Model Student Essays A Collection of Essays Written Primarily in Introductory Level College Courses 9th Edition, Summer 2002 The Writing Center @ Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster, PA 17604-3003 717.291.3866 P r e f a c e We learn about writing by studying models. Sometimes nothing helps the novice writer so much as the chance to observe the technique of a more skilled one. But even the student who has been successful at writing in one mode may have trouble with another. One student may write exceptional literary analyses, but has not mastered anthropology papers; the student who excels at a laboratory report may struggle with a paper assignment in a TDF class. In all these situations, model essays can perform great instructional service. The “eureka!” moment—“So that’s a specific thesis!” or “That’s how you use and explain supporting evidence!”—is often all it takes to help students begin to raise the quality of their own work. Model Student Essays is intended for the entire Franklin and Marshall College community. Faculty may use it during an in-class workshop or an individual conference to illustrate a principle of effective writing. Writing Center tutors will find these essays helpful in coaching their tutees about the writing process. And, because faculty members have submitted these essays as examples of the best work they received during the past academic year, students can turn to this booklet to gain an understanding of the qualities of writing we value here at F&M. A new feature this year, we have included, wherever possible, a description of the assignment to which the student responded as well as a brief comment from the professor highlighting the exemplary qualities of the student’s writing. The essay that closes this year's Model Student Essays deserves special mention. Jamie Koprivnikar's “The Reflection in the Mirror: Seventies Fashion as an Expression of Gender Equality” won the 2002 William Uler Hensel English Prize. My great appreciation goes to Ursula Gross ‘03, the summer office assistant in the Writing Center and student writing assistant, for her invaluable help in compiling and editing this booklet. Many thanks as well to Jaime Lawton ‘02 and Virginia Dearborn ‘02, two recently- graduated writing assistants, for their work on the early submissions to this year’s edition. Daniel Frick Director, Writing Center June 2002 ii T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s First Year Seminars The Use of Models to Describe Evolving Traffic Systems…………………………………...…1 By Amanda Sahl for Profs. Thomas and Walter Geo 115: Evolution The Interpretations of Jihad: Detrimental Orientalist Thought and its Consequences…………..15 By Saiba Varma for Profrofessor Taggart Ant. 100: Social Anthropology Richard Nixon and His Mother…………………………………………………………………..25 By Elizabeth Rahn for Professor Frick Eng 172: American Dreams Foundations The Gulag Archipelago…………………………………………………………………………..34 By Adnan Azam for Professor Stevenson MSS 138: Unfreedom Narrative and Self Final Paper………………………………………………………….………..41 By Melissa Hediger for Professor Bernstein MSS 129: Narrative and the Creation of the Self Modern Dance: A Tool in the Search for Self…………………………………………………...48 By Stephanie Parent for Professor Bentzel MSS 103: Self in Life and Literature Classics Flat Characterization in the Early Empire………………………………………………….……67 By Ethan Lavine for Professor Castor CLS 114: History of Ancient Rome iii English Manhood…………………………………………………………………………………………72 By Yeshwant Holkar for Professor Whitesell Eng 105: Voices of the American South History Case Studies—Mexico & Peru…………………………………………………………………77 By Raj Dasgupta for Professor Garofalo His 373: Latin America History Theatre, Dance, and Film Performance Critique: Fall Dance Concert…………………………………………………….84 By Bridget McNulty for Professor Brooks TDF 116: Beginning Modern Dance William Uhler Hensel English Prize Essay The Reflection in the Mirror: Seventies Fashion as an Expression of Gender Equality……..89 By Jamie Koprivnikar for Professor Steward Eng 472: Literature and Culture of the 70’s iv The Use of Models to Describe Evolving Traffic Systems By Amanda Sahl Prof. Thomas Prof. Walter GEO 115: Evolution 1 Everyday, citizens throughout the United States commute to work through busy traffic. The roads they travel on and the situations they travel through are all products of the evolution of traffic patterns. Traffic patterns can be described in terms of both macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution describes how traffic systems have changed through history, evolving from foot traffic to the current automobile traffic. Microevolution describes the daily systems through which commuters must travel and the states of those systems, such as whether there is free-flowing traffic, a traffic jam caused by a bottleneck, traffic congestion (also referred to as a traffic slowdown or localized traffic jam) or recurring humps as described by Lee et al. (Helbing and Treiber, 2001). These types of modeling systems differ according to the time scale over which they are applied to describe traffic. Microevolutionary patterns emerging in traffic affect so many people that an entire field has developed to describe it. Traffic engineers and scientists interested in understanding traffic’s evolution have created mathematical models in an attempt to predict future traffic patterns. These models can be separated into two general categories: microscopic and macroscopic models (Gazis, 1967). These models are a way to describe evolution over just a short time scale, meaning microscopic and macroscopic traffic models only describe microevolutionary traffic patterns. Another category also used to describe microevolutionary traffic patterns incorporates properties of both microscopic and macroscopic models. A popular and useful example of this kind of model is a cellular automaton model. Cellular automaton models have an increased number of variables, thus improving upon earlier types of models. All models, though never completely unerring, attempt to predict traffic systems accurately by including the most variables possible in the best combination discovered. 2 Numerous variables affect the microevolution of traffic. The states of these variables represent the initial conditions of the traffic system, which each model tries to accommodate. Just as Lorenz’s Butterfly effect1 shows the fragility of a weather prediction based on the available initial conditions, seemingly mysterious traffic jams show the fragility of traffic systems. “Traffic, like weather and the stock market, turns out to be surprisingly complex and devilishly unpredictable” (Doug Stewart, 2001). Any number of variables could cause an accident or traffic jam. Because this is theoretically deterministic, but realistically chaotic, it is called deterministic chaos. This deterministic chaos is best described by a strange attractor.2 Although perhaps difficult to predict, mysterious traffic jams do have causes. Models simulate traffic jams by including a variety of initial conditions, or variables. The vehicles on the road and the road itself are the main variables for which models account. Weather is also an important variable; however, because of its complexity most models do not account for it. Within each variable lies another level of variables, for which the more complicated models also attempt to account. For example, vehicle movement, the first main variable, is affected by other variables: drivers and their demeanor. The second main variable, road layout, is also determined by subvariables: single or multi-lane road, legality of passing, the occurrence and location of ramps, road quality and width, construction, or traffic signs and signals. Different models use varying degrees and combinations of variables. 1 According to Lorenz’s “butterfly effect” a hurricane is influenced by innumerable factors, including not only temperatures, humidity, and convection patterns, but also the motion of a butterfly’s wing. Impossible to calculate in reality, the exact pattern of the hurricane is fully determined by the initial conditions of the system. In the example of a butterfly’s effect on a hurricane, more butterflies flapping their wings will change the initial conditions of the system and have different effects on it. 2 Strange attractors arise from deterministic chaos. In deterministic chaos, exact initial conditions cannot be known and the potential error of prediction increases exponentially as time passes. 3 Macroscopic models describe general traffic patterns using theories of fluid motion. On the other hand, microscopic models describe traffic as a system made up of separate variables (i.e. cars) which all behave by the same set of rules (Gazis, 1967). Cellular automaton models describe cars as individual units (these units are variables, which are called cells in cellular automata) with separate agendas (another layer of variables), which react differently to similar situations. Microscopic models are based on the car-following theory, which states that each car is a separate system with a velocity dependent on that of the car in front of it. This theory applies to single lane roads because it deals only with posterior and anterior interactions. Equations created for the car-following theory incorporate different variables, such as an average reaction time and distance between vehicles. Each car is described by a differential equation that permits the car to act independently even as the same rules govern all the cars’ actions. In a model designed based