Is that kids who come to UCLA from other countries often don’t know how to make an argument. They want to report facts, but not analyze them, or at least not analyze them in an obvious way that feeds into an overarching claim they’re proving. This is a problem every time i teach this comm class, especially, because they’re asked to create an argument based on personal observations of other human beings and it turns into a report on their behaviors. 

What bothers me is both that they’re unable to do this basic thing when it’s clear they’re usually smarter and prepared than the average UCLA bear, and that what they are trained in and good at isn’t valued as much in a U.S. school, where rhetoric and making arguments is everything.  This is something we don’t always understand about ourselves here. Many other places…most other places, everything is not reduced to a two sided argument that you make as forcefully and persuasively as possible. Many places you’re supposed to give the information and let the reader make decisions, or consider multiple perspectives and not just say “i’m all right or i’m all wrong” as you go for broke in a paper. 

This is not to say that I want things to change that much. I love making arguments. I’m pretty good at it and it helps me get the things I want in life. But I do think we could learn a lot in general from the rest of the world’s acceptance of the fact that not everything can be reduced to just two sides, which are then deemed right or wrong.

On the other hand, as much as I love other countries and think Scandanavia is the greatest, there’s also something fucking awesome about being this thickheaded as a nation.  Not right now. Right now we look like idiots. But in general. 

REMEMBER THE ALAMO, FELLAS!