Weird MLA Teachings
Oh boy, where to begin on odd ball things I have learned about the Modern Language Association, or for abbreviated purposes MLA. There are so many. I do not know where to begin. Everything I have learned about MLA is weird. MLA is weird. It has all the rules to follow, and is very particular in the following these rules. An example of this is, after a period on the works cited page there is only one space, not two. If the space bar is hit twice after a period on the works cited page, the works cited page is now incorrect, and the student deserves a grade deduction.
Oh, wait was it supposed to be wrong things I learned about MLA? Haha. Ok scratch that. The only wrong, and weird, thing I can remember learning about MLA is back in my English 1010 and English 2010 classes. I had the same professor for both of the mentioned classes. She taught me that in MLA you have to cite everything that is not common knowledge. And, wait it gets better, if it is common knowledge no citation is required. Mmm… What? First off, what the H is constitutes common knowledge? That is a toughie. Next, if I have to cite everything that is not common knowledge my paper is going to be full of quotations, and my works cited page will be at least three times as long as the actual paper. So, if I look something up and use the contents of what I looked up in my paper, but I decide it is common knowledge, I do not have to cite it? If only I could yell obscenities at her for teaching me this.
I am pretty sure that I only have to cite information I looked up, whether it is a book, article, journal, internet site, Wikipedia, the newspaper, or just some random dude I talked to on the street, and used in my paper. I only have to cite sources I used, common or not. Is it just me or does this make a little too much sense?
A fine example of the stupidity of this teaching follows. I could sit down right now and write a decent five to six page compare and contrast paper on the different cambers of a snowboard. Do you doubt me? I will do it just to prove you wrong! Anyways, I could do the entire thing without looking up a single fact or source, and it would be correct in every factual way. Also, it would be very informative. The differing cambers of snowboards are definitely not common knowledge. Most snowboarders do not even know the difference, or even what camber is. If snowboarders do not know then it is quite safe to say that no non-snowboard would have a clue as to what camber is. I may be wrong, but this would then not be common knowledge at all. But it is in my knowledge; I already know all there is to know. I learned everything by devoting my life to snowboarding. I spend many hours on the mountain and in the shops. I did not have to look anything to write the paper, so I do not have to cite anything! Take that English teacher!
Oh, wait was it supposed to be wrong things I learned about MLA? Haha. Ok scratch that. The only wrong, and weird, thing I can remember learning about MLA is back in my English 1010 and English 2010 classes. I had the same professor for both of the mentioned classes. She taught me that in MLA you have to cite everything that is not common knowledge. And, wait it gets better, if it is common knowledge no citation is required. Mmm… What? First off, what the H is constitutes common knowledge? That is a toughie. Next, if I have to cite everything that is not common knowledge my paper is going to be full of quotations, and my works cited page will be at least three times as long as the actual paper. So, if I look something up and use the contents of what I looked up in my paper, but I decide it is common knowledge, I do not have to cite it? If only I could yell obscenities at her for teaching me this.
I am pretty sure that I only have to cite information I looked up, whether it is a book, article, journal, internet site, Wikipedia, the newspaper, or just some random dude I talked to on the street, and used in my paper. I only have to cite sources I used, common or not. Is it just me or does this make a little too much sense?
A fine example of the stupidity of this teaching follows. I could sit down right now and write a decent five to six page compare and contrast paper on the different cambers of a snowboard. Do you doubt me? I will do it just to prove you wrong! Anyways, I could do the entire thing without looking up a single fact or source, and it would be correct in every factual way. Also, it would be very informative. The differing cambers of snowboards are definitely not common knowledge. Most snowboarders do not even know the difference, or even what camber is. If snowboarders do not know then it is quite safe to say that no non-snowboard would have a clue as to what camber is. I may be wrong, but this would then not be common knowledge at all. But it is in my knowledge; I already know all there is to know. I learned everything by devoting my life to snowboarding. I spend many hours on the mountain and in the shops. I did not have to look anything to write the paper, so I do not have to cite anything! Take that English teacher!
posted by Eric at 5:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home