Neoliberalism or Biopolitics paper

ENGLISH 106 Dr. Kurt Voss-Hoynes

WRITING ASSIGNMENT 3 —OR—

ASSIGNMENT 3.1 STASIS AND TURN

DUE DATE: Friday, November 18, 2016 by 5 pm. Email Submission Guidelines: Please have the subject of your email read “Last Name ENG 106 H1” and NOTHING else; if you fail to use the proper subject line there is a good chance that I will miss your email. Please email me your paper as a .doc, .rtf, or .pages file— NO PDFs. LENGTH: 2 pages double-spaced (must not exceed 3 pages). NEED HELP?: Send me an email at [email protected] or schedule a time to meet with me in my office (Ashe #417-A). ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES: In this paper, you will first find a peer-reviewed article that discusses some aspect of biopolitics or neoliberalism. You should then summarize the argument of the published work of academic criticism (article or book chapter) that you find in class (we will go over this). After summarizing the argument, you must assess the piece—what were its strengths and weaknesses (in terms of its argument, NOT its style) Finally, as this is the basis for your final essay, indicate what your intervention or argument will be. This does not have to come in the form of a finished thesis; instead, it should be a working thesis that may (will probably) evolve as we work through the essays. Put numerically: 1 page of charitable summary 1 page of analysis/assessment—this INCLUDES your own argument. CITATION METHOD: Following whatever guidelines are most prominent in your field, provide a “Works Cited”/ “References” page, and cite page numbers in the paper according to convention.

GRADING RUBRIC

A 18–20

POINTS

This type of paper:

- Accurately and succinctly summarizes the critic’s argument by breaking it down into its most essential parts rather than getting bogged down by every facet of the argument

- Performs a cogent and original assessment of the argument by highlighting its strengths and shortcomings based on evidence from the primary text and/or logical supporting ideas

- Is well-organized, understandable, and coherent

- Uses language with outstanding precision

- Has few surface errors and follows the formatting guidelines described above

B 16–17

POINTS

This type of paper:

- Accurately summarizes the critic’s argument by breaking it down into its most essential parts rather than getting bogged down by every facet of the argument

- Performs an original assessment of the argument but this assessment may be somewhat vague or unsupported by evidence from the primary text and/or logical supporting ideas

- Is, for the most part, well-organized, understandable, and coherent but may have some weak spots (occasional gaps in logic, awkward transitions, and other structural inconsistencies)

- Uses language thoughtfully

- Has some surface errors and follows the formatting guidelines described above

C 14–15

POINTS

This type of paper:

- Somewhat accurately summarizes the critic’s argument but occasionally gets bogged down by the more tangential facets of the argument

- Performs an original assessment of the argument but this assessment remains very underdeveloped and unsupported by evidence from the primary text and/or logical supporting ideas

- Has several organizational flaws (several logical inconsistencies and a pronounced lack of structure)

- Uses language problematically or at times carelessly

- Has several surface errors and fails to follow formatting guidelines

D 12–13

POINTS

This type of paper:

- Fails to meet the expectations for a “C” paper

F BELOW 12 POINTS

- Paper was never submitted or was plagiarized

PAPER 3 EVALUATION SHEET

NAME: SUMMARY OF CRITICAL ARGUMENT:

/17 POINTS Comments: ATTENTIVENESS TO FORMAL DETAILS (STASIS AND TURN):

/7 POINTS Comments: ASSERTION OF OWN ARGUMENT

/10 POINTS Comments: USE OF LANGUAGE, GRAMMAR, AND SPELLING

/6 POINTS Comments: TOTAL (30 POINTS):