Please write a paper one of the topics below. Papers should be 4-5 pages long. They will be due on Monday, November 20, by the end of class (you can turn in papers in class or in my mailbox in BH 240). Please type, double-space, and proofread your papers. These papers should make an argument using evidence from class readings (in this case, the materials covering the post-war period ó William Chafe, Unfinished Journey, Todd Gitlin, The Sixties, and reserve readings).
QUESTION #1
One of the clear dynamics of the post-World War II decades is that the political consensus of the 1950s broke down in the 1960s. The reasons for this breakdown, however, are the subject of a highly contentious debate. Some scholars emphasize cultural and ideological changes in the youth of the 1960s, the baby boom generation. Others point to the failure of political leadership in the 1960s. Still others focus on the impact of the civil rights movement. Yet others concentrate on the Vietnam war and protests against it. Finally, some historians argue that the political consensus of the 1950s was itself a fiction and the 1960s simply exposed pre-existing tensions in American society.
What do you think? Write an interpretive essay making an argument to explain
the breakdown of political consensus. You may pick one of the explanations
above or develop your own. I would suggest strongly that you focus on one
primary explanation and try to develop it thoroughly
QUESTION #2
Design your own topic, but please discuss it with me by Friday, November
17.
VARIOUS POLICIES:
I am happy to talk about ideas for your papers and to provide feedback on rough drafts. If you would like me to read a draft or an outline, please give it to me at least two days before the paper is due.
All papers will be due in class on the date stated. On any paper submitted after that date, one full letter grade will be subtracted from the final mark for each day that the paper is late. Weekends count as one day.
Your paper should be your own original
work. You should cite your sources when you use direct quotations, but
also when you adopt ideas, use statistics, or paraphrase other authorsí
material. You should not paraphrase so closely that you essentially say
the same thing as the author.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION & GRADING:
I evaluate papers on your ability to present a coherent argument and to substantiate that argument with materials and examples from pertinent readings and class discussions. To evaluate papers, I ask myself a series of questions. These questions include:
Does the paper make sense?
Does the paper make an interpretive argument? Papers should try to take a position & demonstrate a point or a sense of purpose. Without a point, writing does not explain much & is often not coherent.
Does the paper address the question?
Does the paper use evidence to support its argument? A reasonable balance of interpretation and evidence is important to writing good history.
Does the paper demonstrate knowledge of relevant course material? While itís routine, showing knowledge of relevant course material is one of the ways that you can demonstrate that you are keeping up in the class & learning the material.
Does the paper convey ideas clearly? Is it reasonably well-written? You should try to convey ideas as clearly & concisely as possible.
Are grammar, spelling, & style
OK? I mark down very little on these issues, but sloppy presentation reflects
poorly on the overall quality of writing & in this era of computer
spell-checking, thereís no excuse for most misspellings.
SOME OF MY PET PEEVES
1. Use past tense to write about events that took place in the past. In general, papers for history classes should be written in past tense.
2. Use active verbs. Active verbs
allow you to express thoughts more directly. Avoid passive sentences constructions
such as "It was Ö" or "There was Ö" These sorts of sentences are both dull
and imprecise.
GENERAL STYLE:
On issues of style and presentation, historians follow The Chicago Manual of Style (available at Hunt Library). For this and most history classes, it is acceptable and more convenient to Diana Hacker, A Pocket Manual of Style, (available in the CMU bookstore).
Correct notes according to The Chicago Manual of Style, 13th Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 485-510.
For initial references:
BOOKS:
1. Arthur S. Link and Richard L. McCormick, Progressivism (Arlington Heights, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1983), 27.
PART OF A BOOK:
2. Carey McWilliams, "What We Did About Racial Minorities," in While You Were Gone: A Report on Wartime Life in the United States, ed. Jack Goodman (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1946), 89-111.
For subsequent references:
3. Link and McCormick, Progressivism, 27.
4. McWilliams, "What We Did About Racial Minorities," 100.