(From Segal, Jerome M. Graceful Simplicity: The Philosophy and Politics of the Alternative American Dream. Copyright © 1999. The University of Califormia Press.)
In popular imagery, especially
when seen from afar, America is often portrayed as if there were only one
meaning to the American Dream. This is not so. The ambivalent response that
many in the world have toward American life is mirrored in an ambivalence
that many Americans have toward their own life, and this is an essential
part of the American tradition, even when people are making it in America.
There is always that nagging question, "Is this really the way to live?"
Long before there was an America, there were two American Dreams, and they
reflect two ways of thinking about money. In Western thought, from the very
beginning to the present day, people had doubts about the real value of
riches and the things money can buy. There has always been a conflict between
the view that "more is better" and the view that "just enough is plenty."
This divide is reflected in two very different visions of the good life.
It is the underlying thesis of this essay that the Alternative Dream, the
dream that rests upon the attainment of a simple life, is the sounder vision.
Aristotle's Challenge to our Way of Life
This essay
is about contemporary life, but I want to start with Aristotle for two
reasons. First, because his challenge to a money-oriented form of life
remains as powerful today as it was 2,300 years ago. Second, because,
for all his wisdom, Aristotle never had to wrestle with the problems we
face. So many of the contemporary problems that prevent people in the
middle class from enjoying the good life are the unanticipated consequences
of three forms of genuine moral and social progress that Aristotle never
envisioned: the elimination of slavery, the liberation of women, and the
affirmation of the right of ordinary working people to self-fulfillment.
Seeing both the strengths and weaknesses in Aristotle gives us a clearer
perspective on our own situation.
Aristotle's Politics is surprising in that it opens with a discussion
of the household. But this is exactly the right touchstone for both politics
and economics. The household is a central ground of the good life, and
all economic arrangements must be judged by whether they enable the household
to perform its function as locus and support for the human good. This
is one of the central messages of this essay: we must put the proper functioning
of the household at the center of the way we think about economic life.
The core issue, as Aristotle puts it, is property and "the art of acquisition"-that
is, how people make a living. He starts with the observation that there
are a variety of different modes of subsistence and that this gives rise
to a variety of different ways of life. This is as true among animals
as it is of humans. Some animals live in herds, and others live in isolation.
Some eat plants and others meat. Among human beings, Aristotle identifies
five "natural" ways of life: pastoral, farming, fishing, hunting, and,
interestingly, piracy. What he calls "true wealth" is acquired through
these activities and consists of the amount of household property that
suffices for the good life. This he regards as a limited amount. We can
call this the perspective that "just enough is plenty."
In distinction to these modes of acquisition that supply the household
with its needs, there is a second form of the art of acquisition, which
Aristotle believes to be "unnatural":
The other form is a matter only of retail trade, and it is concerned only
with getting a fund of money, and that only by the method of conducting
the exchange of commodities. The acquisition of wealth by the art of household
management as contrasted with the art of acquisition in its retail form
has a limit; and the object of that art is not an unlimited amount of
wealth.1
The difference is between an approach to acquisition that views it as
functional to the life of the household and one in which it takes on a
life of its own, such that it reproduces unchecked without regard to the
larger life of the organism, and ultimately undermines that life. It is
the very description of what we now understand as cancer.
What Aristotle presents here isn't just an academic distinction, but a
clash between two different ways of life, each captured by a different
way of thinking about money. In the first, money and the things one can
buy with it play an important but limited role. Life is not about money.
It is not about getting rich. It is about something higher, whether it
is philosophy, or art, or the pursuit of knowledge, or participation with
one's fellow citizens in the ever-absorbing process of governing the democratic
polis [city or city-state]. Every person lives within a household,
and the household has its economic needs-but the point is to attain only
what is sufficient to enable one to turn away from money-getting and undertake
the real activities of life.
In this first vision of life, only some ways of making a living are viewed
by Aristotle as acceptable. His list of farmer, hunter, fisherman, herdsman,
or pirate has an arbitrary quality to it. What is important is what these
choices are intended to rule out. The one thing you cannot do is spend
your life grubbing for money. You do not become a businessman, a retail
trader, a man of commerce. These all represent a kind of slavishness to
money. Nor (one would hope) do you find yourself so destitute that you
must work for someone else, for that, too, is a form of slavery. The good
life requires some degree of good fortune. Ideally for Aristotle, you
are born financially independent.
But how do people manage to go so wrong about money? How does it gain
such control over their lives? Aristotle suggests that this emerges from
a deep misconception about the nature of human happiness; it is this that
leads to the focus on the pursuit of higher and higher levels of consumption
and of the higher income necessary to sustain them.
Aristotle identifies what he terms "external goods"; these externals include
wealth, property, power, and reputation. These are the elements that make
up the standard vision of success both then and now. To these, Aristotle
contrasts elements of character, what he terms the "goods of the soul":
fortitude, temperance, justice, and wisdom.2
This is a familiar distinction, between inner and outer, between matters
of worldliness and matters of virtue. We continue to make these distinctions
when we are reflective, not so much about our own lives, but when we think
about what we want for our children-are we more concerned that our children
be rich and successful or that they develop into good human beings? We
tell them that these "externals" are not what is really important in life,
and we hope that they will listen.
Aristotle tells us that happiness "belongs more to those who have cultivated
their character and mind to the uttermost, and kept acquisition of external
goods within moderate limits."3
Those who lose in life are those "who have managed to acquire more external
goods than they can possibly use and are lacking in the goods of the soul."4
(For "soul" we might substitute "character" or "mental health.")
Of course, one might say, "Why the either/or? Why not have both?" But
Aristotle, and many others, thought that we really do have to choose.
In explaining the relationship between externals and the good life, Aristotle
tells us: "External goods, like all other instruments, have a necessary
limit of size, any excessive amount of such things must either cause its
possessor some injury, or at any rate, bring him no benefit."5
Aristotle is saying that with all external goods, we find that the more
we have, the less utility we receive from each additional amount, and
that at some point "any excessive amount" does us no good and may even
harm us. In other words, the pleasure from the first ice-cream cone is
greater than from the second, and most of us can hardly eat a third.
Translated into a thesis about money, Aristotle's formulation tells us
that, beyond a given level, additional increments of money are not only
useless, but negative in their effect. Translated into a thesis about
the society at large, it suggests that economic growth beyond a given
point is actually harmful to human happiness. It is a straightforward
rejection of the idea that "more is better."
Aristotle goes further in his account. For Aristotle the issue is even
more serious than a life of wasted pursuit. The pursuit of higher and
higher levels of income results in a distortion of the personality, such
that we never come to be the persons that we most truly are; we are divorced
from our truest selves. Instead, people are "led to occupy themselves
wholly in the making of money using each and every capacity in a way not
consonant with its nature."6
It should be clear that Aristotle's critique is not merely about certain
specific economic activities (e.g., retail sales as opposed to production).
It is an indictment of a general outlook and form of life. When these
become dominant in society, the object of criticism is then the entire
form of social life or civilization. Such a civilization, and I believe
Aristotle would include much of the modern world in this category, is
to be condemned as representing a distortion of human nature and a general
thwarting of the possibility of human fulfillment.
When every human capacity gets placed at the service of obtaining money,
we ourselves are transformed and distorted.7
That's why you can't have it all-why there is conflict between the two
American Dreams-who "you" are changes through the choices you (and your
household) make toward matters of acquisition, careers, "success." Within
the Aristotelian framework, to say that our capacities-that is, our selves-are
separated from their proper function is to say that we are thus denied
self-actualization or human fulfillment. It is also to say that we are
thus denied the possibility of living well; for to live well for Aristotle
is to express one's richest potentials at high levels of excellence.
Thus, Aristotle, in his analysis of the limited place of money in the
good life, and in his emphasis on how absorption in acquisition undermines
both the healthy personality and the good life, can be seen as the intellectual
father of a philosophy of simple living. But before leaving Aristotle,
we must recognize the other side of the picture. Aristotle was not a believer
in the general equality of all men and women. Though he did not believe
that specific races of people deserve to be enslaved, he believed that
there were some individuals who were "natural slaves" in that they lacked
the capability of governing themselves. Of course, at some point in life-when
we are children-we all lack this capability. But Aristotle believed that
a significant class of adult males, and women generally, lacked the capability
to govern themselves.
These views about the naturalness of slavery and the subservience of women
turn out to have an intimate relationship to the question of simple living,
and to graceful living in particular. Ultimately, I want to argue that
most wealth resides in the ability to draw on the services of other people.
We normally think of such wealth as residing in financial assets (e.g.,
money, stocks, bonds, real estate), but it can equally reside in relationships
(e.g., friendship, parent-child relationships, marriage). It can also
reside in institutionalized relations of unequal power such as slavery,
rigid class distinctions, and the domination of women. When one has access
to the services of others through such institutional structures, it is
indeed easier to live well with less money; one has found nonmonetized
ways of accessing valued services. The great challenge is thus to find
a way to live simply and well, not only without excessive dependence upon
money, but without reliance on unjust social institutions such as slavery,
patriarchy, and rigid class systems.
For Aristotle, this never really clicked into place. While he recognized
that not all who were in fact slaves were of a "slavish nature," he did
not challenge slavery itself. Likewise, for Aristotle, the existence of
mass poverty does not emerge as a problem. With his acceptance of the
naturalness of slavery and the subservience of women, and his acquiescence
to the limited servitude of workers, the socioeconomic frameworks of the
Greek city-states in which he lived fit neatly into a theory of human
development. The city-state or polis is the environment within
which human fulfillment occurs. That the vast majority of persons simply
fall by the wayside does not raise any pressing problems in Aristotle's
worldview. Having limited potential, they reach their full development
within subservient roles. Indeed, it is really not until the eighteenth
century that the equality of ordinary people in their entitlement and
potential for achieving the highest levels of human development finds
support from political ideologies and groups. And it is not until the
twentieth century that equality begins to be substantially extended to
women.
In spite of these flaws, what Aristotle did do remains of enormous importance.
He challenged the idea that acquiring more and more things was good for
the individual. He set his critique of commercial and acquisitive forms
of life within a theory of human development that stressed the exercise
and perfection of distinctly human capacities, capacities that are distorted
and stunted if we allow economic pursuits to dominate our lives. We have
lost sight of much that Aristotle has to teach us with respect to the
place of the economic within the good life: The point of an economy,
even a dynamic economy, is not to have more and more; it is to liberate
us from the economic-to provide a material platform from which we may
go forth to build the good life. That's the Alternative American Dream.
Simple Living
and American Dreams
We entirely mistake
our own history if we think of simple living as some recent fad. The idea
of simple living has always been part of the American psyche-sometimes
central, sometimes only a minor theme, but always present. From the earliest
days of the American experience, advocates of simple living have challenged
consumerism and materialism. Simple living, especially in America, has
meant many things.8
For Christians, the central inspiration for a life of simplicity has been
the life of Jesus. In the hands of the Puritans, this emerged as a life
of religious devotion, a lack of ostentation, and plenty of hard work.
It was certainly not a leisure expansion movement as it is today. Nor
was simple living a matter of individual choice; laws about consumption
invoked the power of the state to restrict conspicuous display, and economic
life was regulated to limit the role of greed in human affairs.
In the hands of the Quakers, the concept of the simple life underwent
an evolution. For the Puritans, at least part of the motivation for sumptuary
laws was to prevent those in the lower classes from putting on the manners
of those above them; among Quakers, the restrictions on display and consumption
became more widely applicable. Most important, the pursuit of luxurious
consumption was linked to a broad range of injustices and social problems,
including alcoholism, poverty, slavery, and ill treatment of the Indians.
Here, perhaps, are the origins of a radical politics of plain living-the
belief that if people adopted the simple life, all of society would be
transformed.
The key Quaker theorist of the simple life was John Woolman. Central to
Woolman's thought was the recognition that people could be "necessitated
to labor too hard." Thus, he maintained that "every degree of luxury of
whatever kind and every demand for money inconsistent with divine order
hath some connection with unnecessary labor." Woolman saw his listeners'
desire for luxurious consumption as the core motive that resulted in slavery,
the practice "of fetching men to help to labor from distant parts of the
world, to spend the remainder of their lives in the uncomfortable conditions
of slaves." He also identified selfishness as the cause of past wars,
telling us to "look upon our treasures, and the furniture of our houses,
and the garment in which we array ourselves, and try [to see] whether
the seeds of war have nourishment in these our possessions, or not." Were
Woolman alive today, it is likely that he would extend his critique, arguing
that excessive consumption, and the desire for it, is at the root of both
the drug and environmental problems we face. Indeed, Woolman would probably
have been receptive to the idea that the harsh poverty of many Third World
countries emerges from the excessive consumption of the rich nations.9
In the mid-1700s, in the years prior to the American Revolution, the ideas
of simple living and democratic government were intertwined. For many
of the leaders of the Revolution, however, the ideal was not the simple
life of Jesus, but the simple life of the self-governing citizens of ancient
Greece and Rome. Key figures in the revolutionary period, in particular
Samuel Adams, were deeply concerned about the relationship between our
political health and the individual pursuit of luxury. The rebirth of
democracy in the world brought with it an interest in the ancient Greek
and Roman experiments, and why they disappeared. There was a concern (as
there is today) with the virtue of officeholders. Genuine democracy seemed
incompatible with too great an absorption in getting rich. There was great
fear of the corrupting influences of unbridled commercialism. When the
colonists boycotted British goods, it was not just a tactic of the independence
movement; Britain was viewed as the Great Satan, exporting the corruptions
of capitalism.
Benjamin Franklin's views on these questions are also worth noting; they,
too, have a contemporary echo. In Franklin we have an unusual mixture:
the espousal of frugality, hard work, and restrained consumption as the
vehicles for getting ahead, the central patterns of behavior that will
lead to wealth. Franklin was concerned with how the average person might
remain free in his own life, be his own master. He warns of the perils
of spending and in particular of borrowing. The great thing is to save.
Franklin also warned that the dangers of excessive consumption are easily
missed. In this vein, Franklin rails against going into debt. Credit cards
would have seemed to him the instruments of our undoing. "What Madness
must it be to run in Debt for these Superfluities, think what you do when
you turn in Debt; you give to another Power over your Liberty. Preserve
your Freedom; and maintain your Independence: Be Industrious and free;
be frugal and free."10
Filled with a sense of adventure and experiment, but less interested in
accumulating wealth, was Henry David Thoreau. In Walden, he looked
about himself and saw mostly foolishness-people not knowing how to grab
hold of the gift of life. With words that had echoes of Aristotle, he
told Americans that our necessities are few, yet we subject ourselves
to endless labor. He described a world that had taken the wrong turn.
"The twelve labors of Hercules were trifling in comparison with those
which my neighbors have undertaken; for they were only twelve and had
an end."11
Wealth itself is a curse because it enslaves us. "I see young men, my
townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns,
cattle and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got
rid of." We miss that which is best in life. "Most men, even in this comparatively
free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with
the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its
finer fruits cannot be plucked by them."12
Yes, the necessities must be met, "for not till we have secured these
are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and
a prospect of success."13
But "most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life
are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation
of mankind. With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever
[always] lived a more simple and meager life than the poor."14
For Thoreau, it is not necessity that enslaves us. Rather we have become
the "slave-drivers" of ourselves, "the slave and prisoner of our own opinion
of ourselves." Once we have satisfied our necessities, rather than laboring
for superfluities, it is time to "adventure on life." But few undertake
this adventure. Instead, "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."15
It is from a disease of the spirit that Thoreau recoils.
Thus Thoreau called Americans away from their over-absorption with economic
life, from their self-subjugation to a life of toil. Unlike earlier advocates
of simple living, he was not calling people to religion or to civic engagement;
rather he was calling us as individuals to find our own nature, to define
ourselves at a higher level of experience. He called for simple living
in order to enable the life of the mind, of art, literature, poetry, philosophy,
and an almost reverential engagement with Nature.
Interest in simple living was harder to find in the post-Civil-War period,
but it reemerged powerfully toward the turn of the century. There was
a reaction against materialism and the hectic pace of urban life. In those
days it was The Ladies' Home Journal (of all things) that led the
charge against the dominant materialist ethos. Under a crusading editor,
Edward Bok, it served as a guide for those in the middle class seeking
simplicity.
After World War II, as after World War I, the Civil War, and the American
Revolution, there was a surge in consumption, and simple living receded
into the background. But again in the 1960s there was a critique of the
affluent lifestyle and a renewed interest in plain living. In the 1970s,
with the energy crisis, this merged with a broad environmentalism. Many
saw the energy crisis not as an economic or political problem to be overcome,
but as an occasion for a spiritual renewal that would turn us away from
the rampant materialism of modern life. One of these was President Jimmy
Carter.
"We worship self-indulgence and consumption," Carter declared, taking
his place in a great American tradition of social criticism. "Human identity
is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns." And, like
earlier critics, Carter lamented the emptiness of such an existence. "We've
discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our
longing for meaning."
Carter saw the problem as residing in what he termed "a mistaken idea
of freedom"-one in which we advocate "the right to grasp for ourselves
some advantage over others." He called on Americans to unite together
in a crusade of energy conservation:
We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice solutions to
our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of spirit in
our country. It can rekindle a sense of unity, our confidence in the future,
and give our nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose.16
This was his so-called "malaise" speech, and while it failed as an effort
to transform the national spirit, and certainly failed Carter politically,
it did capture well the link between environmental concerns and simple
living that many Americans continue to feel today. Carter was followed
by the Reagan and Bush administrations, during which no similar critique
was heard. But now, at the turn of the millennium, there is renewed interest
in simple living, if not in the White House, then at least in the heartland.
This quick historical survey reveals that "simple living" has meant many
things. There is an anticonsumptionist core in much American thinking
on this subject, but great diversity with respect to the human good and
the place of work, religion, civic engagement, nature, literature, and
the arts. Concern with simple living has been largely apolitical at some
times, and at others the heart of a general political and social vision.
Today, when there is once again a great interest in simple living in America,
it is mainly an apolitical enthusiasm. Most, though not all, of the literature
is of a "how to" variety, offering advice on how to live more rewardingly
with less money. The attainment of a simpler, more meaningful life is
seen as an individual project, not as a matter of collective politics.
This individualistic approach unfortunately has many limitations. It needs
to be supplemented by a broader, more collective "politics of simplicity."
Notes
1
Aristotle, Politics, trans. Ernest Barker (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1961), p. 26.
2
Ibid., p. 280.
3
Ibid., p. 280.
4
Ibid., p. 280.
5
Ibid., p. 281.
6
Ibid., p. 26.
7
Contemporary economic thought, taken in formal terms, can accommodate almost
anything. Thus, the distortion of personality can be viewed as "an externality"
generated by market transactions, adding to the costs of every market interaction.
But virtually no economists have expanded the idea of externalities to include
distortions of personality. It remains a formal possibility, but consideration
of such impacts, central to earlier eras, is largely outside of the way
we think of the economic realm.
8
This is wonderfully explicated in David Shi's study The Simple Life?:
Plain Thinking and High Living in American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1985), and I have drawn heavily upon Shi's account for this summary.
9
John Woolman, "A Word of Remembrance and
Caution to the Rich" in Words That Made American History, ed. Richard
N. Current and John A. Garroty (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1965).
10
"The Way to Wealth" in Benjamin Franklin,
Autobiography and Other Writings (Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press,
1958).
11
Henry David Thoreau, Walden (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1973), p. 4.
12
Ibid., p. 6
13
Ibid., p. 11.
14
Ibid., p. 14.
15
Ibid., p. 8.
16
C Jimmy Carter, "Energy Problems: The Erosion of Confidence," Vital Speeches
XLV (15 August 1979): 642, 643 as excerpted in David E. Shi, In Search of
the Simple Life (Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, 1986).
[top]
Reading Selection B
"There's
No Place Like Work"
Arlie Russell Hochschild
(From Hochschild, Arlie Russell. "There's No Place
Like Work." New York Times Magazine 20 April 1997: 50-7.)
Nationwide,
many working parents are struggling. More mothers of small children than
ever now work outside the home. In 1993, 56 percent of women with children
between 6 and 17 worked outside the home full-time year-round; 43 percent
of women with children 6 and under did the same. Meanwhile, fathers of
small children are not cutting back hours of work to help out at home.
If anything, they have increased their hours at work. According to a 1993
national survey conducted by the families and Work Institute in New York,
American men average 48.8 hours of work a week, and women 41.7 hours,
including overtime and commuting.
Let's take look at a specific company, which I will call Amerco. Amerco
has "family friendly" policies. If your division head and supervisor agree,
you can work part-time, share a job with another worker, work some hours
at home, take parental leave or use "flex time." But hardly anyone uses
these policies. In seven years, only two Amerco fathers have taken formal
parental leave. Fewer than 1 percent have taken advantage of the opportunity
to work part-time. Of all such policies, only flex time-which rearranges
but does not shorten work time-has had a significant number of takers
(perhaps a third of working parents at Amerco.
Forgoing family friendly policies is not exclusive to Amerco workers.
A 1991 study of 188 companies conducted by the Families and Work Institute
found that while a majority offered part-time shifts, fewer than 5 percent
of employees made use of them. Thirty-five percent offered "flex place"-work
from home-and fewer than 3 percent of their employees took advantage of
it. And an earlier Bureau of Labor Statistics survey asked workers whether
they preferred a shorter workweek, a longer one, or their present schedule;
28 percent would have preferred longer hours. Fewer than 10 percent said
they wanted a cut in hours.
To be sure, some parents have tried to shorten their work hours. Twenty-one
percent of the nation's women voluntarily work part-time, as do 7 percent
of men. But while working parents say they need more time at home, the
main story of their lives does not center on a struggle to get it. Why?
Given the hours parents are working these days, why aren't they taking
advantage of an opportunity to reduce their time at work.
The most widely held explanation is that working parents cannot afford
to work shorter hours. Certainly this is true for many. But if money is
the whole explanation, why would it be that at places like Amerco, the
best-paid employees-upper-level managers and professionals-were the least
interested in part-time work or job sharing, while clerical workers who
earned less were more interested? Similarly, if money were the answer,
we would expect poorer new mothers to return to work more quickly after
giving birth than rich mothers. But among working women nationwide, well-to-do
new mothers are not much more likely to stay home after 13 weeks with
a new baby than low-income new mothers,
A second explanation goes that workers don't dare ask for time off because
they are afraid it would make them vulnerable to layoffs. With recent
downsizings at many large corporations, and with well-paying, secure jobs
being replaced by lower-paying, insecure ones, it occurred to me that
perhaps employees are "working scared." But when I asked Amerco employees
whether they worked long hours for fear of getting on a layoff list, virtually
everyone said no.
Were workers uninformed about the company's family-friendly policies?
No. Some even mentioned that they were proud to work for a company that
offered such enlightened policies. The evidence, however counterintuitive,
pointed to a paradox: workers at the company I studied weren't protesting
the time bind. They were accommodating themselves to it.
Why? I did not anticipate the conclusion I found myself coming to: namely,
that work has become a form of "home" and home has become "work." The
worlds of home and work have not begun to blur, as the conventional wisdom
goes, but to reverse places. We are used to thinking that home is where
most people feel the most appreciated, the most truly "themselves," the
most secure, the most relaxed. We are used to thinking that work is where
most people feel like "just a number" or "a cog in a machine." It is where
they have to be "on," have to "act," where they are least secure and most
harried.
But the new management techniques that are so pervasive in the corporate
world have helped transform the workplace into a more appreciative, personal
sort of social world. Meanwhile, at home the divorce rate has risen, and
the emotional demands have become more baffling and complex. In addition
to teething, tantrums, and the normal developments of growing children,
the needs of elderly parents are creating more tasks for the modern family-as
are the blending, unblending, reblending of new stepparents, stepchildren,
ex-spouses, and former in-laws.
Current research suggests that, however hectic their lives, women who
do paid work feel less depressed, think better of themselves, and are
more satisfied than women who stay at home. One study reported that women
who work outside the home feel more valued than housewives do. Meanwhile,
work is where many women feel like "good mothers."
Many workers feel more confident they could "get the job done" at work
than at home. One study found that only 59 percent of workers feel their
"performance" in the family is "good or unusually good," while 86 percent
rate their performance on the job this way. The reality is that, increasingly,
Americans say they want more time with their families, but the truth
is that they would rather be at the office.
[top]
Sample
Writing Assignment
With these reading selections by Jerome M. Segal and Arlie Russell
Hochschild in mind, write an essay in which you discuss the role
of work in a person's life. In your essay, summarize Segal's key
points about the importance of work and money. Draw a relationship
between Segal's thinking and what you have just read about American
attitudes toward the workplace. In light of the reading selections,
discuss your own knowledge or observations about the role of work
in a person's life. Also discuss the degree to which your perspective
reflects the ideas of either or both writers.
|
CUNY
Proficiency Examination Task 1 Scoring Guide
| A. Develops
an essay that presents a focused response to the writing assignment,
making appropriate and coherent connections among all parts of the
assignment. |
B. Demonstrates
understanding of the readings through summary and explanation of relevant
material. |
C. Incorporates,
as support for own thoughts, references to the readings, identifying
the sources formally or informally. |
D. Communicates
clearly and effectively, using appropriate conventions of language
(e.g., grammar, spelling, punctuation). |
| 6 Addresses
the writing assignment fully, analytically, and perhaps critically
or imaginatively, with superior focus and coherence. |
6 Demonstrates
superior and perhaps critical understanding of readings through accurate
summary, full explanation, and insightful analysis of relevant sections. |
6 Makes
insightful connections and distinctions between readings and own ideas;
integrates references smoothly into own essay and identifies them
consistently and correctly. |
6 Communicates
with precision and enhanced expression through highly effective use
of vocabulary and sentence variety; infrequent, if any, lapses in
use of conventions. |
| 5 Addresses
the writing assignment fully and analytically, with strong focus and
coherence. |
5 Demonstrates
strong understanding of readings through accurate summary, with appropriate
explanation and analysis of relevant sections. |
5 Makes
analytical connections and perhaps distinctions between readings and
own ideas; integrates references into own essay and identifies them
consistently and correctly. |
5 Communicates
effectively throughout the essay, with few lapses in use of conventions. |
| 4 Addresses
all parts of the writing assignment with adequate focus and coherence
throughout. |
4 Demonstrates
overall understanding of readings through appropriate summary and
explanation, with some analysis. |
4 Makes
and explains appropriate connections between readings and own ideas;
identifies references consistently and correctly. |
4 Communicates
clearly throughout the essay; sentences may contain some lapses in
use of conventions, but these rarely impede comprehension. |
| 3 Addresses
all or most parts of the writing assignment adequately, but focus
may lapse briefly or connections may be missing. |
3 Demonstrates
generally accurate understanding of readings although summary or explanation
may be incomplete or not fully relevant. |
3 Makes
some connections between readings and own ideas but they may not all
be appropriate or adequately explained; identifies most references
consistently and correctly. |
3 Generally
communicates clearly throughout the essay although lapses in use of
conventions may at times impede comprehension or prove distracting. |
| 2 Addresses
some parts of the writing assignment or addresses all parts superficially;
focus or coherence may break down at several points. |
2 Demonstrates
partial understanding of the readings through summary or explanation,
but understanding is flawed or explanation is incomplete. |
2 Makes
few or unwarranted connections between readings and own ideas; may
identify references inconsistently or incorrectly. |
2 Communicates
clearly at times, showing some ability to use conventions, but whole
sections are unclear or errors frequently impede comprehension. |
| 1 Shows
little or no ability to address the writing assignment; may not link
thoughts between paragraphs. |
1 Demonstrates
little or no understanding of text. |
1 Makes
no reference to background reading or makes no distinctions between
background reading and own ideas. |
1 Communicates
little because few sentences demonstrate appropriate use of conventions.
|
[top]
Task
1 Sample Student Essays
The
essays on the following pages, written by CUNY students who took the CPE
in Spring 2005, are printed with permission. These responses are included
in this booklet to give you a sample that demonstrates the various levels
of writing proficiency. As you review these essays, please have your copy
of the CUNY Proficiency Examination Scoring Guide handy (see preceding page)
so that you can note how each paper illustrates the specified level of writing
proficiency and the way the comments on each paper reflect the four scoring
criteria:
- developing a focused essay
- demonstrating understanding of the readings
- incorporating appropriate references
- communicating clearly and effectively
Essay
A
What
is the meaning of life? Or perhaps more accurately stated, what is our
purpose in life? Essentially, that is the question that both Segal and
Hochschild pose in their respective essays. Segal argues that the importance
of life is found in our spiritual and social pursuits. He asserts that
in order to pursue such things we must live a simple life; earning only
what we need to be able to turn our attention to that which is important.
His claim is that those who pursue material wealth as their ultimate goal
are consumed by a way of life which will enslave them, leaving them empty
and unhappy. Hochschild, on the other hand does not argue for one way
of life over the other. She merely explains the state of affairs and the
mindset of the current American worker. Hochschild finds that most Americans
spend long hours at work, and do so not only for the material benefits
but for the satisfaction it supplies. It is a satisfaction that many can
no longer find within the home. Thus, it appears that Americans today
feel they must find their self worth in their work.
Segal's notions as to the importance of the simple life date back to Aristotle.
Aristotle argued, as Segal does today, that one cannot both have a fulfilling
social and spiritual life as well as vigorously pursue material wealth.
The argument is that the desire for material goods is a never ending struggle,
that it will take over the entire life of the individual. Indeed a study
done a number of years ago showed that people from 5 different economic
brackets felt they just needed more money to be happy. Even those making
over $200,000 a year said they needed more. However, another study showed
that once people make enough money to afford basic necessities (food,
clothing, shelter) there was no corrolation between wealth and happiness.
This evidence certainly supports Segals claims that over-concern with
money is all consuming, and also that it does not bring happiness.
If as Segal argues, happiness is to be found outside of ones worth it
follows that one should work as little as possible. Segal endorses the
idea that one should work only as much as they need to in order to survive.
On this aspect he cites Thoreau who believed that the majority of men
had become slaves to their work. What Segal, and those he quotes, have
failed to consider is that people might find their spiritual or social
happiness in the workplace. Although Segal says we must turn away from
work in order to be happy, he does not actually explain in what way we
are to find happiness. Without contradicting Segal argument that the simple
life is better to live, it is plausible to say that happiness may be found
in the workplace, so long as people work for other reasons than just material
gain.
Many argue that the only reason people work is to make money. It seems
a strange notion that someone would not maximize their leisure time if
it were possible. However Hochschild finds that even the highest paid
employees feel a desire to work long hours. Surely it is not because they
are struggling to survive. It could very well be that they feel compelled
to obtain more wealth, that they have been consumed by greed in the way
that Segal describes. But it appears according to Hochschild that people
feel confident in their work environment and are proud of the work they
do., In fact many it seems feel they do a better job at work than they
do at home. Though sadly much of this is due to the increasingly unstable
homelife of many Americans, it does demonstrate that there is satisfaction
to be found through work. In fact, Hochschilds research even showed that
working women felt like "good mothers" while those who stayed at home
felt less valued and more depressed.
Thus while Segals theory that concern with material gain leads to obsession
and unhappiness holds weight, it does not follow that the work itself
is the cause of the unhappiness. As Hochschild demonstrates, many Americans
find satisfaction through their work. It seems clear that the household
that Segal refers to and the one that Hochschild speaks of are very different.
Whether or not more satisfaction can be gained through activities of the
home or the workplace seems unclear. However it does appear that while
limiting the desire for material gain our work may serve as an aspect
of life that we are proud of and we may even find happiness in it.
Comments
on Essay A: Score = 6 6 6 6
This well-focused essay addresses both readings from the beginning and
integrates them into a coherent whole. The writer succinctly and accurately
summarizes relevant sections of each text, linking similar themes but
being careful to identify the key differences between the two authors'
views on American attitudes to work. Instead of writing about personal
experience, the writer reflects effectively on more general observations
of American mores and culture, while making insightful connections and
distinctions between the two texts and the writer's own ideas. Although
there are a few punctuation errors, the writing, throughout, is precise
and effective.
[top]
Essay
B
The United
States has always been though of as the "land of opportunity" by the immigrants
that arrived on our shores. They have migrated here and continue to do
so to accomplish the American dream", or their interpretation of that
dream. They come to America to improve the quality of their lives as well
as wanting more opportunities for their children. The role of work in
their lives is extremely important because of their belief that through
hard work they can accomplish their "American Dream" for the benefit of
their families. The role of work in our lives as well as those that migrate
to the United States is to achieve financial independence and an opportunity
to give our children better lives than what we had growing up. Putting
so much importance on the role of work in our lives puts us at risk of
losing sight on what is truly important, our spiritual and family life,
that which we are working so hard for.
In Jerome
Segal's article, "Two ways of Thinking About Money", he discusses the
role of work and money as well as the consequences that may occur when
we, as a society, take the relationship of work and money to an extreme.
In other words Segal does not say that one should not work or that one
should not have money, his view is that society does not stop or curb
its want for "more"' which as he states, is not necessarily better. He
believes that we're not satisfied by having "just enough" to sustain ourselves.
The idea of living a simple life is put forth by Segal by his historical
survey starting with Aristotle through former president, Jimmy Carter.
According to Segal there has always been a conflict between the view of
"more is better" and "just enough is plenty". Segal's position is that
the latter, or what he calls the "attainment of a simple life" is the
better choice. His argument is backed by his discussion of Aristotle's
view which challenged the "idea that acquiring more and more things was
good for the individual". Segal believes that there is an "alternative
American Dream", that the point of an economy/work is not to help us get
more and more but to help us construct a good life, to help us sustain
ourselves and to maintain a good life. Segal then discusses simple living
in relation to the Puritans and Quakers, who believed that excessive consumption
was the root of all evil in society: for example, the Quaker theorist,
John Woolman, believed that it led to slavery as well as the cause for
war.
Segal also
discusses the views of our founding fathers who were also against "excessive
consumption" s well as Henry David Thoreau who believed that "wealth itself
is a curse because it enslaves us". He believed that once we have worked
to have enough to sustain ourselves, it was time to concentrate on our
"life", improving the quality of our lives, spiritually, mentally and
physically, not work more to attain more money or more material things.
The lesson that Segal wants us to learn is that we should not live to
work, but work to live and to live well, not by accumulating money or
object but by accumulating quality of life, spirit, mind and body. Furthermore,
he believes that this want to have a "simple life" must come about in
society as a whole, not as an individual pursuit for it to work.
In the article
"There's no place like work" by Russell Hochchild, we are made aware of
the shift in society's view that emphasis is placed more on the workplace
than in the house hold. This was one of the consequences Segal discussed
in his article if society continued to want more and more. Hochchild states
in his article that people feel more comfortable at work, that it s an
"escape" from their home life. Again, this is what Segal fears, the deterioration
of the household and the eating away of our nature, which Segal relates
to as a "cancer". Hochchild also states that those employees with higher
salaries are those that do not reduce their work hours. This goes back
to the Segal article where he states that as we attain more (money, wealth,
material goods) we just want more, we are not satisfied with what we already
have. As previously stated, the American view towards the workplace is
as an escape from their home life, which contradicts Segal's view that
our emphasis should be on our home life, our household, not by making
it financially wealthier but by enriching it spiritually mentally and
physically. Hochchild's article shows again what Segal feared, the destruction
of the household, of human spirit.
Being that
my parents and I were immigrants, I have seen my parents work very hard
to give both my brother and I a better life. I saw the sacrifices my parents
made by always working. I can understand how the extremes of work and
money can affect us, as Segal states in his article but I don't feel that
in my house hold my parents weren't there for me, they always were, both
spiritually and emotionally. I don't agree that working hard makes one
a bad person or that it changes us. What I have learned, especially from
my parents is that if you work hard you can achieve a better life. They
came to the United States not knowing a soul, didn't speak the language,
yet by working hard they have enriched their lives as well as their children's
lives mentally and spiritually. As an adult and as a member of the work
force, I will not compromise my home life. The relationships and ties
of our lives at home with family and friends should be much more important
than workplace. Parents spending more time at home than at work may be
our saving grace to help society's slow deterioration stop and instead
grow in the future, for our sake and for our children.
Comments on Essay B: Score = 5 5 5 5
This strongly
organized essay considers both readings as reflections on "the American
dream" and the role of work in achieving it. The writer presents accurate
and appropriate summaries of the texts and analyzes their relationship
extensively in terms of cause and effect and comparison and contrast.
In clear and effective language, the writer's discussion of the American
dream concludes with a relevant discussion of the working life of an immigrant
family.
[top]
Essay
C
In Jerome
M. Segal's writing, "Two Ways of Thinking about Money," he talks about
how there "were two American Dreams, and they reflect two ways of thinking
about money" (Segal, 3). Segal also discusses the conflicting views that
"more is better" as opposed to "just enough is plenty." (Segal, 3). He
insinuates through different author's writings that money should not be
your main concern, and that you should only work to obtain a standard
economic life.
As a foundation,
Segal uses Aristotle's views to discuss this issue concerning "more is
better" and "just enough is plenty," which Aristotle describes as a natural
versus unnatural way of life. Aristotle explains how the household should
be central when we think about our economic life. Segal also uses different
religions' views on working and acquiring wealth and how this leads to
an unfulfilling life. The author shows through several different philosophers
and political theorists how the simple life is more rewarding in the end.
In the writing,
"There is No Place Like Work," by Arlie Russel Hochschild, she describes
how nationwide people are giving up there lives at home and putting in
more time at work. Hochschild explains how many jobs offer part-time work,
flex time and child care leave and how few employees take advantage of
it. The employees would rather work then spend time with their families.
Segal makes it clear in his essay that the only reason people should be
working hard is to better the household and that once you acquire what
is sufficient for the household you should relax and enjoy it. He explains
that too much of anything can be a bad thing. So, if people spend all
there time at the office working, they are denying themselves the pleasure
of spending quality time with their families. Hochschild discusses the
reason people are spending more time at work has little to do with money
because the higher paid employees were less likely to take time off than
the lower paid employees. Since the higher paid employees make more money
they would be the group better able to afford cutting back hours. (Hochschild,
3). Aristotle would say that work in excessive amounts is less rewarding,
and that it is hurting you and your family more than it is helping. The
marginal benefit of working long hours and spending more time at the office
decreases as you do it longer.
Segal also
used Henry David Thoreau views on the simple life. Thoreau explained how
"our necessities were few, yet we subject ourselves to endless labor"
(Segal, 7). Thoreau states that once we have satisfied our necessities
that then it is time to "adventure on life." (Segal, 7). The people that
Hochschild describes at Amerco are missing out on life by working these
long hours. She describes the conclusion of this, "that work has become
a form of 'home' and home has become a form of "work." (Hochschild, 4).
Segal would say that this is truly not living and that you will never
reach self-fulfillment this way. The longer hours you spent at the office
the more unrewarding your life becomes. We should not be slave-drivers
of ourselves.
My experience
has been that everything should be in moderation, and that too much a
a good thing can very well be a bad thing. Several years ago, I pursued
the career of a Stockbroker, and it was the most unpleasant year of my
life. Very similar to the workers at Amerco, I would devote all my time
to my job. I was working 60-65 hours a week and coming in on the weekends
as well. I never had time to spend with my family or friends. I rarely
had fun. I did all this to try to pursue a successful career and to be
very wealthy. But as Segal's reading described I was hurting myself much
more than helping it. I was denying myself the simple pleasures in life.
I have since moved on to a different career in the business sector and
have changed my outlook on becoming wealthy. In my new career, I make
sure I have enough time for my family and friends. Similar to what Thoreau
was stating, I was missing what was best in life, and now I have the opportunities
to explore different arts, nature, and the meaning behind my life.
In conclusion,
I feel that the people that Hochschild described should take time out
of their busy work schedules and read Jerome M. Segal's "Two Way of thinking
About Money." The writing by Segal will help the workers at Amerco realize
what they are missing out on by spending a good majority of their time
in the workplace. At such a young age, I have learned what is important
in life, and that you can always find another job, but you only have one
family. Segal's writing only confirmed what I truly believe in, that life
is more fulfilling when you sit back and enjoy it. The people that work
these long hours will realize that they missed out on the true beauties
of life, and it may be too late by that time.
Comments on Essay C: Score = 4 4 4 4
This essay addresses all parts of the writing assignment in generally
clear language, following carefully the separate steps outlined in the
assignment. Although this midrange paper could have demonstrated a stronger
understanding of the Hochschild reading, the writer correctly summarizes
key points in both readings, identifies references and makes appropriate
connections between these readings and his own ideas.
[top]
Essay
D
In his essay
"Two Ways Of Thinking about Money", Jerome M. Segal estates, that we should
work for what we need. We should not excess over anything because excessive
amount could harm us. Segal says that life is not all about money; there
are others important things in life: Philosophy and Knowledge. The interest
in getting more and more result in losing our personality. We became financially
active and we forgot about natural things; things that come from our soul.
Segal particular says that it is not about getting rich is about geeting
a good life where you can live confortable. Work for what you need "enough
is plenty". We slaved our selves. We lose our freedom by working for more
and more, and the more we have, the more we search for more, and the more
we spent. It is better to have a simple life where we live according to
our budget and enjoying natural things-that is Segal's opinion, and I
agree with him.
In comparison
to Segal's view Russell Hochschild estate in his/her essay "There's No
Place like Work" that people are forgetting about natural things, and
they are becoming slaves of their jobs. Peope are replacing home for work,
it should be "there's no place like home", but unfortunately most of the
people feel that way. They spent most of their time working and working.
They just care about work, and they forget about family and adventure
(have fun). Both essays illustrates how people are slaving themselves.
Both authors (Segal and Russell told us the same message: the more we
have the more we want "We all expect poorer new mothers to return to work
more quickly after giving birth than rich mother. But among working women
nationwide, well-to-do new mothers are not much more likely to stay home
after 13 weeks with a new baby than low-income new mothers. Russell is
telling us that the more women have the more they want, and they forgot
about natural things (like being a mother) as Segal mencioned in his essay.
Arlie Russell
Hochschild mainly discussed the lack of relationships and family affect.
People care most about work, that they do about family. However, Jerome
M. Segal is more concern about freedom, and spiritual beliefs. Segal is
more worried about people making themselves slave of work and forgetting
about natural things and a simple life, while Russell is more concern
about family and home. But in conclusion they both agree that simple life
is better.
I believe
that both authors are right. Segal and Russell views about the role of
money and work in our life are mainly the same as mine. I believe that
simple life is better, and when you work too much you slave your self
and lost some of your natural activities, and the more you have the more
you want. I personally agree with this statement because now I am 22 years
old, and this is my first time working. My salary is good, but now the
more hours that I made the more hours that I want. I also see that the
more I have , the more I spent. I feel like a slave of work and credit
cards. I just work to pay my bills, and this is not good, we should work
to have what we need and enjoy our lives. In summary, simple life is better
"enough is plenty" life is short and we should live it with freedom and
love.
Comments on Essay D: Score = 3 3 3 3
This essay
does include some response to each part of the assignment and demonstrates
generally accurate understanding of the readings. The writer also makes
some appropriate connections between the readings and the writer's own
ideas. However, repetition and lapses in language ("We should not excess
over anything.") are somewhat distracting, explanations of the ideas are
incomplete, and summaries of the readings are oversimplified.
[top]
Essay
E
Money plays
an important role in our life. Money can buy many goods, but not all of
the things such as happiness, satisfaction. In my opinion, money is not
the only thing we pursuit in our life. We have to use many ways to see
money, to think about money.
According
to the essay "Two ways of thinking about Money" by Jerome M. Segal, there
are two different views for money, "more is better" and "just enough is
plenty". Aristotle's challenge to a money-oriented of life still powerful
today. Aristotle defined how people make a living. He discovered that
postoral, farming, fishing, hunting and instestingly piracy can be maintain
people's life, but these are limited amount. In addition, he discovered
the unlimited amount of wealth can be made by retail trade, business,
commerce. Aristotle also identified "external goods" such as wealth, property,
power and reputation. But these elements can not satisfied with people's
wants. Those external goods might make people spent excessive amount.
To now, there are two different people: consumerism and materialism people
spent their money for luxury goods. Excessive consumption occurs in the
rich nation.
According
to the essay "There's no place like work" by Arlie Russell Hochschild,
there are many working people are struggling. Men and woman work outside,
they are struggling for their family. Many woman likes to work outside.
Although they have children, they still like to work more than stay at
home. In 1993, there are 56% with children 6 to 17 and 43% with children
under 6 get full time job. Woman doen't want to stay home after they have
new baby. Work can make them feel vauleable and satisfied. The policies
of a special company which named "Amerco" is family friendly. If the workers
head and supervisor agree, they can work part time or sharing job with
their co-worker. But not all of the work likes to do that. Only fewer
than 10% worker need to shorter their work time. Therefore, we can understand
that people work in the office is not only for money. Also for their satisfition.
Many best paid manager not interesting in part time job. People work in
office can make them feel vauleable. Also, woman do paid work can make
them feel less depressed. They can get confident when they done a job.
Comparing
to these two essay, they have a similar point: money is important but
money can not buy all of things. Just like the essay "Two way of thinking
about money", some people think "more is better" others are "enough is
plenty". In our life, most people will think money is "more is better".
But not really. People work are not only for money. They though they care
about the amount of money. But the truth is they still need work to satisfied
their soul. Although money can buy goods, but money can not buy the happiness.
In conclusion,
people use money to satisfied their wants can not get happiness. Working
people can use work to affirmation theirselves, can be self-fulfillment.
Money is not the things we pursuit for our life, just thinking about the
real life, we pursuit confident, satisfaction and happiness.
Comments
on Essay E: Score = 2 2 2 2
This essay demonstrates partial understanding of both readings: the summary
of Segal, for example, while mentioning Aristotle, leaves out the reading's
emphasis on work (the assigned topic for the essay). Similarly, the writer
appears to understand some parts of Hochschild, ("people work in the office
is not only for money. Also for their satisfaction."), but doesn't grasp
her main idea that the roles of work and home have switched places in
American society). Communication in this essay is inconsistent; there
are frequent errors that impede comprehension.
[top]
Essay
F
People in
America are struggling between home and work. Some choose to go to work
for pleasure and some work to support their family. Most of people do
not have choice to stay home. In life, you cannot have what you need.
There are lots of people who do not like to work because the type of job
they doing is not in their interest or the pay is not much.
In America,
there is a higher percentage of middle class families. Every family member
tries their best so they can succeed in life. It is very tough to start
from scratch and build your own career. A teenager goes to high school
and still work part time. In this manner he can pay his personal expenses.
Both the parents of the teenager works full time so they can give better
education, food and protection to their children. Parents wants to give
their children what they missed in their life.
If asked
to anyone for going to work, most of them will say that work as a limit
and after certain limit they would rather stay home and spend some time
with their family. People should work according to the necessity of money.
Every time has its own thing. The fact we are facing is that if you do
not work hard then you would be left out.
In today's
world we need to compete with world to make life easier. If you can reach
for better why not go for it. Students in college work and study too in
order to pay for personal expenses and school expenses. There are lots
of single mothers who is supporting their childrens and working very hard.
Every hard working families have their own dreams so they can live a better
life. Most of the labor comes out from working families. If there were
no working families then it would be very hard to stay in business. No
body works by choice everyone are working for a reason and some are forced
to work by their situation. America is the immigrant country where people
come from all part of the world and support their family miles away. Step
by step they work as they grow and fulfill their dreams.
There are
families who end up with divorce or loosing their families because they
push themselves a lot towards work and not at home. Work is not everything.
Some women feel proud to work instead of staying home. These type of women
proves that women are powerful too comparing to men or the house wives.
Talking
about choice of working more or less in order to stay home. Everybody
in our society needs to rethink about the system of working longer hours.
It would be a lot better if we would have quality of life. This type of
thinking will remain a dream if we keep on working lots of hours. There
are loses and gains when we work a lot. Choice is ours so we can decide
of our life.
The picture
of America is money and nothing else is important than money. In conclusion
I would say that man makes money rather than money makes man.
Comments
on Essay F: Score = 1 1 1 4
This essay shows little ability to address the writing assignment, which
clearly requires both discussion of the two readings and the writer's
response to the topic: the role of work in a person's life. It may be
that the writer has grasped something of the readings, but there are no
direct references to either of the authors, no selections from the texts,
and no comparative analysis of the readings. Although the sentence writing
is generally understandable, the writer's failure to engage the assigned
task accounts for the low score.
[top]
Task 2—Analyzing
and Integrating Information from Text and Graphs (1 Hour)
Sample
Assignment and Student Responses
Directions
On the following pages, you will see a brief reading selection and two graphs.
You should assume that the reading and graphs come from different sources
and therefore may not be consistent with one another.
Your task
is to identify the claims made in the reading selection and to determine
how relevant data in the graphs support, partially support, and/or contradict
claims in the text. In your response, you should describe two or more
claims from the reading and explain how specific numerical data in the
graphs support, partially support, and/or contradict the claims. At least
one claim must be discussed using relevant numerical data from the first
graph, and at least one other claim must be discussed using relevant numerical
data from the second graph.
Time Allotted
You will have one hour to read the text, examine the graphs, and write
your response. You may use your dictionary at any time.
How to Prepare
Your Response
You should use your time in this way:
- Identify
the claims in the reading selection. (You may take notes and/or mark
on the reading if it helps you to identify the claims.)
- Examine
the data in the graphs. (You may take notes and/or mark on the graphs.)
- Determine
how relevant data in each graph support and/or contradict claims in
the reading.
- Plan a
response in which you state two or more claims from the reading and
explain the relationship between these claims and relevant data in the
graphs, using specific numerical data from the graphs. You should use
the unlined page to plan your response.
- Write
your response on the lined pages.
- Re-read
your response to ensure that it will be clear to a reader.
How Your
Response will be Evaluated
Your response on the lined pages will be evaluated based on your ability
to:
- Identify
and state accurately the claims in the reading selection.
- Explain
the relationship between these claims and the relevant data in the graphs
with accuracy, clarity, and completeness.
- You
can earn up to 4 points by identifying two claims and accurately explaining
how relevant numerical data from the graphs support, partially support,
and/or contradict those claims. One claim must be discussed using relevant
data from the first graph and the other claim discussed using relevant
data from the second graph. You can earn more points by identifying
additional claims and accurately relating them to relevant numerical
data from the graphs, or by insightfully discussing an additional aspect
of a claim's relationship to specific numerical data from a graph.
- Your notes
and marks on the reading or graphs will NOT be evaluated. Your work
on the unlined page will NOT be evaluated. Only your work on the lined
pages of the booklet will be graded, so be sure to write your response
on the lined pages of the booklet.
[top]
Task 2 Sample Student Responses
The responses on the following pages, printed with permission, were
written by CUNY students at an earlier CPE administration. The examination
question they responded to is reprinted here:
The
Education Gender Gap
The following article was recently published in a magazine about
education.
The
gender bias against girls that educational specialists identified
in schools in the early 1980s appears to have been eliminated.
Unlike earlier indications that girls were performing consistently
lower than boys and consistently lower than their abilities, statistics
now show that females are the highest achievers at every level
of education-from grade school through advanced University degrees.
Girls' improvement is especially marked at the college level.
Thirty years ago less than 40% of college graduating classes were
comprised of women. Today, women earn an average 60% of all bachelor's
degrees and 58% of all master's degrees. The United States Department
of Education predicts these rates will continue to increase.
Yet, even as girls perform better, boys have begun to perform
worse. Boys' reading and writing skills are a full years behind
their female classmates'. This gap is enough to put them at a
profound disadvantage, since all other learning relies on these
basic skills. As a result, boys are more than twice as likely
as girls to be placed in a remedial education class. In addition,
they are four times as likely to be diagnosed with a learning
disability. It is not surprising, then, that twice as many boys
drop out of school.
The new gender gap in academic achievement is real, and it threatens
the future of millions of American boys. It took a concerted national
effort to improve academic performance for girls; no less should
be required for boys.
|
Figure 1
The following chart was printed in a university bulletin
Figure 2
The following graph was printed in a school district
report
[top]
CUNY
Proficiency Examination Task 2 Scoring Guide
Score
6 Accurately identifies two or more claims from the reading selection
and explains the relationship of Figure 1 and 2 to these claims with accuracy,
a high degree of complexity, and insight. Examinees can demonstrate a
high degree of complexity or insight by successfully meeting the standards
for a "5" AND by:
- introducing an additional claim and adequately discussing its relationship
to one of the figures; or
- explaining an additional aspect of a figure's relationship to a claim;
or
- discussing the relationship between one or more figures and the reading
using perceptive analysis
5
Accurately identifies two or more claims from the reading selection and
explains the relationship of Figure 1 and Figure 2 to these claims with
accuracy and a degree of complexity. Examinees can demonstrate a degree
of complexity by successfully completing one of the following:
- introducing a third claim and adequately discussing its relationship
to one of the figures
- explaining an additional aspect of a figure's relationship to a claim
4
Accurately identifies two claims from the reading selection and adequately
explains the relationship of Figure 1 to one of these claims and Figure
2 to the other.
3
Accurately identifies two claims from the reading selection and adequately
explains the relationship of one claim to one figure, but the connection
between the other claim and a second figure is missing or inadequate (e.g.,
the connection is based on a misreading of the figure or simply repeats
the language of the claim).
2
Accurately identifies one claim from the reading selection and adequately
establishes a relationship between that claim and one or both of the figures.
1
Makes an attempt but does not accurately identify any of the claims or
identifies one or more claims without establishing an adequate connection
to either of the figures.
0
Blank, completely off-topic, illegible, or written in a language other
than English.
[top]
Task
2 Sample Student Responses
Response
A
-Figure #1 coincides
with some of the information in the first paragraph of the reading.
-in the reading:
30 years ago less than 40% of college graduating classes were comprised
of women, and the graph (Figure 1) supports it by showing about 15% of degrees
earned by women in 1974 (30 years ago)
-Figure
1 contradicts the reading by showing that 60% of all master's degrees and
about 58% of all bachelor's degrees are earned by women and the reading
states the opposite: today, women earn an average of 60% of all bachelor's
and 58% of all master's degrees.
-Figure 2 supports
the second paragraph of the reading in that boys are more than twice as
likely as girls to be placed in remedial education class by showing that
for every 3 girls in a remedial class there are 7 boys (in 2003).
-Figure
2 shows that the number of boys to the number of girls diagnosed with learning
disability is 8 to 2. This means that boys are 4 times more likely to be
diagnosed with learning disability, which is supported in the reading (second
paragraph).
-the reading
says that twice as many boys drop out of school and the data in Figure 2
almost 100% agrees with this information because it shows that for every
3 boys only about 1.2 girls drop out of school. If we assume that the ratio
from boys to girls is 3 to 1.2 then the reading and the figure would coincide
by 90%.
-Figure
1 shows how only one of the two between a bachelor's and a master's will
increase in the future, which is half in accordance with the reading which
says that the United States Department of Education predicts that these
rates (assuming both bachelor's and master's degrees) will continue to increase.
Comments on Response A: Score = 6
This response
clearly states six claims from the reading passage and accurately supports
four of them with specific evidence from both figures. Notice that it is
not written in essay form, but rather clearly separates each claim into
a discreet paragraph. Despite some writing problems, the evidence is usually
clear and unambiguous. The first two bullets isolate claims from the first
paragraph: the initial one has weak support because the 15% figure cited
corresponds to master's degrees in figure 1, not the "college graduating
classes" in the reading. The next four bullets succinctly show the relationship
between the claims (one from paragraph one and figure 1, three from paragraph
two and figure 2) and the numerical information in the figures. Examples:
"for every 3 girls in a remedial class there are 7 boys"; "boys are 4 times
more likely to be diagnosed with learning disability"; "Figure 1 contradicts
the reading by showing that 60% of all master's degrees and about 58% of
all bachelor's degrees are earned by women and the reading states the opposite:
today, women earn an average of 60% of all bachelor's and 58% of all master's
degrees." The last bullet is a somewhat awkward and sketchy attempt to analyze
future trends. Because four claims have been successfully supported four
times with evidence from both figures, this response is a 6.
Response B
Figure One
can be compared to the claim that "thirty years ago less than 40% of college
graduating classes wee comprise by women." Figure one definitely supports
the claim. Exactly 30% of Bachelor's degrees were conferred to women thirty
years ago in 1974. Only 15% of Master's degrees wee conferred to women
in 1974. Both of these percentages are less than 40%
Figure two
can be compared to the claim that "boys are more than twice as likely
as girls to be placed in a remedial education class." Figure two supports
the claim. If we look at the amount of girls who are at risk of being
placed in a remedial class, the number is 3 million girls. If we look
at the amount of boys who are at risk of being placed in remedial classes,
the number is 7 million boys. This is more than twice as many girls.
Finally,
figure two can also be compared to the claim that boys "are four times
as likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability". Figure two accurately
supports the claim. If we compare the number of girls diagnosed with learning
disabilities, which is 2 million, to the number of boys, which is 8 million,
it is exactly four times as many boys.
Comments
on Response B: Score = 5
This response gets a 5 because it identifies three claims from the reading
and explains their relationship with Figures 1 and 2. The first claim,
that 30 years ago less than 40% of college graduating classes were women,
is supported by the reference to Figure 1, where we were told that in
1974 women earned only 30% of Bachelor's degrees and 15% of Master's degrees.
The second claim, that says that boys are more than twice as likely as
girls to be placed in a remedial class, is supported by noting that Figure
2 has 3 million girls but 7 million boys in remediation. The third claim,
that boys are four times as likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability,
is supported by citing in Figure 2 that 8 million boys but only 2 million
girls are so diagnosed. Though the writing may be recognizably that of
a non-native English speaker, it in no way prevents recognition of the
matched claims and data.
Response
C
The article, "The Education Gender Gap," makes two very distinct and clear
claims about education in the U.S. as it relates to boys and girls.
The first
claim is that women presently earn an average 60% of all Bachelors Degrees
and 58% of all Masters Degrees. When looking at a chart printed in an
unnamed university bulletin I found that that claim is generally true.
Though the chart shows that women actually earn 60% of all Masters (not
58%) and roughly 58% of all Bachelors Degrees (not 60%).
The second
claim in the article is that boys are four times as likely to be diagnosed
with a learning disability than girls. Based on a graph that was printed
in n unnamed school district report this claim is very true. According
to the graph, this district had 2 million girls at risk versus 8 million
boys at risk with being diagnosed with a learning disability. That would
equal the boys being four times as likely to be diagnosed with a learning
disability.
Comments
on Response C: Score = 4
There are two paragraphs in this response. In each, one claim from the
text is clearly stated and then supported by numerical analysis of the
appropriate figure. Since in order to earn a score of 4, both figures
must be used successfully, this is a good example of an upper level response
that could have potentially scored higher if the student had found more
claims and supported them with the same specificity. After a brief introduction,
both paragraphs succinctly show how the numbers in the passage and in
the figures are related.
Example: "The second claim in the article is that boys
are four times as likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability than
girls. Based on the graph . . . [there were] 2 million girls at risk versus
8 million boys at risk." Even with an error (the millions of at-risk students
were not all in the school district publishing the graph!) the correspondences
are clear. Note how the student accurately identifies the source of each
figure.
Response
D
The article The Education Gender Gap reads "The gender bias against girls
that education specialists identified in school in the early 1980s appears
to have been eliminated". This statement is untrue because the "University
Degrees Conferred on Women in the US" chart captures data in 10 year intervals
(1974-2014), therefor the data in 1980 was not specified.
Another line I find to be incorrect is "Today, women earn
an average 60% of all bachelor's degrees and 58% of all Master's degrees".
According to the chart, today, women earn an average 60% of all master's
degrees and 58% of all bachelors.
The statement "Boys' reading and writing skills are a full
1 1/2 years behind their female classmates." There is no chart that captures
this information to support this statement. We cannot determine if this
is true.
The chart shows that boys are 6 times as likely to be diagnosed
with a learning disability. The reading states that boys are 4 times as
likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability. The last sentence in
that paragraph states, "It is not surprising, then, that twice as many
boys drop out of school." This is contradicting because this is right
according to the chart, however, the other data was wrong, but the result
is the same.
Comments on Response D: Score = 3
This response
gets a 3 because it only successfully links one claim with the appropriate
data while stating but not supporting an additional claim. The successful
claim states that women earn 60% of all Bachelor's degrees and 58% of
all Master's degrees while pointing out that Figure 1 shows 58% of Bachelor's
degrees and 60% of Master's degrees. The claim that since the early 80's
the gender gap has been eliminated is correctly stated but not adequately
discussed in Figure 1. The statement that neither figure helps us to determine
if boys are 1½ years behind prevents that claim from increasing the score.
The claim that boys are 4 times as likely to be diagnosed with a learning
disability has neither a clear discussion nor a sufficiently articulated
use of data.
Response
E
In the United States everybody goes to school and many go on to college.
The article discusses male and female academic performance at various
levels of education. The reading selection states "Today, women earn an
average 60% of all bachelor's degrees and 58% of all master's degrees.
However, the claim contradicts Figure 1 because the figure actually states
that 58% of bachelor's degrees and 60% of master's degrees were earned
by women.
Comments
on Response E: Score = 2
This brief response is clearly a 2 because one claim is clearly related
to one figure, and no attempt is made to do anything more, even find additional
claims. The one claim, about the percentages of women's Bachelor's and
Master's degrees, is shown to be contradicted by the corresponding numbers
in figure 1.
Response
F
The claims made in "The Education Gender Gap" that "Girls improvement
is especially marked at the college level" is supported by the University
Degree conferred on women in the United States chart. The chart does show
the percentage of degrees earned by women. It shows an increase that is
still on the rise and as mentioned in the claim by the United States Department
of Education that the "rates will continue to increase".
However this chart does not give us the full picture or facts. It does
not allow us to see the claims for boys. It does not compare the two together.
For all I can see I would have to say yes women are on the rise in education.
Women have been on the rise since 1974 as it shows on the
chart. They are both rising in Bachelor's and Master's degrees.
The article also claims that boys are performing worse.
The graph shows the number of students at risk by the millions, and this
graph clearly shows and supports the claims made to support the claim
it shows that a higher number of boys are/will be diagnosed with learning
disability. In addition, they (boy) are have a higher number of drop-outs,
twice as much than boys.
In conclusion girls will always tend to do better in school
and will and have exceeded beyond their past generations.
Comments
on Response F: Score = 1
TThis response gets a 1. The claim that rates of women graduating will
continue to rise gets no specific discussion of data in Figure 1. The
claim that "boys are performing worse" also does not use specific data
from Figure 2.
Top
of Page
CUNY / CIS
/ Web Group, 2005
