TOW #30: Letter to a New APELC Student

Dear Brand-Spanking-New APELC Student,

Take a deep breath and calm down. Seriously, it's not that bad. We all know that our beloved Wissnation (a term I use with little pleasure) is fond of telling younger students about how terribly unbearable Advanced Placement classes are. I'm not sure if it's because we just like scaring you or because we're wusses. It's probably a combination of both, but either way, don't listen to us, them whoever. If you play your cards right, you'll do just fine in APELC. That's my first piece of advice.
Regarding the summer work: you should start it on or before August 1st. Otherwise, you'll have too much to do in a short span of time, it will all come out horribly, and you will probably get a bad grade. This problem can be exacerbated if you have more than one AP class, so watch out. Also, when you start being a productive member of society earlier in the summer, you'll be well prepared in time for the school year, when you have to be productive all the time. After you turn in your summer work and get your grade back, don't get too disheartened if you get a poor grade: you can learn from your mistakes, and if you do well later, you can make up for the low summer work grade. On the other hand, if you do well on the summer work, don't start acting cocky. You're not hot stuff. I got a 7 (88%) on the summer essay, and while that seemed to bode well for me, I struggled on later assignments. So did other people who did well on the summer essay. How you do on the summer assignment doesn't determine your future in the class, so don't get too built up or brought down by it. 
On that note, do not tie your self esteem or your sense of self worth to your grades. Trust me. 'Tis a bad idea. You are much, much more than just a grade, a class level, a score, or a GPA, and things like that don't show who you are as a person. A person might get good grades, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything about their personality or character. If how you do in school has a huge influence on your self esteem, you're not going to feel very good about yourself when you do poorly (almost everyone does at some point, it's life).
APELC is not a class for the lazy, the faint of heart, or those who don't like English. To do well, you have to be interested in the subject matter and be willing to put in the time and effort to get a good grade. You can't really put APELC on the back burner, skip readings, or start essays the night before; you won't be prepared for class, and your grades will be, frankly, bad. All of the things you'll have to do in this class, even the things that seem like pointless busy-work, will help you get a good score on the AP exam and to do well in the class overall. Just take the work seriously, no matter how boring it is or how much time it takes. It'll be worth it.
Some final pieces of advice that apply to APELC students also apply to junior year students. First, find something that will keep you sane. You need something that will always make you feel better, less stressed, and more balanced. I recommend TV, music, or a game, or some other kind of relaxing hobby. Second, sleep at least six hours a night, because less is just plain unhealthy. Third, eat a variety of healthy foods so that you have a lot of energy. Fourth, always have a sweatshirt in your locker because our school is old and cold. 
I repeat: take a deep breath. Take a lot of them over the coming school year. Good luck.

From, O'Neill K.

TOW #29: The Failed Effort to Make the Rich "Just Like Us"

Jackie and David Siegel are not well-known to many members of the general public, but they are two of the most significant movers and shakers of real estate and business. David Siegel founded the enormously successful timeshare company Westgate Resorts. He, his wife Jackie, and their large family are based on Orlando, Florida, where they endeavoured to build Versailles, the biggest private home in the United States. However, David ran into financial troubles during the 2008 economic recession, and construction on their home was stalled. The Siegels and their troubles were detailed by director Lauren Greenfield and compiled into the 2012 documentary The Queen of Versailles. The documentary is narrated completely by the Siegels and their associates, so the opinions and views of the filmmakers are not directed shown to the audience. However, the documentary portrays the Siegels as hardworking people, not the greedy vampires that many would assume them to be; despite their wealth, the Siegels faced similar financial issues that a lot of families did during and after the recession. This idea can be extended to all of the other wealthy people that complained of financial problems. The Queen of Versailles does make the Siegels and others of their class more likable and relatable, but the fact is that their troubles are not similar in magnitude or importance to those of normal families. In the way they are portrayed in the documentary, the Siegels are not much like the typical viewer, despite their middle-class backgrounds.
In The Queen of Versailles, David and Jackie explain their rise to financial success. They both came from the middle class and started small: David owned a small real estate business, and Jackie worked at IBM as a computer engineer. Surprisingly, they are extraordinarily modest about and generous with their wealth, and serve as an excellent example of the "American Dream". However, David owns a timeshare business, and it took a big hit in 2008. The business and the family lost a lot of money; so much, in fact, that the Siegels had to stop building their home, had to sell a major company building, and worried about continuing their lifestyle. These worries echo those of many more typical Americans, as thousands lost their jobs, their homes, and their futures. Despite this superficial similarity, the Siegels cannot relate much to normal Americans. When normal people make a lot less money than they used to, it can mean skipping a car or house payment, or even being unable to put food on the table. For the Siegels, it meant buying fewer toys for their children for Christmas (they still received dozens each), having to put their unfinished mega-mansion (which was larger than anything a normal person would dare to dream about) on the auction block, and downsizing their housing staff. In 2008, middle-class people lost their livelihoods; the Siegels just had to downgrade their lifestyle to something a little closer to the average, at least the average for the rich. The stakes are, in many ways, bigger personally for the average American than for the Siegel family.
Throughout the documentary, the Siegels show off all of the things they are able to have and do because of their enormous wealth. David has a fleet of cars, portraits of him and his family painted to look like royalty, and a golden throne. Jackie has diamond and gold jewelry galore, a $17,000 pair of Gucci crocodile skin boots, and is the hostess of a party for all of the Miss America contestants. One of their children has a room stuffed with beanie babies, and they all have several exotic pets. While all of this extravagance may be interesting to watch, it is not relatable. As I watched the documentary, I personally did not know what this lifestyle was like, except for the fact that it seemed rather nice. I could not relate to the way the Siegels reveled in their material possessions, as neither me nor anyone I know live like the Siegels do. It was a good tactic of the director, Lauren Greenfield, to try to make the Siegels seem like normal people, but because they are at the far end of the social spectrum, her efforts failed.
The Queen of Versailles, is, frankly, a fascinating documentary overall; after all, who doesn't enjoy looking at how the other half lives? However, while the Siegels may not have the stereotypical snooty attitudes of wealthy people, they are not relatable to viewers. When viewed under a microscope, their economic problems are not similar to those faced by typical Americans during and after the 2008 recession. Simply put, everyone has problems and all problems are bad, but not everyone's problems are equally bad. This is where the portrayal of the Siegels in The Queen of Versailles fails.

TOW #28: The Queen of Versailles Documentary Analysis

It's only kind of trashy.

Few outside real estate, time share, and business circles have probably heard about billionaire David Siegel, his wife Jacqueline, and their huge family in Orlando, Florida. Over several decades, David worked his way up from the middle class to become the owner of one of the biggest, most profitable vacation timeshare companies in the United States, and he and Jacqueline are the proud parents of eight beautiful children. In the early 2000s, they began building a huge home inspired by the famous French palace of Versailles, and it was going to be the the biggest single-family home in the country. However, when the 2008 recession hit, the family's company lost so much business that David had to take a severe pay-cut, put their unfinished home on the market, and lay off thousands of employees. The Siegels' trials and tribulations are filmed in the documentary "The Queen of Versailles", directed by Lauren Greenfield.
Throughout the documentary, multiple sides of David, Jacqueline, and the other featured people are shown, giving an honest view of the Siegels and their associates. They are not portrayed as greedy, leech-like wealthy people, but more like wealthy people that worked their way to the top and are now facing major troubles. This is probably the main purpose of the documentary, to show the Siegels as people who just happen to be wealthy instead of vilifying them like a lot of people did during the economic crisis. One of the most obvious ways the filmmakers do this is by including many interviews and voiceovers with David and Jacqueline describing their climb to the top; they talk about their small-town, middle-class backgrounds, David's first business venture, and Jacqueline's college years and work as an engineer at IBM. This repetition implies that they understand what it's like to not be wealthy and that they sympathize with ordinary people, including the ones who work for them. It is supplemented by archival videos and photos of the couple when they were younger: they are wearing more typical clothes, going to school, working in an office, or, in Jacqueline's case, competing in beauty pageants. The old footage, photos, and their interviews show how normal they were when they were younger. This idea is also supported by the interesting juxtaposition between their wealth and some aspects of their lifestyles: for example, the Siegels are enormously wealthy, but eat from McDonald's on a regular basis and shop at stores like Toys "R" Us and Target. It sends the message that even though they are wealthy, they are "just like us". Another important feature of the documentary is where it takes place: Orlando, Florida. The Versailles-inspired house is so close to Walt Disney World that one could see the Disney fireworks from the house. David and Jacqueline had a dream of being successful and wealthy, and their dream comes to fruition near Disney World, the place "where dreams come true". The setting is inherently hopeful and magical, and reinforces the idea that David held onto a seemingly-impossible dream and worked very, very hard to achieve it; he exemplifies the "rags-to-riches" ideal that so many Americans hold onto. 
Much of the documentary may show that David and Jacqueline worked hard to get to where they are today, but their wealth is definitely on display. The Las Vegas office building is one of the tallest buildings in the city and has the brightest sign on the Las Vegas Strip. The Siegels' homes are enormous and luxurious, at 26,000 and 90,000 square feet apiece. Paintings of everyone in their family adorn the walls of their home, which is filled by eight children (many more than the average), maids, nannies, cooks, gardeners, and drivers. Each room is filled with toys, decorations, nice furniture, sculptures, and too many other fine material things to count. The Siegels have pools, tennis courts, bowling alleys, and huge garages. Despite their humble beginnings, the Siegels are still wealthy people. Part of the filmmakers' purpose in making "The Queen of Versailles" is to show the Siegels as "typical" people who are also rich, so that aspect of them is very, very important.
Even before the 2008 economic recession, caused in part by people who run companies like David Siegel, ordinary people both resented and looked up to the wealthy. However, few consider that not all wealthy people are bad, that not all of them take advantage of people. David and Jacqueline Siegel and their family might have different problems than most, but that does not negate the difficulty they have faced for the past several years.

TOW #27: TOW Reflection

In the beginning of the year, we students of AP English Language and Composition were assigned weekly TOW posts, which were intended to give us much-needed practice in analyzing arguments. It was assumed that at the end of the year, we were going to be able to look back at all of our TOWs and see how much progress we had made. Before I did that I wasn't sure I would see much progress, since TOWs are only small-scale examples of the work we did in class and had a very similar format every time. I was surprised when I did, in fact, see that my TOWs has gotten better throughout the year.
The TOWs I wrote during the first semester were all similar regarding the types of rhetorical devices I pointed out in the texts I analyzed, both written and visual. At that point, I understood very few rhetorical devices and what their effects were, so I kept pointing out the same ones over and over again; this included ethos, pathos, logos, word repetition, and exemplification for written texts and colors and words for visual ones. However, as we talked more about analysis in class, I became more familiar with rhetorical devices and could write about their effects in a more in-depth way. I could write about the arrangement of a text, the tone of the speaker (which I could more easily describe with a single word than I could before), and whether or not the audience would be swayed by the speaker's argument.
TOWs come with requirements about what you have to include in them, and I've noticed that I've gotten better at meeting all of them without sounding methodical about it. Earlier in the year, my TOWs sounded like a list: the title and speaker of the text, the devices used, their effect, the speaker's tone, and a judgement as to how effective the argument was. My early TOWs were all longer than the requirement as well. However, as I got more practice, I was able to fit all of these things into a TOW and make them flow better and switched up the order of all the required things. This is probably the feature of my TOWs that I have most improved over the past several months, and it is very beneficial, since this skill can transfer to other kinds of writing. I was not, however, able to shorten the length of my TOWs; even at the end of the year, they were still longer than they were supposed to be. Length is something I always have trouble with, no matter what I'm writing. I would very much like to improve this aspect of my writing, as saying something in a concise way is much better than saying it in a flowery, roundabout way.
Everyone in APELC, including myself, has whined about the TOWs all year, but those criticisms of the assignment were at least partially undeserved. Of course, it is an extra bit of homework that can take a long time to complete if one wants to do them well. Few students get to them during the week because of their other obligations, or on Saturdays because they want to have fun, so when it comes to Sunday, no one feels like putting the work in. For busy students, it can be another burdensome form of stress. These complaints make sense, but do not outweigh the benefits that TOWs have. They are an excellent form of practice, as they are essentially mini-essays. TOWs provide a lot of opportunities to do things that students have trouble with, which they might not always be able to get to practice in class. I think I definitely benefited from writing what was essentially an introductory paragraph  and practice recognizing rhetorical devices every week, as I struggle with that. They served as a good benchmark for me by helping me recognize what I needed to improve on in my writing. While TOWs can be annoying assignments that seem to forever chase you, at the end of the year, their value and worth become apparent.

TOW #27: "Roughly 1 Person Every 10 Minutes Is Diagnosed with HIV in the U.S., so Why Aren't We Taking AIDS More Seriously?" by Karley Sciortino (my, what a long title)

Karley Sciortino is a writer for Vogue Magazine and also an independent blogger.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic came to the forefront of global consciousness in the 1980's, but over the years, people have stopped taking the diseases, and the risk of contracting them, seriously enough. Blogger Karley Sciortino comments on this dangerous phenomenon in her piece for Vogue, "Roughly 1 Person Every 10 Minutes Is Diagnosed with HIV in the U.S., so Why Aren't We Taking AIDS More Seriously?" Using personal anecdotes and statistics, Sciortino argues that HIV/AIDS is just as big a problem as it used to be and that Millennials often make unsafe health decisions.
Sciortino opens her article with a harrowing anecdote to show the irresponsibility of today's young adults. She talks about having unprotected sex with a stranger one drunken evening, and describes how she awoke the next morning, highly aware of the potentially devastating consequences: "I spent the next three months, which is the length of time it takes for HIV to show up in a test, on a double dose of my anxiety meds". She continues by writing "... I know I'm not the only one of my friends to have "messed up" and by mentioning a gay friend of hers who contracted AIDS and has gone almost completely blind. Her stories, though limited to herself and her social group, are emotional, and some readers may not only be able to understand the subjects' feelings, but to identify with them. They add a personal touch to the piece; it also features more concrete evidence, but things like that do not touch peoples' hearts. 
The anecdotes may get to the heart of readers, but to make a solid, effective argument about this topic, Sciortino must also get to their minds. One of the most prominent ways she does this is by citing numerous statistics. She even does this in the title of the article: "Roughly 1 Person Every 10 Minutes Is Diagnosed with HIV in the U.S.". In the third paragraph, she writes, "... there are about 1.1 million Americans living with HIV/AIDS... Gay and bisexual men continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV, accounting for an estimated 63 percent of new infections". These examples, as well as others not provided here, demonstrate how widespread HIV/AIDS is in the United States and how minorities are disproportionately affected with it. Faced with these statistics, it would be difficult for readers to claim that HIV/AIDS is not a major issue, and coupled with Sciortino's anecdotes, readers would think Millennials irresponsible for not addressing or considering it when it comes to the way they conduct their personal lives.

Article link: http://www.vogue.com/culture/article/breathless-aids-hiv-in-the-new-millennium-slutever-karley-sciortino/#1

TOW #26: Berger Paints Billboard

Billboard are often thought of as one of the best kinds of advertisements: their size, height, bold colors, and large lettering grab the attention of passing drivers. However, Berger Paints made a much simpler billboard and employs some unique methods in order to make those who see it think about buying their products. Among these are the apparent presence of a person hanging on the billboard, shaping the board in such a way that part of it looks like the sky, and putting very little decoration on the board.
When billboards feature people, it is usually in the form of a photograph or other form of picture. In this instance, Berger Paints decided to put a life-like dummy, dressed like a painter, smack in the middle of their billboard. This would certainly be a surprise to those passing the billboard: at first glance they would think that they were seeing an actual person hanging off of it. When they realize that the "person" is fake, they understand what the billboard is advertising. It is also just very unique to put something like that on a billboard, so it would impress those who see it, and they would think Berger Paints very creative.
The upper right area of the billboard is cut in rectangular shapes, exposing the sky behind it. Because the dummy on the billboard is holding out a paint roller, it looks like the dummy is painting the billboard itself the color of the sky. This, coupled with the logo in the corner that says "Natural Finish Colours", would lead a potential customer to believe that Berger has an excellent selection of paint colors that mimic nature. This is desirable to customers, leading to the message of the billboard: Berger Paints have natural colors, so you should buy them.
Besides the jagged edges on the right side and the hanging dummy, this Berger Paints billboard is not crowded with decoration: its colors are rather plain and part of it has been cut away to show the sky, and the only three words on the billboard are small and tucked aside in a corner. The overall simplicity of the billboard keeps viewers focused on its message.
If one knows anything about advertising, the Berger Paints billboard would not change one's mind. If one realizes that the billboard is cut to show the sky and not actually painted so well as to look just like it, it would still not be successful. However, it is very creative and interesting to look at.

TOW #25: "The Science of 'Happily Ever After': 3 Things That Keep Love Alive" by Eric Barker

Divorce has reached an almost-epidemic rate in the United States,
and people like Eric Barker are trying to figure out what can
be done to stop it.

According to some social critics, one of the most pressing issues in American society is the high divorce rate: most statistics show that the divorce rate has hovered around fifty percent for the past several years. Rushed marriages, financial problems, and a lack of communication are often cited as causes of divorce, but whatever the cause, divorce can be traumatic and complicated for everyone involved. Eric Barker of Time claims that the love between a married couple can be sustained and saved. He suggests three methods of doing this in his piece "The Science of 'Happily Ever After': 3 Things That Keep Love Alive", backs up his ideas with quotes statistics, and organizes the article in a very effective fashion.
One of the best ways to ensure that a reader understands an argument is to sort the information in a logical way, something that Barker does very well. He splits up his evidence into different sections depending on the subject matter, giving each section a bold, large header. For example, the divorce section is titled "'Happily Ever After' Ain't Easy", and the one about the happiness of those in arranged marriage is called "What You Can Learn From Arranged Marriages." The different parts lead into each other: at the end of the arranged marriages section, Barker writes, "So you need to actively keep the marriage happy. How do you do that?" The very next sentence is the heading of the next section, which answers his question with the words "Don't Fix the Bad. Increase the Good." By splitting up his information into sections, Barker keeps the reader from getting confused and walks them through his argument.
From beginning to end, Barker's piece is backed with cited statistics and quotes, two of the most convincing forms of evidence. He quotes the book The Science of Happily Ever After: What Really Matters in the Quest for Enduring Love: "The divorce rate often reported by the media is 50 percent [...] however, census data does not capture the 10 to 15 percent of couples who permanently separate [...]" He also quotes a research study that says "those who had undertaken the 'exciting' date nights showed a significantly greater increase in marital satisfaction than the 'pleasant' date night group". Both of these quoted statistics and more help prove to readers, if they did not already know it, that marriages are on the downward spiral, but that things can be done to fix them. They are objective evidence, much less open to interpretation than subjective evidence.
According to Barker, there are three things that can help keep a marriage alive: actively working at it, increasing the good things instead of focusing on the bad, and bringing excitement into the marriage. His article is very convincing, as his argument is both logical and can appeal to those who are married themselves.

Article link: http://time.com/62029/the-science-of-happily-ever-after-3-things-that-keep-love-alive/