“A Year in Letters”
Reflect on what you have done and learned in Writing 2/3 or 5 and in your First Year Seminar. Specifically, consider (in any order): How is college writing different from high school writing? What do you feel were the most important things you learned? What are your key takeaways about writing and your writing in particular? What writing practices/habits/skills do you plan to focus on in your future writing? What do you like to write best/least and why? What does that tell you?
Looking into my experiences over the past two terms in Writing 5 and my First Year Seminar, I believe that college has helped me to take a step forward from my high school writing. The main differences I see in my writing is involved with my research and the depth of my analysis. My research has improved with looking at the quality of my sources and integrating them into my works. In high school, I was not always being conscious of how credible my sources were and I also had a habit of cherry picking quotes to support my argument when the article did not really work with my writing. The depth of my analysis improved in correlation with this. In using better sources that fit my topic exactly, I was able to understand and develop my arguments and points more thoroughly, thus leading to deeper and more meaningful analysis. My college writing therefore overall just became more complete and credible in my convincing of my arguments.
Looking more into the classes, the thing that I learned that was most important through these two classes was that it is not always about length or rather more about getting the point across concisely and effectively. Along with this, I learned about how to be creative in varying my sentence structure use along with still being clear and getting my point across. When there is too many words, it can muddle the meaning or point being made and weaken the argument or just make the point unclear to the reader, detracting from the paper. This leads into key takeaway about writing and specifically my writing where I was able to learn about how I need to not overdo points. There is a fine line between explaining and analyzing a point and being repetitive and just repeating the argument. This can occur when my writing was too verbose and I would end up circling around to the same point I already made after adding too many extra sentences or phrases in my analysis of a point or source material. Writing does not always have to be eloquent and wordy to make an effective and sophisticated point. Sometimes, a short simple sentence is much more effective in getting the point across clearly to the audience.
Furthermore, I plan to focus on revising and making sure, after my initial drafts of word vomit, to look at my writing and condense sentences. I will also make sure I recognize the point that I am trying to get across exactly through each of my body paragraphs and looking at this in terms of my thesis. I want to keep each of these points connected and clear individually so that they will be effective in supporting my overall argument. Along with this a key habit will continue to have multiple drafts along with peer review processes as to make sure my writing is clear and that I am not making any big mistakes in writing or grammar.
In looking into what I like to write the best, I do not mind writing research papers, but I like more to take one material, like a book or play, and looking into it on a deeper level or with my own opinions. I do not like writing straight up research papers as much because of the depth of research. It is not so much that I do not like the research side of things, but in a Dartmouth term, there is usually so little time to find a deep and large amount of research that sometimes it is overwhelming. If I was writing a paper that I had as much time as I want to engage in my research and then write a paper, I would not be as much against these type of papers. All of this tells me that I like engaging deeply with my sources, that being just one main source and having time to focus more on many sources, so that I can write a paper without cherry picking argument to get my resource numbers up. Overall, I appreciated these two writing classes as to develop my writing and learn how to use research more effectively across different disciplines, not just English writing.
Reflection on Ethics and Sports Betting
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, also known as the “Bradley Act”, was passed back in 1992 in response to sports betting, both at the amatuer and professional levels. Its purpose was to effectively address betting throughout athletics on these levels and make it unlawful. There were a few states, such as Nevada, that were able to keep betting legal, but overall, sports betting became illegal throughout the country. It was seen as a national problem, so the government addressed with this act. However, as of last Monday, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned this law as unconstitutional. This means now that every state has the opportunity to legalize betting and there is the possibility of online betting becoming legal as well. This came as an overturn of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in their decision to uphold the act. The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that even though the government has the right to regulate gambling, but if it doesn’t choose to do so, the states should be allowed to make their own law, which was the part that they found in violation of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
The ramifications of this ruling will now be where to set the line on betting. There needs to be rules set out either by the government as a whole or by the leagues of each on what can and cannot be bet on and who and who cannot bet on such things. This will avoid there being chances of rigging or throwing games, and bets being made on things as simple as if the first pitch will be a ball or strike. When each little play or thing on chance is bet on, it becomes hard to tell what is really real or what people may be doing to get themselves or others money. Yes, there will/should still be restrictions on players and affiliates of teams and organization on betting, but there could be a friend for a player that has them foul or do something crazy nsut to make a quick buck. That is why a ramification is now the need to set some strict rules on what can be bet on.
I personally like the ruling though. I have never really seen a huge problem with sports betting and I myself have even taken part in it. Actually, I was not aware that online betting was illegal and bet money on the Minnesota Vikings, my favorite team, to win the Superbowl online earlier this year. Well not trying to incriminate myself, this shows my opinion on thinking no harm no foul. Yes, gambling can become an issue, but if it is regulated and controlled well by the government and the states I see no issue in it. So therefore, I do agree with the ruling because it gives way to more freedom of choice to do what you will with your own money. In a way, it is just a support of capitalism for you to strategically use your money to make more money, like an investment in stocks or property. The only qualm I have is more so a hope that this will not be abused on larger scales for companies or people to make crazy amounts of money on back door dealing or fishy situation that would take away from the sports. However, overall, I think sports betting can be a fun and interesting way to get people involved in athletics and possibly to make a few quick bucks using some sports knowledge.
References
28 U.S. Code Chapter 178 – PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR SPORTS PROTECTION. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-VI/chapter-178
Maese, R. (2018, May 14). Analysis | What the Supreme Court’s sports gambling decision means. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/05/14/what-the-supreme-courts-sports-gambling-decision-means/?utm_term=.5f81f8e99bad
Lauletta, T. (2018, May 14). The Supreme Court has overturned the federal ban on sports betting – here’s what that means for the immediate future of gambling in America. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-sports-betting-decision-what-it-means-2018-5
Speaker Reflection
In my first year seminar, sports and technology at the crossroads, we had a guest speaker by the name of Mary Bolton. Bolton works as a program officer in Washington DC for the U.S. Department of State’s Sports Diplomacy Division in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. She works in collaboration with organizations and programs like espnW Global Sports Mentoring Program to empower women and the Sport for Community program on disability rights. With working with these programs, she is able to use sports as a form of empowerment for youth, specifically young girls. She talked on four different pillars of her work and the different functions that they have in her office and for the department as a whole. She spoke a lot on how they recruit athletes to send abroad and set up camps with different sports and how they also take students from abroad into programs in the US. She and her department use sports in such an interesting and effective way that honestly I had never really even have thought of. When she talked about how skateboarding was used abroad in a country, it was pretty great to hear the quote about how a little boy complained about a girl being able to do a trick by saying “it is not fair she is a girl”. The true effectiveness of the program can be seen here with the common parsing surrounding on how boys are “supposed to” be better at sports than girls, unless it is a sport that is labeled to be for girls. This is what was great about skateboarding because of its traditional stereotype of being rather masculine. Her office is making real change with this use of sports and really helping to empower these young women abroad. Overall, it made me examine sports as a tool rather then just for entertainment. She talked about how it is something that everyone can come together on and grow through as well. The power of sports is something that is pure and has much potential, which is why her office and position was so interesting to hear about. I also liked the idea of how even though they are using athletes to facilitate these camps, they do not have to use the absolute big names or even people that we would recognize. This puts the focus on the sport and the mentorship of these athletes rather than the allure and fame of the athlete. Overall, it was an interesting look into sports and the benefits it can have for youth, especially young women.
What I’m Writing
My current project is a scholarly review that is a nonfiction narrative discussing a technology in sports and its ethical implications. My project focuses on the effects of bracing and taping on athletes and I look at the possibilities of causing new injuries and causing players to return from injury too quick, causing a re-injury.
I like this project because it is really making me take a look at my own experiences in athletics, specifically soccer and running for me at higher levels. It makes me question why at times I chose to tape or use a brace on injuries and if it really ended up helping me or caused my performance to dip or even cause another new injury. I use to blindly follow the world of the athletic trainer and not even think twice about what else could happen. It goes beyond this as well, this project has implications for me of why people that are suppose to be the experts are followed at times without even thinking twice. We could be following a trainer or doctor based on what has worked before for others, but each case is individual and a treatment could possibly be negative for me. This project has helped me to look into this for myself and has been a good reflection on my own athletic career and the injuries that went along with it.
The part of this project that I do not like and am struggling with personally is related just with the topic I chose. My topic is quite broad and has many implications and could lead down many different ideas. The thing I struggled was with getting it to be focused enough to make a central argument and not jump around to too many issues. I also don’t like this about the project because it feels somewhat limiting about talking on this topic that is interesting but I cannot talk about everything I want because it does have to be this unified central argument.
This paper is also not very similar to many other things I have written since I have been in college. It is a mix of all types of sources, going from scientific peer review to articles and interviews. This wide array of sources with the use of personal anecdote and first person combine to be a unique piece unlike other research papers or article like pieces that I have written thus far.
Finally, in terms of multimedia, I have some experience. I can use slides, websites, posters, or blogs but I am not terribly techy either. I could probably not do great with any video editing, video games, coding, or podcasts. I could possibly do some photography or low level video filming and have used things like this for other projects in high school, but again I had help with these and not great with technology myself.
How is writing a literature review similar or different to other things you have written? What do you find most challenging about it?
The parts of a literature review that are most similar to other things I have written is that I am collecting sources once again and having to combine those sources into a coherent piece. I am using scientific papers, which is slightly different, but overall it is similar to having to find credible works to make a point. It is also similar to other papers in have a structure of starting out with an introduction of a sort and ending with a conclusion. The style of writing is also similar, writing for an academic purpose.
The differences between this paper and others that I have written starts off with the main crux of the paper. There is not something specific that we are arguing for in our papers, rather we are using are sources to just talk about our technologies and make some connections. Also, it is different to have multiple parts of the body that somewhat do not relate. It is almost like writing two mini papers in the body and then bringing them together later in the discussion and conclusion. The discussion also is different just because it is more in your face about bringing together sources and comparing them rather then using them all to make one point or argument. Lastly, it is different to have use a science background to understand stats and studies rather finding sources that are more article like.
The most difficult part of the paper for me in this draft was most defiantly the discussion section. I did not know how to approach comparing my papers beyond the obvious things and I did not want to become repetitive. I ended up going on somewhat of a tangent off an argument I made and relating the papers to that, but I honestly was not sure how to approach this part of the paper in the first place.
Writing 5 Reflection
Writing 5 has been a class that has helped me to grow and develop my own writing at a college level. Looking into the outcomes in our syllabus, the outcomes were split up into the sections “Creating and Producing” and “Inquiring, Interpreting, Integrating”. For the first group, the outcomes that I think I improved on in my writing was making a solid “organizational structure” and “participating in academic conversations”. For the first of these two outcomes, throughout the drafting process of each paper, I was able to figure out the most logical and effective way to structure my papers. An example of this comes in my final paper where after my conference draft I was able to shift the ordering of my information and argument to make the digital essay more logical. I moved my own personal experience to the beginning and introduced the idea of the differences in workplaces earlier as to make it a more central part of the article as my argument. This reordering helped to make the main part of my article clearer and easy to follow for the reader. For the second outcome, the in-class discussions with my peers on topics and specifically in peer review was an effective part of improving my papers. An example of this came in my second project with peer review when discussing my thesis and introduction paper made my paper more effective overall. Another side of this was meeting with my RWIT tutor and her helping me clean up and improve my conclusion in my second project. Having these discussions about my paper helped to condense my thesis and intro as to fit the argument of my paper better and not have unnecessary words. Additionally, my RWIT tutor helped me to add my go beyond in explaining that judging people on a physical difference like tattoos is as unfounded as judging someone on something like race or gender. These discussions allowed me to look into my own writing and talk out fixes with peers and scholars.
In the second section of the outcomes, “Inquiring, Interpreting, Integrating”, the part that I think I improved on the most was “analyzing information in the context of relevant social and scholarly conversations”. I think the essay that I did this effectively was my Project 1. I looked into the musical “In the Heights” and related the issues discussed in the show to that of different issues in society and related that to Garland-Thompson. For example, I discussed the hierarchy of classes in society and how this relates to disparities of socioeconomic status when it comes to race and immigrants. Making these connections from the context of the paper into the context of the real life issues that Lin-Manuel Miranda was commenting on helped to ground and make my own argument more effective. I needed to adjust the thesis, but the analysis with the use of social context was mostly effective.
Looking at the outcomes again, the two that I need to improve on are “crafting a strong, supportable claim” and “expressing complex ideas with clear, concise language”. For the first outcome, my first project’s thesis remained somewhat unclear throughout the drafting project. My thesis for Project 1 was “The people of this community are of low socioeconomic status and struggle each and every day to stay afloat and safe in their dangerous borough, being seen as outcasts and starees.” Like the feedback suggests, the thesis should be more nuanced as to allow me to make my argument, not argue how these people are already looked down upon, which is a somewhat a given. I also didn’t use my secondary source of Garland-Thompson effectively when speaking on the social hierarchies because my thesis does not build on the idea or connect to it all that much. I need to look more in depth on my thesis in context of my argument, paper, and sources as a whole as to try to make a nuanced and solid claim to write on. The second outcome, with writing more concisely, has always been an issue for me in my writing. I am able to express my idea, but it usually tends to be in a roundabout way that can make the meaning foggy and unclear. I write in the passive voice a good amount of the time, leading my sentences to present my ideas unclearly. An example of this was in my Project 3 where in my conference, we looked at my sentences and recognized this issue. An opening sentence of one my paragraphs was “The main crux of the video through is explaining Berndt’s personal experiences and what she views as the different scenarios in which people will see with tattoos in the workplace”. This sentence approaches the main idea in a roundabout fashion, and this takes away from the point I am trying to say just that Berndt discusses her experiences and tattoos in the workplace in her video. The extra fluff associated with my use of passive voice is a part of my writing that I need to be more conscious of and try to fix in my future works.