Blog 1

            Learning to summarize large bodies of work is a very useful skill not only in our composition class, but also in most other classes. With the way college is structured, a lot of learning will come straight from a textbook, which means reading through a textbook and then being able to analyze what you’ve read in a way that best helps you learn. Focusing more towards our composition class, however, the ability to summarize the texts we read is a necessity. We do a lot of in-class discussions and group activities that force us to think back on the important aspects of the texts we’ve read. We analyzed Chris Kirkham’s article titled Senate Legislation Targets Aggressive Recruiting of Veterans by For-Profit Colleges searching for audience appeals. Having thoroughly read the article, our groups were able to locate these audience appeals with ease. I’ve noticed that now when I read, I am subconsciously looking for these audience appeals and it adds more depth to my understanding of what I’m reading. Thinking in this critical manner will help to develop my writing skills to better connect with my audience, adding more dimensions to an otherwise flat writing style.

            The idea that everything, in a way, is text initially threw me, but with the examples used in class, it started to become clearer. What we did was draw a picture of us with the things we like, and from that, our partner could derive what our interests are just from the picture. This thought process has vastly broadened my definition of an author. Before, writers were the only people I thought of as authors, but now basically everyone is an author in some way or another.

           

            In Seth Davis’s article, Should College Athletes be Paid? Why, They Already Are, he makes a very strong claim against Taylor Branch and his ability to properly asses a current issue. Davis voices his acceptance of student athletes suing the NCAA for the money they feel they’ve earned, but his main qualm with Branch was his inability or possibly even laziness to mention any opposition to the claims he himself made. Davis outlines the NCAA’s rules on student athletes getting paid and delves into the pros and cons, however, Branch leaves out all the cons and just focuses on why more student athletes aren’t already being paid.

            To say that student athletes get paid nothing is simply false. Davis highlights that a lot of student athletes receive full scholarships, which over the course of four years, can exceed 200,000 dollars. On top of that, their meals, practice, and facilities are also paid for, so the notion that they receive nothing is ridiculous. Through their disagreements, they found one common ground. Branch and Davis both agree that the NCAA’s laws on whether or not a student athlete can receive money for their abilities needs some serious adjustment and rethinking. Once there is a clear outlined rule on how to handle the situation, then they can start to seriously evaluate each athlete individually as an asset. Until then, this is all just media nonsense.