Competencias

her  argument.  Only  D  is  “another  voice,”  providing  another  perspective  on  her   argument.  D  asks  “well,  what  about  success?  What  about  why  you  even  went  to  this   college  in  the  first  place?”  D  makes  a  counterclaim  to  LeGuin’s  assertion  that  it’s  just   fine  to  make  motherhood  your  only  ambition.  This  question  “what  about  success  /   why  did  you  go  to  college”  is  only  important  to  LeGuin’s  argument  because  she   knocks  it  down  immediately,  saying  it  is  irrelevant.  Clearly,  she  only  includes  a   counterclaim  in  order  to  demonstrate  that  her  argument  takes  the  best  perspective.    

What  is  LeGuin’s  tone  in  this  commencement  address?  

A.  The  tone  of  an  optimist  who  believes  that  everything  will  turn  out  the  way   it  should  

B.  The  tone  of  a  pessimist  who  believes  that  everyone  is  destined  to  fail   C.  The  tone  of  a  realist  who  acknowledges  the  various  possibilities  and   opportunities  that  exist  in  this  world  

D.  The  tone  of  an  idealist  who  places  her  trust  in  a  higher  power    

This  is  a  review  question  designed  to  jog  your  memory  about  strategies  used  to   analyze  tone.  It  should  be  clear  from  reviewing  LeGuin’s  claim  and  counterclaim  that   she  acknowledges  the  realities  of  the  world  -­‐-­‐  she  talks  about  failure  and  darkness   too  much  to  be  considered  an  optimist.  But  nor  is  she  a  pessimist.  Clearly,  she  

believes  in  the  power  of  possibility  as  well  as  the  strength  of  the  human  spirit.  There   is  no  evidence  that  she  places  her  trust  in  a  “higher  power,”  which  leaves  only  C  as   the  best  option  -­‐-­‐  she  does  acknowledge  that  various  opportunities  and  possibilities   exist  in  this  world,  as  evidenced  by  her  obvious  hope  that  each  woman  is  “her  own   mistress”  and  her  insistence  that  “darkness  is  your  country.”  

The  structure  and  content  of  this  argument  is  somewhat  unusual.  Try  your  hand  at   another  narrative  text,  and  this  time  consider  the  author's  purpose  in  including  the   various  claims  and  counterclaims  found  in  the  article.  

“We  sent  you  to  college  to  learn  THIS?”  That  was  the  reaction  that  Matilda   Flanagan,  19,  received  from  her  incensed  mother  after  she  came  home  during   winter  break  of  her  sophomore  year  of  college,  flushed  with  pride  and  relief  at   finally  having  chosen  a  major.  Flanagan’s  mother,  Brunhilde,  a  nurse,  had   hoped  her  daughter  -­‐-­‐  a  straight  A  student  who  won  a  national  science  fair  in   the  eleventh  grade  for  her  rather  gory  project  on  the  life  cycle  of  a  tapeworm  -­‐-­‐   would  go  on  to  major  in  chemical  engineering  or  biology,  “something  really   practical  and  lucrative,”  as  Brunhilde  bluntly  puts  it.  But  instead,  the  19  year   old  Flanagan,  who  describes  herself  as  a  “huge  nerd,”  had  chosen  to  take  

another  path:  Fandom  Studies.  More  specifically,  her  concentration  was  on  “the   collective  fascination  with  cultural  artifacts  of  the  1990s,”  i.e.  Buffy  the  

Vampire  Slayer  and  My  So  Called  Life.    

“She’s  majoring  in  television!”  Brunhilde  Flanagan  raged  during  a  recent   interview.  “I  mean,  why  are  we  paying  45k  a  year  for  her  to  write  some  essays   on  a  TV  show?  She  could  have  easily  done  that  while  living  at  home  and  

working  at  Walgreens!”  (Matilda  worked  15  hours  a  week  at  Walgreens  during   high  school.)  

The  elder  Flanagan  isn’t  alone  in  her  ire.  Increasingly,  the  parents  of  students   at  expensive  private  liberal  arts  colleges  are  throwing  up  their  hands  and   asking:  “Where  exactly  is  my  money  going?”  

Bob  Litchfield,  a  litigator  from  Denver,  echoed  Brunhilde  Flanagan’s  

frustration.  “Why  exactly  is  Yale  charging  my  son  -­‐-­‐  or  more  accurately,  me  -­‐-­‐   over  fifty  thousand  dollars  a  year  so  that  he  can  study  Pokemon?  Please,  explain   this  to  me,”  he  said  in  a  phone  interview,  the  anger  palpable  in  his  voice.  

Litchfield  had  hoped  that  his  son,  a  20-­‐year-­‐old  classically  trained  violinist,   would  follow  his  footsteps  and  enter  the  rarefied  (not  to  mention  

remunerative)  world  of  corporate  litigation.  But  Humperdinck  Litchfield  is  far   more  interested  in  demonstrating  how  Charmander  represents  the  shattered  

dreams  of  a  nation.  Since  matriculating  at  Yale,  he  has  become  fluent  in  

Japanese,  and  has  committed  the  contents  of  every  Pokemon  card  ever  released   to  memory.  

“This  is  an  outrage,”  says  Brandywine  Buckley,  a  stay-­‐at-­‐home  mother  of   quadruplets  who  attend  the  University  of  Florida.  “Why  exactly  are  my  four   daughters  studying  pop  music?  One  of  them  recently  wrote  a  term  paper  on   what  Britney  Spears  ‘means’  for  our  culture.  I’ll  tell  you  what  she  means:  she   means  you’ll  never  get  a  job  like  this!  We  wanted  our  daughter  to  become  a   statistician.  Why  is  she  wasting  her  time?”  

Money  is  certainly  a  central  concern  for  these  apoplectic  parents,  but  these   students  have  a  quick  response.  “In  a  way,  this  is  the  definition  of  academics,”   Matilda  said,  animated.  “I  mean,  what  could  be  more  academic  than  pursuing   knowledge  that  is  by  definition  completely  and  entirely  useless  in  the  context  of   the  real  world?  I  don’t  see  anybody  questioning  history  nerds  who  choose  to   spend  7  years  of  their  lives  in  the  library,  pursuing  pointless  degrees  in  

medieval  history.  Why  is  that  allowed    -­‐-­‐  heck,  even  celebrated  -­‐-­‐  when  a  study   of  our  own  pop  culture  is  demonized?”  To  which  her  mother  responded  drily,   “medieval  historians  don’t  exactly  make  any  money,  either.”  

The  battle  between  practical  parents  footing  impressively  (some  might  say   frighteningly)  high  tuition  bills  and  passionate  students  who  have  chosen  to   pursue  their  own  untraditional  paths  won’t  end  anytime  soon,  as  more  and   more  universities  add  Cultural  Studies  classes  to  their  course  offerings.  It  is   impossible  to  say  whether  these  “impractical”  courses  of  study  will  outlive  the   current  decade,  as  more  and  more  graduates  of  cultural  studies  programs   graduate  with  serious  debt  and  no  immediately  applicable  job  skills  -­‐-­‐  unless   you  count  the  ability  to  name  every  single  episode  of  Buffy  the  Vampire  Slayer   in  a  single  breath.  

This  is  an  interesting  piece  to  parse,  because  -­‐-­‐  unlike  the  previous  straightforward   text  -­‐-­‐  this  article  offers  multiple  perspectives  and  has  a  somewhat  untraditional   structure  with  seemingly  no  “central  argument.”  But  if  you  read  closely,  you’ll  see   two  sides  of  an  argument  emerge,  with  the  author  taking  a  position  of  her  own.  It’s   important  that  you  are  able  to  apply  the  ability  to  assess  claims  and  counterclaims   even  to  texts  with  an  untraditional  structure,  as  you  will  be  learning  to  assess  all   forms  of  informative  texts  is  an  essential  skill  on  the  SAT,  in  college,  and  later  in  life.    

What  is  the  central  claim  of  the  text  as  a  whole?   A.  That  cultural  studies  are  a  pointless  waste  of  time