I've begun writing my second draft of my essay, and I'm about four pages in. The writing is very similar to my first draft, but I did make a lot of well-needed changes such as taking out rhetorical questions, creating a better and funnier introduction, and deleting some of the more random jokes that were scattered throughout the essay (except for one which I decided had to stay). I unfortunately was not in class on Friday as I was visiting home, so I did not get the chance to exchange papers with someone for feedback, but something good did come of this. I did have Taylor Ham for the first time in two and a half months on both Thursday night and Friday morning. On top of that I ate at several 24/7 diners, which are extremely scarce down here, and ate real pizza.
I also should respond to the comments that Professor Scott made on my research proposal, so here it goes.
I did make several format errors in terms of my cover letter, so I will probably have to pay more attention to the formatting and overall mechanics next time. I will also try to elaborate more in my cover letter. I noticed that a lot of the feedback received I almost expected after reading it myself, but decided to submit the essay as it was just because it wasn't clear to me exactly what I needed to be saying. One thing I did not really notice until reading your feedback was exactly how unclear it was that I desired something out of this proposal.
Something I did notice, but did not change was the fact that my claims did not seem very strong. I feel like if I did make strong and solid claims, than I would need some type of evidence or information to back them up. Because no such evidence exists in a formal or citable report, I did not know whether it would acceptable for me to claim expertise on the subject, or even cite my interview.
I also noticed that a lot of my framework seemed contradictory, but I did not change this because it proved to be false if you looked more in depth into the type of questions I would be asking. I stated that my questions would require factual and personal answers, but I did not mean that each question would have both a factual and personal aspect to it, because that would in fact be contradictory. What I meant was that several of my questions would be factual and several would be personal and subjective. Furthermore, I do believe you can use straightforward logic to determine a solution to a problem even if a good amount of your data is subjective. Chances are, most people I interview would share the same feelings on some of the questions I would ask, and a logical solution could be catered to what the majority thinks.
Otherwise, I do agree with you that my methods sections is in need of a complete revamp, and that I should also discuss further benefits of funding my proposal towards the end. Thats about it for the proposal feedback I guess.
Well its time to finish my second draft then.
- Dave
