Variables, but in the end...life just depends on where you find yourself

As many of you know from my other discussions, I have difficulties with prediction of individuals. Despite my aversions to waiting until college level writing to research, I did read L/A with an open mind. Descriptive research in this chapter appear to tell us what we already know without offering solutions.The correlation matrix seem familiar. The statistical randomness of Suddaarth and Wirth seems sound, I would have to depend on someone else to prove the statistical accuracy, but according to our other chapters, 1462 random out of 5,000 would seem valid. The weakness might appear to be the fact that Suddarth and Wirt's "weight on the predictors do not necessarily reflect the relative importance of each of the variables in the prediction" (127). That lack of ranking skews the importance of any of the predictor's validity for finding a method for correction prior to college entry. I am not sure if that could be corrected by going back to the original data and assigning Beta weights...again I would need a statistician.
In the end, I still believe we do a disservice to pre-college students by not correcting weaknesses prior to the college class. We have, yet again, limited the potentials and possibilities of many students if we do not "look for possible influences on the correlation coefficients" (123).

I enjoyed Linda Brodkey's study. "The Literacy Letters" was a reminder of that little quiz we took in Literacy last semester about what we know regarding "other classes" and the lack of understanding of many of the coded references in both letters. Reading the descriptive narrative, we as the reader,might struggle with class differences we see. These letters could describe issues of mutual respect, power, and understanding of Foucault's "The Discourse on Language". The way the letters were presented showed the variables between who I will call teacher-students and student-students promote a false sense of equality in "their reciprocal articulation" (136). Opportunities existed to learn from each other in great Feire tradition. Moving into Brodkey's "unlimited possibilities for expression" first there was imagination. Second cane the possibilities of thought and a relationship to others. Third, we say the evaluation of structure and grammar as the two audiences lost each other. Perhaps the difficulty was the manipulation of putting the writers together as an assignment. I do believe such an exercise can have merit particularly when looking at groups to society, individuals to groups, and academia to life. The issue of agent vs. victims becomes about the power to speak, listen, tell, and hear. Hall calls it "a theory of articulation" (127). I call it that quest for KNOWLEDGE.
I found it interesting that the teachers were stressed. I do not know if any of them cage up their power to change the dynamics of the relationship or if there were too many differences in the worlds of the teacher-students and the student-students. You never got the impression that the two worlds intertwined except in a superficial manner. Again the thoughts of both writers should be the main reason for the discourse not the grammar and structure in this case. we must remember that this is a manipulative situation. To think otherwise places a judgement on the writer and the writer's life.