Category: Uncategorized

For my part of the HoPC project I am researching the efficacy of systems in place to detect and prevent serial killers/killings. Also, I am looking at the broader impact of improvements to this controversy and why it matters to the general public. The research includes data analytics and government special forces that focus on specific serial killers. Whether they are effective or not is a key piece of this controversy because it lends itself to whether there should be more effort to properly identifying key factors that may lead to a serial killer or serial killings. The second part of my research has to do more with the analysis of the whole controversy. Why it is a public controversy, and what are the lasting implications of better serial killer identification and prevention programs. From the research one can conclude that the benefit of better systems in place not only will keep serial killers off of the streets but also provide better systems to identify abusive relationships and mental illness. A common theme that occurs among serial killers is some sort of mental illness or abusive relationship so better serial killer detection could lead to better mental health diagnoses. With mental illness affecting so many people better diagnosis could better the quality of life for many U.S citizens which can apply directly to the average person. The type of evidence that I would need are arguments for systems in place by the government working to catch serial killers and not working. This will present the idea that these systems are controversial and can be not effective. Some limitations that might arise when researching this material is the relevancy of it. When the arguments and research are crucial to this controversy because since most systems in place are based upon serial killer trends when the system is analyzed may lead to it being more accurate or not. Therefore a system from the early 2000’s may not be effective but that same system in 2019 could be because of the added data to the algorithms. 

Topic 1- Nature vs Nurture

The first topic that our public controversy group has decided to analyze is the nature vs nurture idea involving serial killers and the criminally insane. There has been much debate about what has more influence on the minds of serial killers their upbringing or some genetic factor. There are many studies that show many serial killers as abused during their childhood which forces them to think about violence as the best problem solving method. Therefore, many serial killers have upbringings that are abusive which affects their mental state in adulthood. This would be a good History of a Public Controversy topic because there have been many studies about the origin of the serial killer mind. Whether there are biological agents that make children more prone to being serial killers or their upbringing affects their likelihood to become a serial killer, there is a lot of information within the debate to look at. 

Topic 2- Legalization of Marijuana

One of the most controversial legislation that is being talked about in U.S politics is whether Marijuana should be legalized. Although it has been legalized in some states there is still some backlash by U.S politicians about whether those states were justified in legalizing the drug. There are many studies that show both the harm and harmless nature of the drug, which is why it makes a good history of a public controversy topic. There is a lot of literature on both sides of the argument which would make it a good topic to analyze. By looking at the affects of marijuana compared to other controlled substances, it would be interesting to see which side of the argument has the stronger rhetoric and data to back them up.  Many articles found that the drug does not have adverse effects on people and could actually benefit the economy, however many other articles find that there are adverse effects on physical and mental health.

Introduction

When I was a rising Junior in high school in the summer of 2017 I was shipped off to SAT boot camp with the rest of my friends in the area. We were given copious amounts of homework in preparation for one of the biggest tests of our entire lives. Personally, I felt that the SAT boot camp motivated me and helped me maximize the score I can get. However, we did live in a wealthy area with all the resources I needed to succeed. However, that can not be said a majority of SAT test takers. In the 1970s there was a boom of SAT coaching which allowed people that can afford it to be better prepared for the test. With the SAT coaching movement, it has allowed more wealthy test takers to essentially buy a higher test score, disenfranchising the less affluent test takers and creating an education system that reenforces test taking. 

Powers and Rock from the Journal of Educational Measurement studied the effects that SAT coaching had on students. The data indicates that coached students had seen a marginal increase in SAT scores of about 100 points. Also, it helped them prepare for the intangibles of test taking such as stress management and test pacing. In a test that has so much impact on a students future those intangibles and the marginal point change can make all the difference in the world. This advantage that is only offered to the upper class test takers seems to give them an advantage over their less wealthy counterparts. 

Effects on disadvantaged students—> By not giving less wealthy students an even playing field the processes in the status quo are just furthering the struggle that these students face.

Education System—> With tests such as the SAT, many students are encouraged to drill testing strategies into their brain rather than focusing on more innovative aspects of learning such as creativity and critical thinking skills.

Conclusion—> With all this emphasis in Standardized Testing there needs to be a change in the way we value intelligence and how we measure it. As it stands there is one test that can change the lives of high schoolers forever and that test itself is not even fair. There needs to be something that better reflects the hard work and dedication students put into their educational lives that is not influenced by wealth, or coaching. Although not an easy task reassessing the SAT, one of the most important tests in students lives, can be the first step to making a more fair system. 

The most interesting aspect of my paradigm shift has to be the implications of test optional colleges. Studies show that when schools transition to test optional admission processes there is actually an increase in diverse applications and student body. This research is actually backed by many reliable sources such as the Princeton University research department and Wake Forest research department. Princeton University found a 3 percent increase in African American students admitted and a 10.6 percent increase in hispanic students being accepted. Wake Forest found that African American and Latino applications to the university also went up 70%. This would be interesting to look at because the data shows that test optional schools give a better chance to underrepresented minorities to enter into college and gain a higher education. The education would help them come out of poverty and help fight against any racial biases that happen within the education system. The paradigm shift critically analyzes the impact that SATs and test optional colleges have on the most disadvantaged people which is interesting because college students never really consider the negative effects that SAT and standardized testing can have. Many Penn State students and especially honors students never have had to deal with the problem of their SAT barring them from college, but analyzing the other perspective would make for an interesting TED Talk. Also showing the impact of a more diverse student body in colleges would be an interesting topic to analyze. Since not many people have heard of the idea of a creativity crisis it would be interesting to look at because it is having adverse effects on our economy without people even knowing it. There needs to be some discourse about the reform of the college admissions process, so this Ted Talk could look at that discussion under a critical light for the benefit of future students. 

For my paradigm shift analysis, I will be focusing on the change and increased competitiveness in the college admissions process with attention to standardized testing. In the 1900’s the first ever normalized standardized testing was given and led to a myriad of changes that lead to the SAT and ACT we have today. In 1926 the first was administered and it changed the college admission process. When the initial multiple choice SAT came out many people debated the efficacy of a multiple choice test. Many argued that it did not accurately portray the skill or intelligence of a student. After the wave of SAT and other standardized tests that we have to day it created a system that bogs the minds of aspiring college students. What started as a simple aptitude test has turned into one of the most stressful and impactful days of testing in students lives. What led to this shift was the increased necessity for top testing scores over the years. With the top fifty universities in the nation needing SAT’s in the 90th percentile it has become overly competitive over the years and will keep getting more competitive with years to come. Two main factors that led to this shift is the commercialization of the SAT and also the increasing competitiveness of college admissions. Many people can obtain access to SAT tutoring programs which disenfranchise the less fortunate while also skewing the the SAT data. The test becomes a game of tutoring and memorization rather than actual intelligence which puts many people at a severe disadvantage making it harder to go to college. Also, with increased competitiveness in college admissions the threshold SAT score necessary to be competitive for certain colleges is rising. This adds undo pressure on the students and severely hurts their chances at college if they are not as good of test takers. The impact of this shift is that students are, rather than actually cultivating intelligence, catering to a test that rewards efficient objectivity and memorization. This puts severe pressure on students to perform under intense circumstances because it can be seen that these tests determine a student’s future. The agents that created this change can be the increased competitiveness in college admissions which inherently leads to higher standardized testing scores.

Paradigm Shift 1- Economic Transition

Before the 1940’s the main monetary backing for every other country in the world was gold. However, around the mid 1940’s the establishment of the bretton woods system allowed all other countries to peg their currency against the US dollar rather than gold. Therefore, the only country that had any relation to gold was the U.S dollar which made the rest of the countries currency more stable.  The bretton wood system consisted of 44 countries and agreed to a fixed peg against the U.S currency with only 1% diversion allowed. Also, this conference gave rise to the IMF and the World Bank. The IMF would internationally monitor currency exchange rates allowing their to be a period of stability with foreign currency exchange rates. The World Bank added a system in which more developed countries could give developmental aid to developing countries more effectively and efficiently. More so, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, gave rise to one of the economic theories for currency today. The idea of a fixed or freely floating exchange rate system. The country was able to pick the way in which the currency is valued, making the currency system more true to value and much more sustainable. 

 

Paradigm Shift 2- Financial Crisis 

Before the 2008 market crash, many large financial holding organizations such as the Security Exchange Commission(SEC) believed that an adequate tool for regulating the market was just leaving it up to financial innovation. It was seen that information efficiency in financial markets was seen as an effective risk management tool for the whole economy. During the early 2000’s there was little questioning the idea of politics affecting the economy and political interests were not seem to affect any markets. However, after the market crash in 2008 the idea shifted to the effect of political factors on the economy and how it operates. There is more backlash and critical look into lobbying interests and what the government is doing to the economy. Governmental regulation is more closely monitored to try and stop the financial markets from being taken advantage of.

My second artifact, the Sandy Hook promise ad is a back to school ad that sheds light upon the horrors that kids have to face when school shootings happen. The ad appeals to their audience by starting it out as a normal back to school ad but slowly devolving it into a cesspool of intense emotions and actions that come out of school shootings. The ad specifically appeals to the audience by first providing juxtaposition of tone from the beginning of the ad to the end. This serves as a way to grab the audience’s attention and focus their attention on the individual horrors that the ad is portraying. Then the symbolism of basic back to school supplies acting as ways to protect themselves from school shooters reveals an extremely important idea that children face in schools. They can not feel safe in schools so rather than using supplies that are meant to be educational, they are forced to think about them as ways to protect themselves as school shootings. It creates an idea that the general population is not keeping kids safe in schools but rather neglecting them forcing students to fend for themselves. The abysmal state of these kids are supposed to create a sense of change in the audience which is the whole purpose of this ad. This ad and my first artifact are similar in terms of general rhetorical devices and topic however the PSA fails to encapsulate the audience in a way that the ad effectively does. The PSA inherently limits it self by defining that guns are the problem to school shootings. Where as the ad just states that school shootings are preventable. To an audience member the idea of taking away guns may be out of there reach but making a difference to fight against school shootings may be more realistic which then creates a stronger civic engagement. Also the similar tone and pathos are more strongly present in the ad than the PSA. The Ad accomplishes the framing of these inhumane school shootings much better than the PSA which is why the Ad invokes much stronger emotions. The PSA is good for appealing to specifically gun control advocates but it falls short of reaching the entire audience. The focused framing of the PSA makes it much less effective than the Ad especially when appealing to the entire population of the United States to prevent school shootings.

Introduction

It seems every day when we turn on the news we hear another tragic story about a school shooting happening in the U.S. With this plague that diseases our nation it is obvious that there would be PSA’s and Ad campaigns that fight to change these horrible occurrences. Which leads me to my civic artifact, a PSA made by Moms Demand Action an organization that advocates for gun control to stop school shootings across the country. In my upcoming rhetorical analysis I will be structuring it as follows, Background on the artifact, why it is civic and common places and then a general to specific rhetorical analysis of the piece. To frame the rhetorical analysis properly, I will not be advocating for gun control or not but what my interpretation of the PSA is. This can all boil down to a thesis, The PSA issued by Moms Demand Action uses commonplaces, and rhetorical strategies(that will be defined throughout the speech) to call for a change of the gross atrocities that are occurring in the US.

To give a good understanding of the PSA some background information must be presented

Artifact Background

• Who→ Moms Demand Action, an activist group comprised of Mothers who are pro Gun control
• To Whom→ Realistically anybody, students, parents, policy makers, or anybody that is honestly willing to make a difference. 
• Usually the Audience will encounter this message online or through some form of social media
•  The Audience usually interprets this PSA as a pro gun control ad as a means to raise awareness of fallacies in our law making system

This can lead directly to why the article is civic

• Call to Attention→ The PSA is looking at not only the citizens but even more specifically lawmakers to change gun control laws and fix some of the loopholes in the U.S Government
• Civic Infrastructure→ It calls to the idea that it is our job as citizens to protect the future generation of this country but the status quo does not allow for that(refer to child holding a gun)

This can lead directly into the commonplaces present within this PSA

Commonplaces

• Guns are the reasons behind all of these school shootings
• It is our job to change the government and nurture future generations

Analysis of Rhetorical Devices

• Rhetorical Strategies→ Rhetorical imagery leads to two elements
  • Pathos→ The thought of a child holding a large assault weapon should illicit some feelings of disgust or an unnatural feeling in the audience
  • Tone→ negative, the child holding the gun coupled with her facial expression can show that the child does not want to be in that situation. This can cross apply to the overarching idea of school shootings. 
• Rhetorical Logic(Logos)
  • The PSA comes to the conclusion that Lawmakers inherently do not know what they are doing when it comes to school shootings
    • The logic follows a pretty easy step by step process
    • 1. Kinder eggs are supposed to be harmless candy but are banned to keep people safe
    • 2. Kinder Eggs have not killed nearly as many people as guns
    • 3. However, guns are not banned but kinder eggs are

Conclusion

To conclude commenting on the Kairos is very important, it may crystallize why this PSA might actually matter to the audience. In light of the recent political climate there has been much talk about harsher gun control laws and their place in the U.S political system. At this exact moment the talk about school shootings and gun control is escalating, so what better time to analyze the rhetorical strategies involved in this exact topic. Through the use of Rhetorical Imagery and Logic, Moms Demand Action puts together a persuasive PSA that calls to the validity of what it means to be civic. 

The gun control PSA made by Moms Demand Action is condensed with rhetorical strategies used to persuade the audience of their ideology. Now, an interesting tool to note is the kairos that the article presents even to today’s audience. As of right now, gun control and gun banning is a hot topic in politics with a lot of politicians advocating for both sides of the argument. Kairos is used in this situation because it takes advantage of the political climate in the United States. For example, in conjunction with the recent El Paso shootings, Presidential Candidate Beto O’Rourke has started advocating for stricter gun control policies during democratic presidential debates. Now essentially, the PSA uses Kairos and takes advantage of the popularity of the issue at this time. It does not need much background information to explain the situation and it makes the assumption that the audience understands the school shooting problem that America faces. Although argumentatively, it is a very strong assumption to make, which is why the PSA is so effective but it is an assumption none the less. This assumption, coupled with the urgency of the ideology present in the PSA draws upon a strong sense of kairos, which is one of the reasons the PSA is so effective. The most prominent rhetorical device that the PSA uses to get its message across to the audience are the graphics that are used. Seeing a child in school holding an assault weapon looks to evoke strong emotions of disgust or sadness about the situation at hand. This is the most effective rhetorical appeal that the PSA uses because it illicit a strong reaction in the audience. However, the logical appeal that the PSA also uses proves highly effective. It draws upon the illogical idea of banning a chocolate egg rather than weapons that have killed a multitude of children. This logic, although simple, appeals to a wide range of audiences because it draws upon a chain of reasoning that is understood easily. This line of reasoning is extremely effective upon audiences that believe in gun control, and not as effective on audiences that are opposed to gun control, however, it can persuade a myriad of audiences. This is because it calls to the purpose of US citizens. The purpose of US citizens is to protect future generations and that call to civic duty resonates with all audiences no matter the political orientation.  There is also an underlying fear appeal plays a crucial role in the rhetorical effectiveness of this PSA. The sight of a child holding a gun calls upon the fear of losing a child to gun violence, which has a strong impact on the average audience of this PSA. The rhetorical appeals of the PSA funnel into an implicit claim that assault weapons have been killing children in schools. That claim is built up by the graphic rhetorical appeals present in the PSA while also showing the illogical actions of US lawmakers by banning kinder eggs instead. To conclude, the PSA weaves rhetorical appeals to highlight the pressing issue of gun control and how it affects our students.

 

The artifact that I have chosen for my civic artifact speech is the PSA, made by Moms Demand Action, showing the ridiculous notion that kinder eggs are banned for child safety where assault weapons are not. Moms Demand Action is an organization that has been advocating gun control laws for the safety of school children, most notably by releasing PSA’s that highlight some seemingly harmless products that have been banned for child safety over guns. At the surface level, the audience is the general public. The PSA highlights a policy in the United States that seems absurd, therefore all people in the US are considered the audience because this could affect them in some way. However, at a more analytical level, the audience of this PSA could be lawmakers due to the fact that they are the ones who introduced the ban on kinder eggs in the first place. The organization, Moms Demand Action, not only want the general public to see this but also lawmakers so that they see the consequences of their actions in the eyes of the organization. The audience will usually encounter this PSA through either their website, social media platforms such as Instagram or Twitter, and youtube commercials. The audience can interpret the information in many ways but the intent of this specific PSA is quite clear. They demand reform in US gun control laws and they accomplish this by showing a fault in the US policy making system to highlight the effect of guns on children. The audience will interpret the PSA as this organization wants gun control change for the safety of their children. Whether banning assault weapons is the best route for that is up to the audience to decide but it is clear that is what Moms Demand Action stand for. 

The PSA proves civic because it calls attention to loopholes in gun laws in the US. Also, it calls upon citizens to take action to protect the children and the future of the United States from guns entering schools. As US citizens and as a country the protection of its citizens is one of the most important civic duties, and this PSA shows that without action the status quo is very dangerous to children. The type of action that the PSA wants citizens to take however is up to audience interpretation. The main ideology that is present within this PSA is that gun control laws will make students safer in schools. The context behind this are the school shootings that happen at the result of students handling assault rifles. The PSA calls upon some level of deductive reasoning which follows the lines of students use assault rifles during school shootings, school shootings kill students, therefore assault rifles kill students. That line of reasoning does, present some fallacies however the pathos involved in the PSA attempts to overshadow these fallacies rendering it an effective piece of rhetoric. This reasoning is why I have decided to use this PSA as my Civic Artifact Speech.