summercomfort (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
summercomfort) wrote2003-11-12 01:35 am
summercomfort) wrote2003-11-12 01:35 am
(no subject)
other things that happened today -- Lunch w/ Alex was fun! Burns told me that my paper topic (the transition from "Sonno Joi" ideal to westernization within the Ishin Shishi top ranks) is for dissertation, not for 10 pg research paper, and that I should just do something on dress and architecture or something stupid. ::mutter:: Anyu emailed me his soc paper, so did a little questioning of his thesis.
Speaking of the questioning of theses, I got my US World Disorder paper back. Contrary to previous professors, Salim is surprisingly anal and exacting, and wrote a nice paragraph to me:
Some parts are actually quite accurate. I do tend to get carried away by grandiose language in the flow of writing. I also tend to leave what I consider "duh" moments unexplained. Still a B+, but at least a hopeful B+, not like last year where papers came back with "You had an idea in there. But I don't know what else you were writing" type comments. Finally a prof who actually tells me what he wants! I'm slowly moving beyond the "argument? huh?" stage and into the "how do I prove an argument?" stage. Maybe by 4th year I'll be able to write a good BA paper! Now I just have to wait for the Burns paper to come back. Also worrisome is that I have 3 research papers this quarter. I haven't done research papers before. (Except that Manchu thing where I was trying to find the IPA for Manchu in a Korean book that cited eastern European sources.) ::nervous::
Speaking of the questioning of theses, I got my US World Disorder paper back. Contrary to previous professors, Salim is surprisingly anal and exacting, and wrote a nice paragraph to me:
"A perceptive and well researched essay that makes a dynamic and fascinating argument: that Woodrow Wilson's courting of conservative forces during World War I helped bring to the fore a conservative anti-interventionis movement that hampered U.S. foreign policy for the next decade-and-a-half. You do a good job of establishing that Wilson did indeed ally himself with reactionary forces during the war, and you do demonstrate the existence of powerful anti-interventionist sentiment in the 1920s and early 1930s. What is less clear, however, is the relationship between these two developments. If anything, one gets the impression that the sentiment Wilson cultivated during the WWI was rabidly pro-war; if so, how did this facilitate conservative anti-interventionalism? Also, in advancing your argument, you occasionally resort to overstatement. Still, I like the boldness and energy of your approach, and I hope you'll retain those qualities in the next writing assignment. Nice work. Grade: B+"
Some parts are actually quite accurate. I do tend to get carried away by grandiose language in the flow of writing. I also tend to leave what I consider "duh" moments unexplained. Still a B+, but at least a hopeful B+, not like last year where papers came back with "You had an idea in there. But I don't know what else you were writing" type comments. Finally a prof who actually tells me what he wants! I'm slowly moving beyond the "argument? huh?" stage and into the "how do I prove an argument?" stage. Maybe by 4th year I'll be able to write a good BA paper! Now I just have to wait for the Burns paper to come back. Also worrisome is that I have 3 research papers this quarter. I haven't done research papers before. (Except that Manchu thing where I was trying to find the IPA for Manchu in a Korean book that cited eastern European sources.) ::nervous::