Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Debate Speeches
Topic Started: Nov 22 2009, 04:56 PM (1,111 Views)
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Others have request help on schoolwork, so I figured I might as well. My teacher has allowed us to each pick a controverial topic such as abortion or healthcare. After we've picked our topic, we have to create a speech arguing in favor of either side and present it to the class. We'll have the auditorium for the day and will present these speeches to all the English classes, totalling about 1200 students. Of course I really don't want to make a fool of myself.

Unfortunately, I've only ever written short stories or persuasive essays. I'm not sure how to make a speech that great and the teacher has not informed us of any literary techniques, though I assume that will come after we've sufficiently embarrassed ourselves in front of our peers. I picked the topic of nuclear weapons, whether we should keep or abolish them. Guess which side I'm arguing for.

Here's the "speech".

Spoiler: click to toggle

This is relatively short because there is a time limit. I will have 3 to 5 minutes to read this. I need the speech to be amazing because my terrible presentation skills are going to cost me a good amount of points.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Quote:
 
On August 6th and 9th, 1945, two nuclear bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result was a Japanese surrender and a conclusion to the Second World War. However, these events also drastically changed the art of war. Since then, whether or not these nuclear weapons should be abolished nuclear disarmament has been the subject of many debates over the decades. Nuclear weapons are, for better or worse, are our burden to bear. There is no way to uninvent nuclear technology and abolishing them could be more detrimental than beneficial.

The idea of global nuclear disarmament is great needs better wording, but in reality it is highly implausible impractical. All it would take is for one rogue state or leader to hide its weapons while the rest of the world gives theirs up. Nuclear disarmament may seem like a great step for world peace, but it is too good to be true. With nuclear weapons, we achieve the next best thing, a deterrent. Since more than one nation has nuclear capability, no single country can wrongly exert it’s will over weaker nations without threat from other nuclear powers. Abolishing nuclear weapons takes away the deterrent, the next best thing don't use this phrase twice we have to global disarmament. These weapons are heavily defended, making it extremely difficult for these missiles to be stolen by terroristic groups. The use of nuclear weapons is a great tragedy, but so is any war, nuclear or otherwise. The presence of nuclear weapons can prevent war by promising an extremely expensive fight for both sides. The Cold War was one of the most peaceful times in the history of the world, especially in Europe. During the Gulf War, the USA’s nuclear presence was one of the major factors that prevented Iran from launching chemical weapon missiles into Israel.

Some say terroristic groups could take over a missile silo and gain control of one or more of these weapons. We wouldn’t be able to use a nuclear deterrent against terrorists because the missile would kill so many who weren’t involved just to take down a handful of extremists. They say we should dismantle these weapons to keep them out of the wrong hands. There are other ways to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists besides disassembling them. As stated before, these silos are heavily defended. In the US, 10%, or 52 billion dollars go towards the defense and maintenance of nuclear weapons. Russia spends 60% of its defense budget on nuclear weapons as well, making them the most heavily funded portion of its military. We must defend these missiles because it is impossible to dismantle them. The most dangerous part of the missile, the plutonium warhead, cannot be destroyed by anything less than a nuclear blast itself. If we were to dismantle these weapons, the warheads would have to be stored somewhere. Since it’s much easier to steal a warhead than an entire intercontinental ballistic missile, the safest place for these warheads are on the missile itself.

Another disagreeing view is that nuclear weapons are against all morals. They would say that the entire point of nuclear weapons is massive, wholesale destruction, with long lasting effects on survivors. How could a weapon of devastating power ever be the key to peace? The fact that nuclear weapons cause so much damage is the very reason why they prevent war. Such power in a single strike is a massive deterrent to any belligerent nation. The current nuclear missile in use, the B83, has a 16 kilometer radius, enough to destroy all of New York City with one shot. As a result, even if a war breaks out, it can be ended quickly.

This brings up the strongest and most debated dissenting argument. Nuclear weapons can end wars quickly, but at what cost? The deaths of several thousand civilians? The cost of many lives in a single instant would cause most, if not all, countries to concede to the nation that launched the missile. The cost of all those dead is a necessary evil. How many would die if a war went on for months, or years? In a non-nuclear war, how many people die in skirmishes? How many people die in bombing runs, car bombs, and suicide bombers? In the current Iraq war, the last estimates range from 92,500 to 101,000 for Iraqi civilian deaths alone. There’s an additional 48,000 to 52,000 military deaths on both sides of the war. A nuclear missile similar in power to the one that dropped on Hiroshima would kill an estimated 55,000 people. Is it better to kill 55,000 people in a single strike and end a war, or to kill 151,000 over the course of a normal war? While they’re not always the best answer, nuclear weapons can save many people by drawing a quick end to a potentially prolonged war. This is a stupid, stupid, stupid argument. A nuclear war might be over within a matter of hours, sure, but the amount of destruction that can take place in that time is astounding. Besides that, it is estimated that a mere fifty nuclear attacks on the scale of modern nuclear weapons could result in a nuclear winter. The only use a nuclear weapon would have is against a non-nuclear power, in which case it would provoke a ridiculous amount of backlash in the international community and would make winning hearts and minds impossible.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
I agree with Q that the content of the last paragraph is flawed, but here are some stylistic suggestions anyways.

I would parse down the statistics. Heavy use of statistics will fly over people's heads because they've been sitting and squirming in an uncomfortable auditorium seat for so long. If the audience wants the exact statistics, you can give them a copy of the white paper version of your thesis after the presentation. A good presentation should have a brisk, conversational tone and overuse of statistics gets in the way of that.

I would also revise the tone of the essay and make it more conversational and urgent (and attention grabbing). Not that you're trying to hustle used cars, but you want to try to make your presentation engaging. For example, in your opening paragraph, you could simply say for your first sentence, "My talk today is about nuclear weapons. Many people, of all ages, are very passionate about global nuclear disarmament, but in reality disarmament is impractical/illogical/etc....." That would avoid the somewhat convoluted buildup involving Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the art of war and all that.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Nov 22 2009, 06:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

I'd agree that your last argument should be dropped entirely. Nuclear war has the potential to cause destruction on a scale that far outstrips that of any conceivable conventional war. That's certainly not a point in your favor and you should avoid bringing it up because it weakens your case.

It's probably worth mentioning that global nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream. For anybody but the most starry-eyed of idealists, it should be clear that nuclear weapons are here to stay. There are a great many countries that would never dream of giving up their nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Look at India and Pakistan. Disarmament would be essentially impossible because if either India or Pakistan was able to conceal a single nuclear device and their enemy decommissioned all of theirs, the country which 'cheated' would undoubtedly have the upper hand if it ever came to blows. Both countries are always convinced that war is just around the corner, so neither has any will to disarm. Same idea with Israel. If they disarm, they leave themselves open to chemical and biological attacks by the surrounding states, which they are convinced, with good reason, hate them and would like to see their nation cease to exist.

Would the world be better if nuclear weapons were never invented? Probably. But it's undoubtedly a Pandora's box situation. Try how you might, there's no way you can send the evil that was released upon the world back where it came from.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eleytheria-Duo
Member Avatar
Resident Bystander
Quaon
Nov 22 2009, 05:42 PM
Besides that, it is estimated that a mere fifty nuclear attacks on the scale of modern nuclear weapons could result in a nuclear winter.
Q, I have no qualms with your statements except this- which is very ambiguous, and frankly, arrogantly fallacious and seemingly fear mongering. Your average Nuke in the arsenal of major Nuclear powers is ~200 Kilotons, give or take 150 depending on the mated warhead and if its SLBM, ICBM etc. These are yields we've been able to produce since the early 1950's. The largest weapon ever detonated in history was the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomba (At ~50 Megatons) and we can theoretically produce weapons today that are limited in yield only by the physical constraints of assembly and a "flavorful" detonation.

During the peak of testing in the early 60's (62 I believe, a year before the LTBT,) there were hundreds of tests in a single year, a vast majority of which took place within a single month (Which exceeded the so-called 50 required to create nuclear winter theory) and a majority of which were MUCH higher in yield than the United States' or Russian Federations typical warhead stockpiled in their Strategic Nuclear arsenal. If we were going to have a Nuclear winter, we should have had it decades ago.

Or- maybe we're experiencing global warming because we stopped atmospheric nuclear tests! :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Ah, this brings back great memories with toussaint, writing our speeches and such on the day of the tournament.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Thanks for the corrections, I made the changes on the paper, except for removing the last argument. It's the strongest one I have and is referencing the Iraq War, which people in my class will know a bit about and not feel like it's a history lesson. The fact that some of their parents are serving in Iraq should also help in gathering support.

Maybe next time I get an assignment with a month to complete it, I should do it earlier than the afternoon before it's due. Eh, I've done worse. Like the time I wrote an essay in the class before I had to hand it in. Got an A on that one, so this shouldn't be so bad. I hope.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Eleytheria-Duo
Nov 22 2009, 07:39 PM
Quaon
Nov 22 2009, 05:42 PM
Besides that, it is estimated that a mere fifty nuclear attacks on the scale of modern nuclear weapons could result in a nuclear winter.
Q, I have no qualms with your statements except this- which is very ambiguous, and frankly, arrogantly fallacious and seemingly fear mongering. Your average Nuke in the arsenal of major Nuclear powers is ~200 Kilotons, give or take 150 depending on the mated warhead and if its SLBM, ICBM etc. These are yields we've been able to produce since the early 1950's. The largest weapon ever detonated in history was the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomba (At ~50 Megatons) and we can theoretically produce weapons today that are limited in yield only by the physical constraints of assembly and a "flavorful" detonation.

During the peak of testing in the early 60's (62 I believe, a year before the LTBT,) there were hundreds of tests in a single year, a vast majority of which took place within a single month (Which exceeded the so-called 50 required to create nuclear winter theory) and a majority of which were MUCH higher in yield than the United States' or Russian Federations typical warhead stockpiled in their Strategic Nuclear arsenal. If we were going to have a Nuclear winter, we should have had it decades ago.

Or- maybe we're experiencing global warming because we stopped atmospheric nuclear tests! :lol:
Quote:
 
A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade.[6] The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
Column ozone losses could exceed 20% globally, 25-45% at mid-latitudes, and 50-70% at northern high latitudes persisting for 5 years, with substantial losses continuing for 5 additional years. Column ozone amounts would remain near or below 220 Dobson units at all altitudes even after three years, constituting an extra-tropical “ozone hole”. Human health ailments like cataracts and skin cancer, as well as damage to plants, animals and ecosystems at mid-latitudes would likely rise sharply as ozone levels decreased and allowed more harmful UV light to reach Earth, according to the PNAS study. This study demonstrates that a small-scale, regional nuclear conflict is capable of triggering ozone losses even larger than losses that were predicted in the 1980s following a full-scale nuclear war. The missing piece back then was that the models at the time could not account for the rise of the smoke plume and consequent heating of the stratosphere.
From wikipedia.


I don't know enough about the science to competently comment on your last line of argumentation, but would conjecture that the fact that said nuclear tests were conducted in desert and thus did not cause as much destruction as an urban nuclear strike would, sending up fewer dust particles and whatnot.
Quote:
 
Thanks for the corrections, I made the changes on the paper, except for removing the last argument. It's the strongest one I have and is referencing the Iraq War, which people in my class will know a bit about and not feel like it's a history lesson. The fact that some of their parents are serving in Iraq should also help in gathering support.
No, actually, it's a terrible argument for reasons already cited.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Quaon
 
"A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near- global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade.[6] The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the stratosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation."


A quick google/wikipedia search might not be as trustworthy as a journal article published in PNAS, but according to google/wikipedia, the powerful 1883 eruption of the volcano Krakatoa was the equivalent of 13,000 Hiroshimas and threw about 200 million tons of dust 50 miles up into the atmosphere, resulting in erratic weather patterns and slightly cooler temperatures globally for the next 5 years. The mechanism of nuclear winter proposed by PNAS ("soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases … break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation") does not seem to have occurred in the wake of the Krakatoa eruption. However radiation fallout might be a regional or continental threat and cause increased rates of leukemias and solid tumors if there was a regional nuclear exchange.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Nov 22 2009, 10:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
I would present the argument that the only way to prevent the nuclear distruction of the planet is to remove the human race (one of my students presented exactly that argument, and I loved it. If I can find it in .doc format I'll attach). The human race will destroy everything if given the chance, so the only hope is to remove us from the planet (consider Swift's "A Modest Proposal"). I love satire when presenting a speach without debate!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
I've got another assignment, but before I get to that, I figured you might want the results of the first one. The speech went well, IMO. I was lucky and they fixed the microphone just before my turn! :D The debate ended, decidedly, in my favor. Since the stupid concept of "peer review" took up a large portion of the grade, I was unable to argue as effectively as I would have liked. I needed to hold back some of the harsher points so people would agree with my position (what a politician I am :rolleyes: ). The final grade was a 94.

~~~~~

Okay, next assignment. This thesis essay spans two classes, my history and english classes. The subject must be history related as chosen from a list of topics. The history grade will be on the content and the english grade on the structure and grammar, etc.

My chosen topic is the Sons of Liberty. My thesis statement, which has yet to be approved (and is still changeable), is: Can the Sons of Liberty be considered a terroristic organization by definition?

I'll be arguing that they are.

The stupidest part of this assignment is that I am required to have 80 index cards filled with information, placed in order, and then type the essay. The index cards are 50% of the grade. I'd rather do it my own way and just hand in a finished essay on the due date, but whatever. I just have to do more research on stuff I probably already know.

Opinions? Helpful links? Etc, etc?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Union
Member Avatar
Pyrenees Republic
Define terrorism for yourself, rather than using a traditional definition. Your definition will be key. As long as your definition is persuasive, and not too out there, it can conceivably be anything you want it to be. This should be the body of your work, as you can tailor your definition to fit exactly what the Sons of Liberty have done, making your case relatively easy. This should also be the best-argued portion of the work, as whether or not the Sons of Liberty can be defined as terroristic depends entirely on how it is defined.

Research experts on terrorism, and their definitions. Critique them, build upon them, etc. Demonstrate why your definition is the best one.
Edited by Union, Feb 24 2010, 10:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Not a bad idea. My definition, the dictionary's, 2-3 experts' definition, and a random student's definition? (I get bonus points for having a tie in to school in some form.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Christ, I guess it is debate, but the grading is harsher than a college speech class. Telo, you keep posting things reminding me of how ridiculous high school was.

I suppose I should thank you. It makes me feel better about my current situation.

Doesn't make me feel any better about twenty page political science research papers, but other than that college has been easier for me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Of course high school is harsher. They do all this to "prepare you for college", so that when you get to college you can discover that nothing is what they said it would be like. Like in elementary/middle school when I was forced to write in script because every teacher said that no high school teacher will read an assignment written in print. So I learned script, to the point that it's so ingrained that I have to actually think about what I'm doing if I want to write in print, and can't even remember some letters in print, just to discover that EVERYONE in high school doesn't use script.

Three of my teachers have repeatedly asked me to stop writing in script. I keep forgetting, and have lost 2 or 3 points on tests and such for continuing to write in script. It's extremely irritating.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Telosan
Feb 24 2010, 11:04 PM
Of course high school is harsher. They do all this to "prepare you for college", so that when you get to college you can discover that nothing is what they said it would be like. Like in elementary/middle school when I was forced to write in script because every teacher said that no high school teacher will read an assignment written in print. So I learned script, to the point that it's so ingrained that I have to actually think about what I'm doing if I want to write in print, and can't even remember some letters in print, just to discover that EVERYONE in high school doesn't use script.

Three of my teachers have repeatedly asked me to stop writing in script. I keep forgetting, and have lost 2 or 3 points on tests and such for continuing to write in script. It's extremely irritating.
Eh, just sounds like your teachers are lazy. They should be able to read script without any trouble.

And in my experience, college was much harder than high school. I had actually had to put effort into college. I don't remember junior high or elementary school very much, but from high school, to college, through law school, difficulty has continually increased.

I guess college could be easy if you take only easy classes though.
Edited by Rhadamanthus, Feb 24 2010, 11:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelius
Member Avatar
Norman Warlord
IMO, college is easier in some ways and harder in some ways. Bigger workload, but not stuck in class all day. There's also the feeling that you're at college because you chose to do so rather than the government ordering you there. At college you can (mostly) avoid the school spirit shit rather than being forced to pep rallies that take time which could be used for better purposes. In college, you get more control over your time, but you'll tend to have a larger workload.

I end up typing most of my assignments in college. Then again, when you've got six short stories due in a semester (2500-4000 words), two six-page research essays on scientific research during the Cold War, and a ten-page full research paper on the Crusades only using primary sources, you start to get used to typing. :dry:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
I'm not sure if I sent you this or not, but I have a very nice template for the MLA style sheet, and unless your instructors are expecting some other style, it is the most widely used.

50 research cards!! How long is this paper to be?? Of course, he is forcing you to use research cards because that's how you'll do it in college (I do not make my students do research cards).

I agree that you work more on defining terrorism to fit the SOL, rather than forcing the SOL to fit some arbatrary definition.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
The essay needs to be at least 4 pages, and at that point it has to be the best written work in the school's history to coax a A out of it.

They want every line of the essay on an index card with a source for the information. Every line, regardless of whether there's any historical content in the sentence.
Edited by Telosan, Feb 25 2010, 12:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Telosan
Feb 25 2010, 12:59 PM
The essay needs to be at least 4 pages, and at that point it has to be the best written work in the school's history to coax a A out of it.

They want every line of the essay on an index card with a source for the information. Every line, regardless of whether there's any historical content in the sentence.
That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Does this instructor have ANY knowledge about how to do research? Anyway, if that's what they want, that's what they want, so . . . . . make it perfect. Get that "A".

P.S. I did a 100+ page paper in Graduate School about the Epic Theatre of Bertolt Brecht in the U.S. and didn't have 50 note cards.

This is four pages?? Hell, I could put together four pages with two quotes on a narrow subject!

No wonder the kids in my class come out of high school hating writing, if this is what high school teachers do!
Edited by New Harumf, Feb 25 2010, 02:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Porcu
Member Avatar
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes."

New Harumf
Feb 25 2010, 02:49 PM
Telosan
Feb 25 2010, 12:59 PM
The essay needs to be at least 4 pages, and at that point it has to be the best written work in the school's history to coax a A out of it.

They want every line of the essay on an index card with a source for the information. Every line, regardless of whether there's any historical content in the sentence.
That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Does this instructor have ANY knowledge about how to do research? Anyway, if that's what they want, that's what they want, so . . . . . make it perfect. Get that "A".

P.S. I did a 100+ page paper in Graduate School about the Epic Theatre of Bertolt Brecht in the U.S. and didn't have 50 note cards.

This is four pages?? Hell, I could put together four pages with two quotes on a narrow subject!

No wonder the kids in my class come out of high school hating writing, if this is what high school teachers do!
I can vouch for Telo, remembering somewhat my own experiences with writing in high school.

NH is right though Telo. If that is the shit you need to put up with to get a good grade, just suck it up and do it. I have not taken too many classes with writing as a focus. The one class I did take to fulfill a requirement was on "The American Experience", basically short stories and poems by gay and lesbian, black, Hispanic, Jewish, feminist and other minority American authors. We wrote three 'major' essays, 5-6 pages, and the teacher only required us to submit a rough draft prior to the final.
Edited by Porcu, Feb 25 2010, 03:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

Yeah, I'm in multiple 5000 level courses this semester and there's no way in hell I need to complete that much research to write any of the papers that will be required of me. I don't think your teacher has any idea what college-level writing entails.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
5000 level courses? Back in the day (2004) the highest courses available were 800. The highest level was probably 60 back in Harumf's day. When Telo gets to college it'll probably get to 100,000. Talk about level inflation :lol:

As for this unfortunate 80 index card situation, I don't think we can expect any different from Telo's Twilight Zone high school where nobody can read an analog clock and biology tests go from 100 to 36 and back again! :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Tristan da Cunha
Feb 26 2010, 03:14 PM
5000 level courses? Back in the day (2004) the highest courses available were 800. The highest level was probably 60 back in Harumf's day. When Telo gets to college it'll probably get to 100,000. Talk about level inflation :lol:

As for this unfortunate 80 index card situation, I don't think we can expect any different from Telo's Twilight Zone high school where nobody can read an analog clock and biology tests go from 100 to 36 and back again! :lol:
Actually 400 level courses were grad level, 500 level courses were PhD, back in my day! But then, we didn't have 75 courses in African American Literature, or a degree program in witchcraft, like you blokes do today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
For Cameron,

1000 level courses are freshman, 2000 are sophomore, 3000 are junior, 4000 are senior, 5000 are graduate. There are also 0000 courses which are for people who didn't score high enough on areas of the ACT and don't count for any credit (though they still cost as much as any credits).

1113 would mean a normal basic level course. The first number stands for the level, the fourth number stands for the amount of credits. The middle two can denote various things.

For example:

ENGL 1113 is English Composition I. ENGL 1123 is Honors Composition I. ENGL 1213 is English Composition II. ENGL 1223 is Honors Composition II.
Edited by Sedulius, Feb 26 2010, 05:52 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply