2005-06 Winners
The Imperialist Reason: Evolution of Self-Described Knowledge and Morality
Teresa Lee
A New Year Festival to Celebrate Cultural Diversity
Linh Phan
Give Me Technology: Rhetorical Strategies in Scientific Writing
Mark Sena
Adjustment without Improvement: Racial Hegemony in The Bluest Eye
Emily Thompson
Co-Chairs’ Note
On behalf of the 2005-2006 editorial staff–namely Jason Morse and Jennifer Halpin–I’d like to welcome you to the newest entries to our journal. We’re all quite proud of our latest additions, and we hope that they’ll provoke as much thought in you as they have in us.
Before we get to the papers themselves, a brief history of e.g. is in order. Since its inception in 2002, e.g. has undergone a number of changes. Originally, e.g. was known as the 100-level Writing Contest, which allowed for instructors to nominate the best essays to be selected for this newly created writing award, similar to that offered to writers in 200-level writing courses.
In the last two years, e.g. has evolved from the 100-level Writing Contest to an online journal of student writing that showcases essays that exemplify the type of writing that is stressed in UW’s 100-level writing courses. The idea is to encourage excellent student writing, to provide examples of high quality work for future instructors and students, and of course, to reward and publicize the individuals whose analytic, argumentative writings have made an impact in-and now out-of the classroom.
This year’s essays were selected by the e.g. committee, which is made up of several current Teaching Assistants in the English Department. First, essays were nominated by the instructors of English 105, 111, 121, and 131; secondly, the essays were reviewed by the committee in two eliminating rounds; finally, the final 4 essays were selected by the committee for their strong depth and breadth of worthy characteristics.
Unlike previous years, the final essays came from a variety of 100 level classes, which provides our readers with the opportunity to view more of the various emphases and styles within our program. Since this was a goal of last year’s committee, we’re proud to have solicited and found a more diverse group of submissions.
You might be wondering how and why the essays chosen came to be selected as high quality representations of 100-level work. While each class is operated and designed independently by a single TA, each class is evaluated on a common rubric (referred to as “The Outcomes”), which allows for the teaching of common, useful skills in diverse environments. Our editorial team selected the winning papers for their careful and attentive application of skills toward the fulfillment of these outcomes. Additionally, these papers push their relevance outside of the classroom, expanding into the public sphere-the ultimate goal for any writing course.
Assuredly, an outstanding command of specific aspects of academic writing is present thoughout all of the entries…but it’s also important to note that they are certainly not perfect. Here at the Expository Writing Program (which develops and supervises 100 level composition courses), we teach writing not only as a variety of methods, but, more importantly, as a progressive skill–one that is constantly in a state of growth, change, development, and refinement. These essays stand as examples of revision that has occurred, and also revision that others will see possible. We hope that you will find the essays included both relevant and inspiring.
If you are an instructor, we hope you that you will use them in your classes as a catalyst for discussions about writing. Please see the instructor pages for ideas on how to integrate essays into your teaching. Also note that a new feature is available on the instructor side of e.g. this year-we hope that you’ll appreciate the extra time our editorial staff has taken to make these papers of greater use to you, and we’re always looking for feedback on how to improve.
We would like to congratulate the authors of these excellent essays for their hard work. We would also like to thank all the instructors who nominated student essays for their participation. Special thanks go out to the 2005-2006 reading committee who volunteered their time and energy to reading the submitted essays and putting together pedagogical strategies for the instructor pages. Finally, congratulations to winners Teresa Lee, Linh Phan, Mark Sena, and Emily Thompson. Additionally, we’d also like to give an Honorable Mention to Daisy Wilson-Morrow.
Thanks to all those who submitted-without you, we’d have no journal, and no one to talk to in class. We invite those of you interested in keeping the journal vital and growing to participate in the coming years!
Sincerely,
Lee Einhorn, Jason Morse, and Jennifer Halpin
February 2007
