Syntax dispute between student and prof about the word "which."

Question

My professor worded this essay question: "Explain the campaign that you watched in the film clip and which of Mao's movements made people enthusiastically participate in the campaign . . ."

The name of the movement had admittedly slipped my mind during the test so I didn't say "which," I just went ahead and explained it. My argument is that (I'm totally bullshitting like I know what I'm talking about here): “Explain . . . which of” does not mean “, and which of__?” The first clause is a statement and thus in order to ask “which of Mao’s movements” the second clause must have a comma splice and end with a question mark. It read to me like this: “[Out of] Mao’s movements [just tell me about the one that] made people enthusiastically participate . . .” Because “explain” is vague, but most decisively, the fact that you did not end the sentence in a question (i.e. “?”), you are not asking which, you are asking “the one which . . . explain it.”

My view is that if you read it a certain way, albeit too fast, it doesn't sound like it's asking for which, just "which of" meaning "out of" those movements. I know it's obvious that she would want the name of the movement, but I'm challenging whether the question officially calls for it.

It's worth a shot if I can prove her wrong, but do I have a leg to stand on or should I just drop it before I'm called an idiot-retard?

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi Eigo,

Welcome to the Forum.

I don't know the course material, so I hope my comments are not unfair to your teacher. However, I don't think it's a very well-worded topic statement. It's too vague, and the relationship between its two parts is not clear to me.

I see it as having two parts. Here they are, with some comments.

Explain the campaign that you watched in the film clip 'Explain' in what way? Why it happened ? Why it succeeded? To me, this just means 'discuss' the campaign in a very general way, with no particular focus.

Explain which of Mao's movements made people enthusiastically participate in the campaign. Does this mean just 'identify' which movements these were? Or does it mean 'identify them, and then explain why these movements made people enthusiastically participate in the campaign'? Again, it's not clear to me what I am being asked to do.

I'm not sure exactly what question you were asking, but I hope this is of some help to you.

Best wishes, Clive

Eigo · Answer

This is a Chinese history (Pre-Qing Dynasty to modern) upper division course at a university. The woman teaching the class is ethnically Korean, though her verbal English skills are impeccable. She has a doctorate's degree so the woman is not stupid or illiterate, but she uses very vague language and doesn't always choose the best sentence structure when writing sentences in English, so I've noticed.

Mao Zedong was in power of China's Communist Party (CCP) for a long time and he had like three different movements during his time in office. This question asks about The Great Leap Forward.

Here's the entire question: "Explain the campaign that you watched the film clip and which of Mao's [Zedong] movements made people enthusiastically participate in the campaign. Briefly explain the purposes and results of the movement, and discuss at least four reasons why the movement did not turn out to be a tremendous success."

The movement is of course, The Great Leap Forward (this is actually what I wrote as my essay):

"This is when Mao ordered the peasants to build backyard steel factories to catch up w/ Western steel production, create thousands of communes (community-based farms and factories meant for the speedy, "efficient production" of capital and self-reliance), and collectivization where peasants were paid in net growth of food [produced] instead of wages.

However, this movement failed miserably b/c the farmers were being overworked, factories being overrun and force to shut down, (thereby producing poor quality crops), crops were being deep-rooted (exposing the fertile soil to air drying it out), overcrowding (prohibited the growth of healthy crops), and lastly exterminated the sparrows b/c they were eating the crops, thereby destroying the crops' natural insecticide, doing more harm then good."

And then upon correcting my paper wrote as extra examples, "human exhaustion, wrong statistics." And then above the word "which" she made an arrow from it pointing to "Great Leap Forward."

This is my grievance to the score I got (3/5):
"Here you require four reasons and, well, I followed through with not just four, but seven reasons!: communes, collectivization, overworked farmers, overrun factories, deep-rooted crops, overcrowded crops and exterminated sparrows. Yet I get docked somehow needing an additional two? Agape. And thusly, I lost well over half a letter grade (6.7%) on this question b/c of your vague wording, wooly expectations and incredible oversight? That’s unacceptable. In all fairness this merits at least 4.5/5."

Edit: Also as "purposes and results of the movement" wrote: "'efficient production' of capital and self-reliance."

Clive · Answer

Hi again,

Thank you for the background information about your course and your teacher. I see that she is Korean, but I don't think her ethnicity is relevant, unless you are suggesting that as a Korean, she does not understand Chinese history. I'm sure the University would disagree with you.

I'm sorry that I can't comment on the Great Leap Forward, as I don't know enough of the details. However, I do have some comments on the language in your posting here.

The language that you have used in writing about your teacher, and the language that you tell me you have used to discuss this with your teacher, seems to me to be very strong, aggressive and subjective. Perhaps that's normal in your university environment and in your cultural context, but from a Western point of view, it's a lot more uncommon. I know you don't think that she expresses herself clearly, but nevertheless, do you think it is possible that she knows more about the subject than you do? I wonder if it's possible that your teacher would be more willing to discuss and explain her comments and decisions if you used more tact in your approach?

Good luck, Clive

Eigo · Answer

CliveHi again,

Thank you for the background information about your course and your teacher. I see that she is Korean, but I don't think her ethnicity is relevant, unless you are suggesting that as a Korean, she does not understand Chinese history. I'm sure the University would disagree with you.

I'm sorry that I can't comment on the Great Leap Forward, as I don't know enough of the details. However, I do have some comments on the language in your posting here.

The language that you have used in writing about your teacher, and the language that you tell me you have used to discuss this with your teacher, seems to me to be very strong, aggressive and subjective. Perhaps that's normal in your university environment and in your cultural context, but from a Western point of view, it's a lot more uncommon. I know you don't think that she expresses herself clearly, but nevertheless, do you think it is possible that she knows more about the subject than you do? I wonder if it's possible that your teacher would be more willing to discuss and explain her comments and decisions if you used more tact in your approach?

Good luck, Clive

Clive,

Thank you for the effort to help me, but you have completely misunderstood me. The only relevance to her Korean ethnicity is that her native language may or may not be English, for she has a noticeable accent and that at many times non-native speakers of a language may indeed be close to 100% fluent verbally, though may be trailing behind just a tad in the writing dept., depending on what communication method they emphasized most while learning said langauge. That's it. And oh no, her knowledge of Chinese history is superior to mine, which is obviously not what I'm challenging here.

Anyway, I've realized that I don't have a leg to stand on b/c even if I am right, it's a ridiculous argument anyway. I guess what I don't understand is your comment regarding "Western point of view" and your hint, seemingly accusing me of being prejudice and/or racist. C'mon, have some sense. If I was that ignorant, what business do I have in class about Chinese history? What about "Normal in your cultural context"? Do you know where I'm from? "A lot more uncommon"? Where are you from? I'm from the Western hemisphere (USA). As you may know, yes, Americans do tend to be harsh w/ their words at times compared to many cultures. I see your point though. I can indeed write aggressively and over the top. Aggressive speech is necessary though to support a weak argument, which is exactly what this is. "If I used more tact"? Like I said, impossible given what I am trying to do, which is exactly why its hopeless.

Unless you have, suggestions?

???

Clive · Answer

Hi again Eigo,

Yes, you're right. Sorry, I did misunderstand you. For some reason, I felt that you were not from 'the West'. Part of it was, as you saw, your reference to her 'Korean ethnicity'. I live in Canada, and that's not an expression I run into a lot. I guess I'm used to people just saying things like 'She's not a native English speaker', although in your last post you seem to indicate that there is a possibility her native language is English, so I'm actually still a bit confused about what the relevance of her ethnicity is. I think in this day and age, sadly, it can be tricky for you or for me to talk about that kind of thing without some possibility of straying into dangerous territory. I didn't mean to accuse you of anything, I just wanted to explain 'to a non-Westerner (!)' what I saw as Western attitudes a little, because they often don't understand. I'm sorry if I offended you.

I guess I was mainly mislead by the aggressive way you wrote about her. It did seem to me, as you say, to be 'over the top'. That's really what I was trying to point out. If you were my prof and I approached you that way, I don't think it would help my case with you very much. On the other hand, it's been quite a while since I was in University amd maybe things have changed a bit since then?

Anyway, maybe at this point your essay is just water under the bridge?

Best wishes again, Clive

Eigo · Answer

If you're curious......here is the Revised (Tactful) Version:

On the last question 31) the movement’s name had escaped me at the time (though knew exactly what it was; would have recognized the name had I saw it, i.e. in an MC question), and the question was indirect in asking the name of the movement. Unlike in Q)30 where it says, “Name this event,” which is explicit. Besides, a fill-in-the-blank question I don’t think has a place in an essay question anyway, especially when you take an excessive percentage off for getting it wrong, or simply having it slip your mind. Please weigh the difficulties: remembering a simple name vs. remembering the details of said name and being able to fully explain it. Trivial names, specific dates and such truly fall into the MC category. To be fair, an essay question would more importantly ask: “Mao Zedong’s the Great Leap Forward had a momentous impact on in early 20^th century. Describe this impact . . .” And sure my handwriting might get sloppy, it was legible (had this been a subconscious factor in grading). “Discuss at least four reasons why the movement did not turn out to be a success.” Here you require four reasons and I did as pleased but not by just four, seven reasons: communes, collectivization, overworked farmers, overrun factories, deep-rooted crops, overcrowded crops and exterminated sparrows. Yet I get docked somehow needing an additional two. The film clip was about the sparrows which immediately brought to mind all the reasons why the communes and collectivization failed (the fundamental part of the movement). I’m astonished. As for the purposes of the movement (Mao’s intended results) I wrote, “efficient production of capital and self-reliance.” And thusly, I lost well over half a letter grade (6.7%) on this question. In all neutrality, I don’t see why this would not merit at least 4.5/5.

again thanks for the help.
???

Wwwdotcom · Answer

Eigo,

Realizing this is some kind of essay exam, it is the responsibility of the student to provide the relevant information to the teacher. The answers are not given like in a multiple choice situation. Therefore, I think you have to weigh your answer with the answers of others in the class to first see if they got points where you didn't when you gave the same answer. Assuming none of this bias exists, I would next look at your answer and find out if it is reasonable to assume you should know what you gave as the answer. If it seems like it is, then I would see a case to fight in respect to test standards. This is a relatively impossible task, since many universities do not intervene over a teacher's choice of testing. It would make them look bad, as they are the ones who hired the teacher. You will most likely have a 1% chance of swaying anyone to change your mark by yourself.

So, seeing as this will most likely not work out in your favor, maybe you can try another approach. Accept it as wrong and try to lessen the blow. I see you note 31 questions and that it is the last. Given all things equal, each question should then be worth less than 3.23 points. This is significantly less than 6.7. How does she substantiate inflating that question by 3.47 points (2.074 times, at least twice, the amount of one question)? Furthermore, if she was looking for 4 answers, and you didn't give her 2 answers she wanted, then you should only be marked down half of the value for that question and not the full amount. This would mean 1.61. Now, if she can't explain her grading system, it would look bad on her, and that is something you could bring up to the department as it has nothing to do with the material in class. You may have been duped 5.09 points.

Syntax dispute between student and prof about the word "which."

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions