Now it’s time to try your hand at an essay that uses comparison and contrast to gain a deeper understanding or to reveal a deeper meaning.
A model for “comparing to gain a deeper understanding” is the essay “Two Ways to Belong in America” where we see Bharati Mukerjee struggling to understand the deeper significance of the life choices she and her sister have made. Mukerjee’s essay, true to its French root meaning “to weigh,” shows us the process of understanding, of weighing significance. There is no thesis; she appears to learn as she writes: “Mira's voice, I realize, is the voice not just of the immigrant South Asian community but of an immigrant community of the …show more content…
There is no doubt from word one that Suzanne Brit prefers sloppy people to neat people and that Dan Treadway disapproves of UT’s treatment of its Vietnamese language program.
Make a copy of this document and share with me.
Choose a good topic from your brainstorming (written). You’ve seen lots of examples: two things that represent different parts of an identity (Guavas); two types of people/approaches to life (Neat People vs Sloppy People, Two Ways to Belong); two approaches to a task (The Transaction); and two things that aren’t being treated equally (Football vs Asian Studies). There are more options, of course. You need to choose a pair of things that are compelling (not too obvious, have stakes), that you can write about with authority (or that you’re willing to learn more about), and that mean something to you!
YOUR TOPIC: discussion and fact vs argument and truth.
Choose an approach: an open-ended exploration leading to an understanding (Two Ways to Belong, Guavas, The Transaction) or a more forthright critique that reveals why one thing is superior or problematic when compared to a foil (Sloppy People vs Neat People, Football vs Asian Studies). For this, you may need to ask yourself: are you trying to find something out or do you already know what you …show more content…
I've grappled with discerning the difference between argument and discussion. With a fine line between them, it is difficult to know when one is appropriate and when one begins to become the other. At Lab, the concept of discussion skews into discourse. Students and teachers alike often start discussing different points of view or experiences, then debate about who is correct. We have not yet mastered the skill of agreeing to disagree. There's also a point where students believe that the only way to show their intelligence is to argue and win. However, we fail to observe the difference between agreeableness and weakness. Being agreeable does not mean you are weak, but rather you can accept different perspectives, resulting in a greater understanding and heightened perception of self and others. In an environment like Lab, where the arguments are encouraged, it is difficult to take a step back and acknowledge other viewpoints. For example, I sit in my history class where we have stoic debates on which recount of history is correct. I sat in the corner somewhat afraid of the juniors and seniors whose mindsets are “if we talk for long enough we can make anything correct.” Spoiler alert, no single recount of history is correct, or maybe they all are. Nonetheless, I realized that most debates are pointless because there will never be one true answer,