The two lists exemplify the basic human nature of arguing. This, of course, is not the intention of the authors of the articles, but is the product of their subject and the comments of the readers. The commenters are one way that the two articles are alike, though. The reactions of those readers are also quite drastically different, although the readers who comment seem to be peers. The content of the comments is different, one group successfully referring to the past and the other group just as successfully referring to the present. The intended audiences are different too. The College Mind-Set List’s intended audience is educators at universities. The intended audience of the article's antidote, Mind-Set of Faculty, is educators and their students. The messages being sent by each article are different as well.
Readers who commented seem to be peers. This similarity between the two articles is not that surprising, though. How many college students have time to read something they do not have to write about? That the commenters are peers can be seen by paying attention to when they way they were born and their occupations. For instance, in the original article, 22040003 commented about his or her students, pegging this reader as an educator. In the antidote, K wrote “I am a faculty member,” also pegging this reader as an educator.
The comments posted on the antidote are much more argumentative. One reader, drspektor, wrote on the antidote, “oh yes … let’s blame those awful public school teachers yet again for ALL of the problems the country faces.” This response is clearly aggressive and combative. Bstevens called Mr. Krajewski, the author of the antidote, “bitter.” Jhar3556 accused another reader of “[missing] the point.” While the commenters of the antidote argued and bickered, the commenters of the original paper played along very well with the humor of the article. Comments such as “got a great laugh from [this], but sure does make me feel old” and “I look forward to reading this each year,” show the lighthearted opinions of the readers (written by Carole Letson and docsilverfox48 respectively).
The content of the articles separates them as well. The original Beloit article used references to the past that the educators it was intended for would relate to and that the students of the freshman class would definitely know little about. One such example is number 47; “No state has ever failed to observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day.” Although most educated freshman know that Dr. King died not long ago, the generation below them is very likely to not realize how near, historically, to segregation they are. The antidote article uses modern references of celebrity, such as the Kardashians. Anyone who enjoys watching reality tv knows who the Kardashian family is. But those who do not care for reality tv, do not care to know anything about the Kardashians.
The message of the two articles has both similarities and differences, both articles provide understanding. The difference lies in the seriousness of the articles. The original Beloit article was intended to be humorous and serious. Most of the statements made were accurate and insightful. The antidote article, however, offers something that will be a “benefit of students and administrators.” This, of course, is not truly the case, because the information provided to the readers is general and reads as if written on the fly. The information provided in College Mind-Set List was precise and organized, short and simple. Clean, even.
Both Beloit articles were enjoyably lighthearted, allowing them both to be fun to read and easy to comment on. The few negatives of the antidote article, however, produced arguments and bickering among commenters. This contrasts sharply with the well-received original, College Mind-Set List.
No comments:
Post a Comment