I worked really hard at focusing to write this paper. I submitted it to her yesterday after spending a LOT of time trying to read and write well. It's a topic that I don't especially like, looked at from a perspective that I don't care for. It's easy for me to learn if I'm interested and engaged (as I suspect it's true for most people) but if I'm not, it's a struggle. It felt like when I wrote my last paper for the last class for my last degree, I needed discipline to push myself to complete my work. Here's my feedback verbatim (cut and pasted) (bolded for my emphasis and my comments in red)
I have just read your paper, and it was very interesting, wel lput together with good references and a good overview of the context and uses of Alinsky's theory of leadership. What I would add to your paper is some specific references to the Rules for Radical book. L can't really tell unless you reference him as a primary source if you have read the book So you're telling me that you don't believe I read the book? And you're not noticing the 4 times I cite it within the paper and it is listed under references. Certainly his attitude on means ends reasoning in the chapter, but some of the strategies that he recommends you need to get at the heart of his writiing. For example in the chapter "Tactics" he writes a third rule: "Whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat." What is toxic about this? Define toxic.You didn't notice that on page 6? He is writing for how leaders should conduct themselves in a democracy? Does this statement look like someone who promotes democratic values or not? In a domocracy, are we supposed to have "enemies," or just different viewpoints. This appears to me vary toxic. What is missing clearly from your paper so far is not coming to grips with the book itself. I could almost l assume, since you never refer to the book that you did not read the book. Really? you didn't see the 4 times I referenced it?
Statements like the above are similar to what you find in Machiavelli. He is a divide and conquer, type leadership theory that treats people in a democratic republic as though they were enemies. Do you othink this is good democratic theory? Is this what you would like a President of the U.S to say on TV from the oval office? I hate this since I really don't follow politics too much...
Don't change a think, just add a few more pages where you actually pick out key ideas, sentences, and phrases. Also knowing leadership theory you can refer to some. You didn't notice this on page 7? These writing exercises are designed for you to think through and apply all the theories that you have read. For example, I certainly wouldn't say he was a "servant leader" and I don't know if I would call his leadership ethic moral. Do you? Call me if you have any questions, but just work on referencing the book you were assigned to read.'Ok, I guess I'll just add another page or so quoting the stupid book Be sure to define your or any terms.
And I won't even comment about her poor writing!