I'm writing an argumentative essay on how extra credit and re-tests in high school are destroying students academic accountability needed to cope with college. I'm not finished yet (still have some of the counter and conclusion to finish) but I wanted to see how it read so far. Is it argumentative enough? Any suggestions would be helpful. Thank you!
With our future in the hands of our youth, society has been keeping a close eye on the success of high school students. To increase the number of graduates and build confidence in learning, high schools in many ways have become the land of second chances. However, these second chances given in high school are failing to prepare students for higher education. "The percentage of U.S. students graduating from high school within four years rose to its highest level in decades in 2010" (Muskal) yet, "Thirty percent of college and university students drop out after their first year." (Bowler) The availability of extra credit points is destroying students' metacognitive ability of self-evaluation needed to cope their first year of college.
Metacognition, simply put, is "thinking about thinking." It has been defined as one's ability to identify faults, evaluate their thought method, and make changes for ones future (Flavell). However, "simply providing knowledge without experience or vice versa does not seem to be sufficient for the development of metacognitive control." (Livingston) Students who fail should ask, "Why did I fail, how did I fail to prepare, and what can I change to succeed?" They should not ask, "How can I earn points to compensate for my failure?"
In high school, classmates and I were presented countless opportunities for extra credit work to improve a previous negative grade, ranging from wearing school colors for math class, to bringing in a food dish for French class. Wearing school colors did not increase my poor knowledge of algebra, but it did teach me that it was ok because I could make up the points somehow. As a result, my learning habits towards math never changed, and I am still terrible at algebra. The most ridiculous account of extra credit was in a Pioneer Press article I read about Palo Alto High School in California, where a German teacher rewarded three extra credit points to students who brought in tissues. By all means, I too would need a tissue after getting spoken to in such a militant sounding language for ninety minutes, but I find it hard to justify trading such things for a measurement of academic success. Extra credit in high school does nothing but reinforce a bad habit. Destroying their ability to recognize their faults and re-think how they will approach a future task, and then expect them to succeed in such a rigorous world of college.
Extra credit is destroying the way students cope with college. In high school if Billy struggles with A and B he does not need to re-evaluate C because he will be presented with D (extra credit) instead. While this helped Billy pass classes and earn higher grades, this was destroying his ability to cope with the first year of college. Billy, not presented with D in college,must recognize his faults of A and B to make changes to C. Extra credit rewarded faults by presenting an alternative to our failures rather than forcing us to engage in evaluating how and why we failed and correct those faults. We are enforcing that the quantity of D outweighs the quality of A and B.
However, many people believe that extra credited awarded in a way that directly enforces that subject can be beneficial. Students struggling on a math problem; when presented with additional work with an incentive of raising their grade can further develop an understanding of that problem. Despite additional work being beneficial to a struggling student, doing so in such a way is destroying the students' metacognitive ability to cope in college. Being a first year college myself, I've realized that if I am struggling on a topic, I cannot depend on delegated additional work for my benefit. Instead, I must re-evaluate my thinking, identify my faults, and seek tools or additional studies to further my knowledge. Colleges offer tutors, libraries, and aids to students who require them; however, it is up that said student to identify when additional work and studies are needed.
Extra credit in high school is turning students' thinking process into a bad rerun of Groundhog Day. Students are repeating year after year the same mistakes. Rather than have the consequences of a poor grade to encourage them to re-evaluate their process. Because of this they are taking these mistakes with them to college. Extra credit is destroying students ability to cope with the first year of college by limiting their ability of self-reflection, offering them alternatives rather than enforcing a metacognitive approach of identifying their faults, evaluating their thinking, and making changes for their future.
I'm unsure if i've used allusions, personal testimonies, scenarios, and statics as support correctly. Is it persuasive? any feedback grammar, conciseness ect. is appreciated.
The thing about arguments is, that most often they are only personal opinions. You're doing more than participating in a simple discussion between people. You are presenting a thesis in a written form. This is a one time deal. No retorts or recourse. You've had your chance to speak, and if the reader can poke holes in your argument points, you are weak. So I'm going to poke some holes, please take it constructively.
In your introduction you very specifically identify academic "second chances" prep students for failure in college, supported by some quotes. Then you back off from your specific thesis by saying "somehow we are enabling our youth to succeed in high school, yet destroying their ability to cope with the first year of college." You already defined your thesis, so don't back off. Don't present an open question. You can fix this by framing this open question earlier, then finishing the intro paragraph with your specific thesis statement. Again, your last sentence is weak because you generally highlight mistakes instead of academic failures.
Second paragraph: you highlight personal experience. Despite what a lot of people say, personal experience is the worst type of point to throw out when arguing a point. This is because I don't know you. I don't know your background, and I don't know if what you say is real... unless you're some sort of professional, then your title and field or work experience lend credibility to that. Since you're talking about college academic failure causes, only someone in college or higher can really comment with personal experience on this. You do cite a specifics though... The problem is that you defeat yourself with your language and food example. That exercise entourages cultural appreciation through food... you don't defeat that... and it almost looks like you didn't understand the point of the exercise you're describing, again discrediting yourself. --- You then talk about an incident you heard about at another school. You heard it? Give me some semblance of citation so I can follow up on it. When did it happen? This point only works if I trust you, and your prior argument discredits you, therefore I don't trust what you heard. If you can't cite the incident appropriately, get rid of "you heard." At least if you're confident that it is real, look like it, and stand by your reporting by taking credit for it.
You relate something to "Groundhog Day." That is a movie right? I never watched it (I'm being serious, but also for arguments sake). Why is this a bad re-run of the movie. Tell me in a one sentence why Groundhog day is bad, or how this is a bad duplication of it. Even elements with cultural significance need to be explained a little. You can't leave it up to assumed semantics. Make it clear.
Third: You say that extra credit is an incentive. Incentive for what? You switch gears, "discouraging to a student who showed effort"... This isn't right. You presented an if/then statement... and you're trying to say it's incorrect... but you didn't say that, then you jump to another point in the next sentence... Another problem, you repeat third sentence, and you restate it yet again...
"Obviously, not every teacher hands out points for tissues" ... is this a conclusion? You're in the third paragraph/point. This is not the conclusion. Also, don't use "obviously." In an argument, nothing is ever obvious unless you immediately state why... and mid sentence you jump to another point...
You have a big problem with the end... because now you root for the other side... Sometimes in argumentative essays you poke the opposing side's strongest point... This is for a fourth and separate paragraph, and you're not discounting anything.
Advice: Think like a lawyer. You need to illustrate a point beyond a reasonable doubt. You're hoping that I'm not going to fact check things you cite, and you're hoping I trust you. So you need to foster that.
