As I decided how to approach my sources, I decide to lay out some ground reminders (thanks to Kantz):
- Make key lists – words, dates, phrases, facts, numbers. Color code to source (cause soon I’ll be dealing with many)
- think while reading: what do I accept as facts? What are beliefs? Is this bias? What does it mean to disagree? Agree? What is the truth? These questions are important when reading sources with data (all the same, but maybe slightly different data)… what we can do is try to understand why one source says there was more and the other less… who wrote this? whose side were they on? who was the audience (a request to a king for ships? then you would over estimate; taxes on ships? then you would underestimate). Discover these gaps- that is what makes this all interesting! (Krantz)
- Notice the a) speaker/writer b) audience c) topic. Just taking note of these in the top corner of the printed out source will help keep your mind straight and also help when you refer back to the source!
- as soon as you are done reading, decide what the primary goal of this piece was (diary: express thoughts; advertisement: persuade). We often know this but don’t consciously realize it until we force ourselves to go through this three step process. And realizing this can add a lot to analysis of sources, and bring to light some interesting patterns or outliers! This will also help with the organization and flow part of writing (both of which I have always needed improvement in). With a decoder-to-reality perspective, we allow ourselves to get influenced by the text, but understand why and what is making us feel this way.
- do not summarize the sources – argue with them, have a point!
- the importance of rhetorical gaps (noticing them is not a sign of weakness instead it is a sign of strength!)
Conclusion: we have not embraced the gaps, or looked for ways sources contradict and use that. Writing: we need to add something to this conversation! (don’t tell what other people have told us – no telling back! – its okay to do in the first two paragraphs, we can launch off the previous conversation)
This weekend I am reading 3 sources. Below I will not include all my notes (I like to hand write my notes ON the sources) but I will make a little reference to the above 4 pillars (thanks to Krantz and others) and how they helped / what insights I got thanks to them!
Source 1: Maxymuk, John. “Cheated: The UNC Scandal, the Education of Athletes, and the Future of Big-Time College Sports.”
- What is super interesting about this source, is it seems like a review of a book – or a summary in a magazine — makes sense because the speaker is a writer for this magazine – so we are definitely getting a bias view!
- Look at this first sentence and the loaded language it uses: “Higher education currently faces several existential crises over its inflated expenses, tentative connection to the real world, and general usefulness, but perhaps the most odoriferous rot comes from the corrupt relationship between academics and sports on campus.”
- he states many facts as, well, facts: such as the use of “paper classes,” a term I have not hear yet but totally makes sense! This source is short, but adds a lot for my analysis because it is a review of a book all about UNC’s academic scandal
- ending with a verdict that anyone education, public affairs, or college athletics will find this book ESSENTIAL.
- key things: UNC, paper classes, odoriferous rot, whistle blower (I should research that guy and look more into perhaps his initial whistle-blowing!), the phrase “offer two paths forward: pay college athletes and separate athletics entirely from academics or take academics seriously and provide the heavy remedial education that so many athletes need to perform work at a college level”
- follow up: I should reach out to my friends who play college sports and interview them, I should research the references Maxymunk makes to important details in the book, I should investigate his wording and background because he is definitely bias
Source 2: MacKenzie, Bonnie L. and Davis. Office of Student Affairs Research and Information. California Univ. Academic Performance of Intercollegiate Athletes, University of California, Davis.
- only UC davis – how they measured performance was graduation rates and GPA (so understand this isn’t about a scandal directly, but could give some background (if there is a correlation) as to why (maybe!) a scandal could happen
- gotta take into consideration the decade this was – college sports was very different then and didn’t produce nearly as much revenue
- follow up: I should find a source with data about how college athletics has changed (football revenues, advertisers, etc) – follow the money!
- 13% of over 1000 male athletes years 1970-1979
- this filled jack pot: “57 percent of male athletes graduated during the 6-year period, compared to 39 percent of male nonathletes. At the end of 2 years of college work, cumulative GPAs of the intercollegiate athletes were comparable to those of male students in general. Among the specially-admitted males, athletes had slightly higher grades than male students in general. Three sports had high percentages of specially-admitted students: football, basketball, and baseball.”
- my goodness I am thinking so many things: 1) does athletes having higher GPAs mean they probably managed there time more (I found when I was playing a sport in high school I was more committed to finishing my homework in one sitting) or 2) that the CLASSES offered to athletes WERE EASIER!! Is there any way I can find this out?
- quick note: because this source was an academic paper, I love how clear and organized it is. I will not necessarily target academic papers because of this but I will definitely spend more time looking for ones similar!
Source 3: Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Collegiate Student-Athlete Protection Act of 1983. Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary.
- CAN YOU BELIEVE I FOUND A HEARING?? how awesome is this source? it just shows how great having a diverse bunch of sources can be – not only for me because it offers different perspectives/motives for writing, but also it will keep my audience interested!
- “encourage college student-athletes to complete their undergraduate education before becoming professional athletes” – so this bill I could definitely use as a follow up/ so what /modern day because it not exactly addresses my type of scandal, but more enforces that motives of these scandals to calm down
- “The proposed legislation was prompted by the signing of the University of Georgia’s football star, Herschel Walker, by a member team of the United States Football League.”
- follow up: who is this? what does he have to do with this? why does he care / want to change how college football works?
- how does the US Congress have power over changing a student to feel “free from pressure to abandon their education”