I Strongly Object to Your Objection
The evil, soul stealing economics paper has still not released my from it’s clutches. On Tuesday we received other students’ papers to peer review, and today we got our papers back with a review from Dr. Hanson and the peer review of our papers. The reviews that I received were particularly noteworthy.
From my peer:
I thought this was a well written paper. I don’t have many bad thins to say. Some ideas that could help you out are to make the reading better understandable or easier to follow. Maybe also break down phrases in the poems to single words and get those meanings. Also [you] could state in the paper more strongly which author you would want as a ruler. Other than that I thought [it] was very good and brought class material in nicely.
From the prof:
I strongly object to your approach. Not only doesn’t it yield any useful insights, it goes against my explicit instructions. Read and explain, read and explain!!
Now I have several problems with his review, aside from the fact that he don’t like my paper. First of all, his instructions were to not do any research, which I didn’t. I pulled in personal experiences and things that I already know. The fact that the scope of my experience includes significant travel within a developing nation, means that I am able to include such information without researching it. If I HAD done some research I would have cited it. So I followed his instructions.
His instructions were to write a flowing, coherent paper that included analysis of four poems with respect to modernization, and which poet would make the best ruler or national leader. Given this I wrote about how views of modernization change with the situations of the times, but many different views of modernization can still be seen in today’s world. I talked about each poem, the time that it was written, the views that it expressed, and the way those views could be seen in the present day. I don’t know what there is for him to “strongly object to” since the only other way to write such a paper is to make a choppy mess of analysis that do not tie together.
Also, this assignment is bollocks.
But he is the type of person who thinks that the only right answer is his answer, even if there is at least one other answer (remember that idea that poetry has many meanings), so despite my objections to his objections I will be forced to rewrite my entire paper. Perhaps I should do something that resembles the paper I reviewed… A grammatical nightmare, written entirely in first person, with no coherent thesis and very little in the way of coherent thought.
It is times like these when it is really not helpful to be reminded that all I have to do is pass.
From my peer:
I thought this was a well written paper. I don’t have many bad thins to say. Some ideas that could help you out are to make the reading better understandable or easier to follow. Maybe also break down phrases in the poems to single words and get those meanings. Also [you] could state in the paper more strongly which author you would want as a ruler. Other than that I thought [it] was very good and brought class material in nicely.
From the prof:
I strongly object to your approach. Not only doesn’t it yield any useful insights, it goes against my explicit instructions. Read and explain, read and explain!!
Now I have several problems with his review, aside from the fact that he don’t like my paper. First of all, his instructions were to not do any research, which I didn’t. I pulled in personal experiences and things that I already know. The fact that the scope of my experience includes significant travel within a developing nation, means that I am able to include such information without researching it. If I HAD done some research I would have cited it. So I followed his instructions.
His instructions were to write a flowing, coherent paper that included analysis of four poems with respect to modernization, and which poet would make the best ruler or national leader. Given this I wrote about how views of modernization change with the situations of the times, but many different views of modernization can still be seen in today’s world. I talked about each poem, the time that it was written, the views that it expressed, and the way those views could be seen in the present day. I don’t know what there is for him to “strongly object to” since the only other way to write such a paper is to make a choppy mess of analysis that do not tie together.
Also, this assignment is bollocks.
But he is the type of person who thinks that the only right answer is his answer, even if there is at least one other answer (remember that idea that poetry has many meanings), so despite my objections to his objections I will be forced to rewrite my entire paper. Perhaps I should do something that resembles the paper I reviewed… A grammatical nightmare, written entirely in first person, with no coherent thesis and very little in the way of coherent thought.
It is times like these when it is really not helpful to be reminded that all I have to do is pass.