And the last shall be...well, last (and first)
Sheesh...what a way to top off a crummy week. I spent Friday stuck in traffic with three screaming kids and a check engine light on the way to my crazy step-sister-in-law's wedding (her third), Sunday doing early Thanksgiving in a small space with a large number of in-laws, today dealing with snarky math professors, and now tonight Dr. Rogers has beat me to the punch with the new prompt. I think I'll move to Australia.
On top of that, I thought for sure I would get the "Weirdest Tutorial of the Week" award, but Cheyney wins hands down. Wow. You couldn't make some of this stuff up.
Well, I guess if I don't get first place, maybe I'll qualify for Miss Congeniality.
So, this guy brings in a paper on shoplifting--basically a treatise on why shoplifting is bad (talk about a thesis needing complicating). He discusses some pretty original ideas for how criminals can get away with shoplifting, and then some, um, unique ways for dealing with shoplifters. Throughout the paper are various injunctions ("Please don't shoplift"), threats ("If you shoplift, you will have to pay the price"), and rhetorical questions ("Why do people get away with stealing free stuff when I have to pay for it?"). Then comes the final section of his paper, entitled "Experience," in which--you guessed it--he describes his own experience with shoplifting, being diagnosed with and treated for kleptomania, and doing community service as punishment for stealing. His concluding line? "Worst of all, I can never go in Shopko again." (I know I'd be sad).
Definitely one of those where-the-heck-do-I-start moments (actually, I started by checking for my wallet). The thing is, his writing was okay--the punctuation was in place, and the subject and verb were getting along quite nicely. And I didn't want to offend him, since it was somewhat personal material, and I'd rather not have him suddenly switch hobbies from larceny to assault (fortunately, I know what I should do in such a situation, thanks to Agostinelli, et al.). So we started by discussing the use of second person (i.e., avoidance of) in research papers. I also pointed out some of the places where he directly addressed the reader, and suggested that some further research or support of his argument might be nice there instead, making his case stronger. I also gently proposed a slight shift in thesis, since it was after all a research paper, from arguing that "shoplifting is bad," to research on innovative ways businesses use to deter shoplifters, or new and better treatments for individuals suffering from kleptomania. He agreed, made some notes, and left.
I'm going to spend my Thanksgiving weekend being thankful that I'm not reading bizarre final papers, that I'm done surveying ornery math teachers, and that I still have my wallet.
And, of course, procrastinating my bibliographic essay. I think I'll paint the basement.
On top of that, I thought for sure I would get the "Weirdest Tutorial of the Week" award, but Cheyney wins hands down. Wow. You couldn't make some of this stuff up.
Well, I guess if I don't get first place, maybe I'll qualify for Miss Congeniality.
So, this guy brings in a paper on shoplifting--basically a treatise on why shoplifting is bad (talk about a thesis needing complicating). He discusses some pretty original ideas for how criminals can get away with shoplifting, and then some, um, unique ways for dealing with shoplifters. Throughout the paper are various injunctions ("Please don't shoplift"), threats ("If you shoplift, you will have to pay the price"), and rhetorical questions ("Why do people get away with stealing free stuff when I have to pay for it?"). Then comes the final section of his paper, entitled "Experience," in which--you guessed it--he describes his own experience with shoplifting, being diagnosed with and treated for kleptomania, and doing community service as punishment for stealing. His concluding line? "Worst of all, I can never go in Shopko again." (I know I'd be sad).
Definitely one of those where-the-heck-do-I-start moments (actually, I started by checking for my wallet). The thing is, his writing was okay--the punctuation was in place, and the subject and verb were getting along quite nicely. And I didn't want to offend him, since it was somewhat personal material, and I'd rather not have him suddenly switch hobbies from larceny to assault (fortunately, I know what I should do in such a situation, thanks to Agostinelli, et al.). So we started by discussing the use of second person (i.e., avoidance of) in research papers. I also pointed out some of the places where he directly addressed the reader, and suggested that some further research or support of his argument might be nice there instead, making his case stronger. I also gently proposed a slight shift in thesis, since it was after all a research paper, from arguing that "shoplifting is bad," to research on innovative ways businesses use to deter shoplifters, or new and better treatments for individuals suffering from kleptomania. He agreed, made some notes, and left.
I'm going to spend my Thanksgiving weekend being thankful that I'm not reading bizarre final papers, that I'm done surveying ornery math teachers, and that I still have my wallet.
And, of course, procrastinating my bibliographic essay. I think I'll paint the basement.
posted by Em at 10:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home