Meeting with Qi Wu: 3/25
I met with Qi on Monday, as usual, this week. Her paper had been due at 2 pm on Sunday but I didn’t receive it until 10 or 11 pm, so I wasn’t quite satisfied with my comments by the time we got to class. Qi was very apologetic in class and said that the delay in her paper was due, at least in part, to an intense editing of her sentence-level problems. I congratulated her because there were virtually no run-on or otherwise muddled sentences. I asked her to write a one-page editorial piece based on one or two articles about a controversial subject. I asked her to use it to work on a strong, persuasive, and engaging voice that I found missing in her paper. While she worked on that, I made my final comments and looked through Sin Boldly for the sections I thought would help her. About half way through class, I was ready to discuss my edits to her paper. I highlighted the sections that were awkward or used slightly incorrect word choices, and asked her to try to correct them on her own. I also asked that in the next draft, she add one sentence to the end of each paragraph (besides where she felt very confident it was unnecessary) explicitly stating the connection between the information in her paragraph and her thesis. I think this will help with the reader’s transitions and differentiation between her arguments and counter arguments. Next, we talked about the three-story thesis. I asked her to try to add the third story to her thesis by answering, “Why is your argument important? What does this debate over capital outflow mean for China’s economy? The global economy?” She understood and plans on addressing those questions in her thesis and conclusion in the next draft. Finally, I asked that she read Chapters 3, 7, and the sections in 14 about colons and semi-colons in Sin Boldly to get in an ideal editing mindset. Overall, I was very impressed by her paper. Next time, we’ll finish reviewing the editorial assignment and her second draft.
Meeting with Ashley Iguina: 3/26
Ashley’s paper was due Sunday night and I also received it late, on Tuesday morning. I only had about a half an hour free to read it before class and realized it was mostly summary, besides a fairly strong introduction. She told me that she had tried to narrow her thesis and create an outline but had gotten stuck. This is partly my fault because a) it’s a difficult story and we should have discussed it more and b) I left her last time with a very broad thesis and asked her to narrow it but gave no other direction. I told her that the next time she got stuck, she should email me for help, because that’s why I’m here. I pulled out some pieces of her paper that I’d found interesting and we began to discuss the story again. I had some trouble discussing the story without leading her to write about the couple of ideas for thesis statements that were already in my head. She had a great idea, though, about Baldwin’s treatment of the “darkness” of Harlem, that we organized into paragraphs and supporting details. The introduction to her paper will only need a few changes, but the rest will need to be rewritten completely. I asked that her next draft be shorter, 3 or 4 pages instead of 4 or 5. I told her this would help to eliminate all summary besides a few sentences absolutely necessary for context. It also might be less daunting to begin again. We talked about topic sentences, which were also weak in her draft. She is still working with a very complicated idea in Baldwin so I emphasized the need for clear analysis and structure. I suggested that if she’s caught up on a certain point, to please let me know or try explaining it out loud to a friend or roommate. I also said that if she is unhappy with her best effort on the draft due Sunday night, she should email it to me anyway so I’ll know what to work on in class next week. She has great ideas about the story and I hope that they come through in this draft! I will spend much more time on organization with her in the coming weeks.