I've been really worn down these past few days, which is why I haven't been updating regularly, and why today I am "cheaping out" by posting the OAC English essay that I mentioned in my last post.
It's interesting, but even more than a year later, I still like this essay. Sure some sentences could be shortened for greater coherence--especially in the second paragraph--and I'm sure I would make minor adjustments here and there for greater effect, but overall, I still think it was a solid piece of work. This is surprising because I'm pretty critical of my own work, and I tend to find innumerable flaws in my old works. If it wasn't a a year and then some since I wrote the thing, I'd think that I'm still too close to it to evaluate it properly.
Anyway, before moving onto the essay, let me provide a bit of background for paragraphs two and three. The example I'm using is straight from a real enhanced class controversy that was going on around the beginning of second semester in my final year (the same time I was writing the essay). Two sections of enhanced calculus had been taught by different teachers, although the exam was common for ALL sections of calculus (enhanced as well as advanced). Anyway, after the exams and everything, one section had a significantly higher average than the other. The class with the lower average started complaining to the principal about how the exam had been unfair because the supervising teacher in their exam room hadn't made it clear enough that a correction to a problem was written on the blackboard, and as a result students lost a lot of time on that question, etc. etc. That was their main concern, but somehow the other class got dragged into the complaint and it turned into a matter of how the two sections had different weightings for tests, assignments, etc. etc. Somehow the issue got serious enough that the principal actually started discussing lowering the other class' mark so that the two would be more on par. This was after report cards had already been issued, and marks had been submitted to universities.
At the same time, the big scandal about U of T students falsifying their marks was going on, so the students who were potentially going to have their marks lowered were not only upset about losing marks they had earned, they were also worried and scared that universities would see the change in their marks and think that something fishy was going on. With all the universities being extra sensitive to the threat of falsified grades, they feared that the universities would just disregard their applications to be on the safe side, even with the principal's explanation for the change. Things were pretty tense while all of the debating was going on.
My point is, though, that the class with the lower marks brought the other class into the issue in order to make it seem as if they weren't responsible for their own marks. They pointed to the other class and said: "look, they've all got higher marks, it must be because their teacher was easier on them than ours was on us," and tried to get their own marks raised on the basis of this difference in teachers' evaluation methods. Of course that was totally ridiculous since, as I mentioned in the essay, different teacher are bound to have different marking styles, and students are told how they'll be graded anyway, so it shouldn't make a difference.
Gah, now I'm just babbling, and not being clear at all. ^^;; At any rate, I hope you'll be able to understand the meaning of those two paragraphs, if not the details of the very specific situation to which I was refering. Onto the essay!
Wasn’t Me
By all accounts this is a blameless generation. A generation in which no one is responsible for his or her choices and actions. Any mistakes or poor judgements that are made may be blamed on someone else. If that someone else is a figure of authority, a large corporation, or company, then everyone will agree that the blame is rightfully placed. We believe, after all, that the ordinary individual can never be at fault.
If I do poorly on the calculus exam because I wasted too much time trying to solve a problem that was written incorrectly, and for which the correction was written on the board, I may blame the person overseeing the exam for not ensuring that I noticed the change. Naturally, the one who wrote the exam is also partially to blame because he or she, as all humans are known to do, made an error. Moreover, if the other class’ final marks were higher than those of my class were, I may accuse the teachers of weighting their test and assignment marks differently. It is of little concern that almost every class of the same subject, taught by a different teacher, has a slightly different marking scheme, and it makes no difference at all that the other calculus class’ marking scheme probably reflected their own coursework. No, all that matters is that the other class had higher marks and therefore some injustice must have been done. It does not bother me that my mark will not be raised, but that instead their marks will be lowered. And it is certainly not my fault for bringing the other class into the issue when they were actually irrelevant.
As for myself, it does not matter that I chose to spend my time trying to solve that one question on the exam with the error, rather than moving onto other questions. My poor mark is the fault of the exam supervisor. Also, it barely signifies that I had a whole semester to learn how my teacher marked and weighted tests and assignments, and could have, at any time, changed my study or work habits appropriately in response to this knowledge. If my final mark in calculus is not as high as I would have liked it to be, it is not my fault, but the result of unfair or incompetent teachers. Nothing that I could have done, such as studying more, or discussing problems with my teacher, could have increased my mark because of the natural inequity of the system. The other class had different tests and assignments and therefore should have been marked in the same way as my class.
On another level, if I am driving while drinking coffee from, say, McDonald’s, and manage to spill the coffee on myself, and the result is that I am scalded, it is perfectly reasonable for me to sue McDonald’s for serving coffee that is too hot. And I will win the case. That it was my choice to juggle hot coffee while driving – something all driving instructors and manuals discourage – is of no concern. It is the responsibility of the company, after all, to ensure that consumers cannot possibly injure themselves with a product. Using this argument then, if I am hastily gulping down chicken salad, because I am in a hurry, and almost choke myself on a piece of chicken, I should sue the cook for not making the chicken pieces smaller. Or if I cut myself using a knife to prepare dinner, I should sue the knife manufacturer for making the knife too sharp. Carried out to its logical conclusion, this means that almost any injury I suffer, even down to a paper cut, is the fault of someone else. Why, the legal system could soon be overwhelmed with thousands upon thousands of such legitimate cases!
Certainly the trend for such an occurrence has already been started. Many people have expressed approval for the ruling in favour of the woman who sued her company for the injuries that she received in a car accident. It was, after all, the company’s duty to monitor her intake of alcohol during the company party. The company should also have prevented the woman from choosing to go to a bar for more drinks after the party, and furthermore, should have stopped her from driving afterwards. In no way was the woman responsible for choosing to drink to the point of inebriation, or for deciding to drive while under the influence of alcohol. It is a punishable offense to drive while intoxicated, but such minor details can be overlooked when dealing with a matter of principle. The law must bend since the ruling will encourage companies to pay greater attention to employee safety.
Thus it seems that everyone is responsible for everyone except himself or herself. If this is true then we need to change the entire legal system. No longer can anyone be held accountable for his or her own actions, but instead, we must find ways to punish the ones who are truly at fault: all those big shots and mega-corporations who only care about making money and not the safety of consumers. Yes, we should abolish all thoughts of personal responsibility and let everyone do whatever he or she wants, knowing that someone else will take the blame.
