It's grade-grubbing season again. With it come nervous, angry, and very rude students.
How can I possibly grade the following actual unedited submissions?
Attached is the actual outline for my ruff raft. Please, account this as credit therefore I'll prove my academic progression as acknowledgment for satisfactory of the course. The presentation shall be captivating with visualization being a current pet owner of a fish too!
Then there is the public speaking class outline, where a student submitted the following:
Specific Purpose: To inform my audience about Bill Clinton and why he is a memorable and unique former President.
Central Idea: Bill is seen as a very affable person, many people can relate to Bill for multiple reasons.
I. He can play the saxophone.
II. Bill has no elite sources, privilege or status unlike many other former presidents.
III. He was the second President to ever get impeached, which made the public understand that he too can make mistakes and was not perfect.
The inchoate level of thinking will require a Herculean effort on my part to fix, and I remain quite pessimistic that it will even matter.
Although an assigned article dealt with health risks associated with marijuana use, this student writes that "[t]he author is saying in his thesis that just because kids' smoke Marijuana that does not make them bad children."
When discussing illegal immigration and a concomitant rise in disease, another student writes this indecipherable "sentence."
The introduction gets a reader's attention by wondering what is the cause of the nice lady starving from times to times and what will the government to about the health benefits services at the end.
Even though the assigned article cited credible statistics and facts, another young woman maintains:
yes, there is a bias, illegal immigrants from other countries accusing of having disease. Personally the argument does not stand it's on because, besides the illegal immigrants, the U.S. have its own issues which have to do with economic system failure and the law corruption.
Once "illegal immigration" is mentioned, students' defenses come to the fore; they know how to respond only emotionally. Consequently, logic, reason, and credible sources are simply ignored. After reading Thomas Sowell's explanation of how raising the minimum wage actually hurts the very people it is supposed to help, one student adamantly said she did not believe this. After being given another editorial demonstrating that McDonald's supports this move because it will substitute machinery for labor, this student simply refused to accept the findings. Denial was in full swing. When I asked her to refute the findings, she merely spluttered and yelled that it is the "greed, greed, greed" of the companies. The teachable moment was squashed
дико смешная статья, рекомендую