I chose to focus on the construction essay, Question 3, from 2008. This question reflected on corporate sponsorships of schools, asking if the cash rewards outweigh the potential distractions. If I were to answer this question, I would have taken the position that the sponsorships are unnecessary in a school environment, while acknowledging the definite monetary benefits. The media and large corporations are so prevalent in our society through the media that schools are one place that I believe should be left pure, away from their profit-driven influence.
The first response I read, 3A, was a very well-developed answer to the question. The essay had a great hook, as the writer opened with his personal experience with school sponsoring and related it to the prompt. One thing I would have done differently however, was in regards to one claim the student made about funding. He said that the extra money would have little influence which is definitely incorrect, as schools are in dire need of extra cash.
With the second essay, 3B, I did not agree with many of the writer's points, but it was overall a satisfactory argument. This student stated that since youth are already so bombarded with the media, sponsorships of schools is perfectly acceptable. I wouldn't have taken this side, but I can see the reasoned logic.
The third example essay, 3C, was pretty terrible. There is little I would have done similarly to this essay, the writer opens with a strange hook that is somewhat confusing. The writing as a whole is disconnected and lacking, and the argument is weak.
I think I would have done well with this essay, I could have definitely developed a strong case against corporate sponsorships in schools because of the potential distractions and the exploitation of the learning environment.
