleast email my professor to ask him what I did wrong. Once again, I have to point out that not even two weeks ago I submitted an essay that got a 95%, and I didn't change anything in my writing style or method from then to now.

>>16103746
I wouldn't go that far, but OP definitely needs a reality check

>>16103890
>this is not a strict philosphy class
If you are taking a philosophy class, you should treat it as one. The fact that you didn't take it seriously or consider it "strict" is neither here nor there.
>no where was i ever given any indication that i was supposed to write any differently...
I will concede this point to you, your professor absolutely should have been more clear on this, but it doesn't excuse your overall attitude of bullshit.

>>16103901
This
Make them explain to you face to face why you failed. I graded essays for years - its not always as objective as you might think.

>>16103953
the class is not presented, labelled, or in anyway designated to be a philosophy class. i'm merely calling it a philosophy class since that is the biggest topic, but the class itself is, as i referred to earlier, a mystery-meat humanities course. in hindsight it would be more accurate to maybe call it an english class since the majority of our assignments are just "analyse this text"

>>16103983
So what is it actually called?

>>16103983
This changes things OP, I wish you had just said so. This imprecise language and twisting details for dramatic effect MIGHT be part of your problem, if I had to guess, but I'd just be speculating.

>>16103990
"Interdisciplinary Studies". make of that what you will
>>16104011
i'm sorry, the course markets itself as asking big philisophical questions, and those are talked about in discussions but much of the actual work is the same "write about your reading" shit that's been done since 9th grade.

>>16104052
My goodness you're right lol

>>16104052
Okay, then in a class this vague, I think its on the professor to establish some clear expectations and ground rules for the content. Whether or not this happened I can't say, but this seems like a failure of communication.

>>16104080
okay, i'm going to get some work done and if i can get around to emailing my TA before this thread gets archived then i'll bump it