Primrose Road

My Comp I course for the fall, which I hope doesn't sound too crackpot:

Course Objectives
This course introduces students to the fundamentals of expository and academic writing. Students will develop the critical thinking skills fundamental to successful academic writing, along with the understanding of context, purpose, and tone necessary to develop coherent arguments. Additionally, students will explore issues of audience and credibility, as well as the ways in which arguments may be mediated via images, hypertext, satire, and humor.

Course Description
In our course, we will think about, critique, and research common scams (i.e. Print-On-Demand services, Multi-Level Marketing, diploma mills, real-estate infomercials, etc.) circulating in present-day American culture as a means of working towards the objectives described above. Each student will select an individual scam to work with in writing a persuasive essay, definitional argument, and a final in-depth exploration that incorporates credible secondary research.

Course Text: Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz, Everything's An Argument. Additional readings will be distributed in class (or links will be supplied).

Assignments

Selecting Your Scam:
Early in the term, we’ll be discussing a range of scams through the lens of the rhetorical triangle (ethos, pathos, and logos). By the start of the third week of class, you’ll select one specific scam that especially interests – or angers! – you enough that you’d be willing to work with it for the remainder of the term. Possible choices include but are not limited to:

• Multi-Level Marketing (Amway, Nutrilife, Mary Kay, Herbalife)


• Diploma Mills


• Homeowner Scams (real-estate infomercials, Direct Buy)


• Writing Services and Contests (PublishAmerica, poetry.com)


• Self-Help (The Secret, The Law of Attraction, “work 3 hours a week and succeed” books)

Response Papers:
Choose two or three ideas from the assigned readings that you reacted to strongly. You’ll be analyzing these ideas in relation to ethical appeals, the Toulmin analysis, and causal arguments.

Persuasive Essay (3-5 pages):
For this essay, you will attempt to convince a broadly conceived audience that the scam you are writing about warrants further consideration/discussion. Though this assignment does not require outside sources, you must consider issues of audience and how you will (1) establish credibility with that audience and (2) convince them of the validity of your argument.

Definitional Argument (2-3 pages):
Choose one word or phrase that your scam equivocates to and write an essay that discusses (1) different possible meanings for the word or phrase, (2) why the word or phrase’s meaning shifts depending upon the context in which it is used, and (3) your view on the ethics of the scam’s use of the word or phrase.

Source Writeup/Lit Review (5 pages):
You will summarize the arguments of several primary and secondary sources, including but not limited to: 3 credible print sources (or 2 print sources and a relevant interview), the scam’s website, and the critique(s) offered by a “watchdog” site.
A handout that explains this assignment in (excruciating?) detail will be distributed well before the due date.

Final Paper (8-10 pages):
For your final paper, you will write a multi-source argument that engages the sources you discussed in your Source Writeup. You should discuss your scam’s history, business practices, how and why it seems to be able to deceive others, and your recommendations for shutting it down. A detailed handout is forthcoming.
Though the final version of this paper is due with your portfolio, you will need to have a complete draft ready for revision exercises on and a second draft for conferences later that week.

Portfolio:
Your portfolio is to include all previous assignments (response papers, persuasive essay, definitional argument, source writeup, the final version of your final paper, and a project narrative. Once again, a detailed handout on the project narrative is forthcoming.

Naturally, classes will also include a discussion of diploma mill ethics and the Crap vs. Not-Crap classroom exercise.