Class and the American Dream

After analyzing the New York Times graphic and reading The Great Gatsby, I have come to the conclusion that being born in a certain class does not mean that one can’t move up or down. This was already evident to me before I read these pieces, but now I have legitimate evidence and text-to-text connections to back up this claim.

In the graphic that we analyzed, there were many questions asked in the poll that significantly backed up this idea of being able to move up (or down) in social class. Forty-five percent of the people polled said their current class now is higher than it was when they were growing up. Forty percent also said that the likelihood of moving up from one social class to another is greater than before as well. About 80% said that it is possible to start out poor, work hard, and become rich. With all of these statistics, there is an overwhelming consistency. The people of America generally believe that social class at birth is not permanent and that one can become wealthy despite previously being poor.

The Great Gatsby also captured these ideas, especially with the character Jay Gatsby. On page 98, Fitzgerald explains, “[Gatsby’s] parents were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people—his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all.” Considering the fact that Gatsby became extremely wealthy and successful, this sentence truly emphasizes that one can dream to outgrow the social class of one’s parents. Furthermore, Gatsby truly put in the hard work to become rich, even though he started out poor. On page 173, Gatsby’s father shows a schedule of Gatsby’s life when he was a child. Even then, Gatsby’s day was filled with working out, working, and studying. He focused on working hard, and because of that, he gained the success that his parents never had.

Jay Gatsby and the graphic from the New York Times both showcase the truth about social classes. One can change status from birth to adulthood, and often hard work is at the heart of this transition. Wealth is not only a privilege reserved for those already experiencing wealth; it is also available to those who are poor and work hard to achieve it. If you think about it, the wealthy couldn’t have always been wealthy—they had to have started off poor at some point as well.

Say No to Robo-Readers!

             Technology may be advancing in the world that we live in today, but does that mean that our schools should adopt technology to take over the task of grading papers written by their students? Surprisingly, there are some good arguments supporting these Robo-Readers; however, I'm not a fan of having robots take over grading.  With the use of Robo-readers, the writers and teachers will experience an insufficient quality of grading and a decline in skill and uniqueness. The main problem revolves around what is chosen to be graded and what is not.
             Robo-Readers are programmed to analyze only certain aspects of writing. These e-raters have features that analyze “proportion of grammar errors,” “proportion of usage errors,” “organization and development,” and more (Source C). At first, it may seem that these features may be all that is needed to grade a paper effectively, but what about the true content? According to Michael Winerip of the New York Times, one of the biggest known problems “is that it can’t identify truth. He tells students not to waste time worrying about whether their facts are accurate, since pretty much any fact will do as long as it is incorporated into a well-structured sentence”(Source B).  Since when is it okay to only grade one half of the quality of a paper. Writing should not be only analyzed based on the fundamental writing rules; ideas, accuracy, and substance should all matter as well. Furthermore, certain stylistic elements like short sentences and short paragraphs are looked down upon as undesirable for a good paper.
             With this idea of only accepting certain styles and only grading certain aspects of writing, there is a concern with whether or not writing will excel in the future. If students’ papers are continually graded by a Robo-reader, those students will learn to write by focusing on what the robots want and not what is actually a well-written paper. Melissa Block interviewed Michael Winerip, who said, “…a lot of juice of the English language is going to disappear…you’re going to get a more and more homogenized form of writing when the joy of writing is surprise” (Source E). By creating an atmosphere in which students only write to receive good grades from the robots, the uniqueness of writing disappears.
             The use of Robo-readers may be more efficient, but it will not help our development of writing in the future. With these robots, our unique styles and skills will be cast aside, and aspects that are seemingly unimportant will be graded instead of content and accuracy. Robo-readers aren't the greatest idea, and I hope that there are some changes before we utilize them.