Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Final Note
I have learned a great deal about technical writing and about my abilities as a technical writer throughout this course. Probably the thing that stands out the most to me in the primary rule: appealing to the audience. I have never considered the importance of this before in my writing. It has always been about me, the writer. Not only this, but I have learned much more about multimedia than I ever thought that I would as a Biology major. I have created a working website as well a video, two things that I never would have expected at the beginning of this semester. Finally and much to my surprise in a technical writing course, my skills as a public speaker have improved greatly because of the daily class discussions and presentations that we did. This class has been a great learning experience because of the practical, real-world skills that I take with me from it.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Tobacco and Death (Dombrowski) pg.152-233
Tobacco and Death: When is a cause not a cause?
Why do the deadly effects of the Challenger outrage us more than the deadly effects of smoking?
1. The effect of the Challenger was immediate, certain, and dealt with individuals. The effects of smoking are seen more in probabilities and populations, but we forget that we are all a part of the population.
2. The tobacco industry has used media and information to cloud the public and even present the idea that their is a "debate" over whether smoking actually causes cancer.
*The tobacco industry has taken on a "sophists" appeal from the beginning: using rhetoric to persuade their audience, not to what is right, but simply to get what they want at all costs.
*The industry set out in the early 50's to find any doctor, scientist, lawyer, or writer to defend their cause. They formed the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) to do this.
*In writings such as that on pg. 159, the industry dances in circles about what the meaning of "cause" is. They argue that many things could have led to lung cancer.
*The funny thing is that very very few of these people were considered credible and respected, but just because there was a voice of opposition, there was considered a debate. The sophists have an insistence that every topic has two sides worth of argument, even it it was just for the sake of argument and self-interest.
*In the case of the Challenger, although the engineers did not speak up and the managers did not listen, we can honestly say that they were not really expecting someone to die because of their decisions. The reality of the consequences was not as "real" to them. In the case of the tobacco industry, though, they are very aware of the consequences of their unethical decisions, no matter how much they argue their case.
*The industry continues to insist on the most impossible standards of causation simply for their own self-interest.
*The industry will not identify even a few legitimate scientists who will argue on the issue of causation.
*The industry has financial and legal resources that far exceed their opponents simply because they are so profitable. The claimants either don't have enough money, die to early to fight the long court process, or reach out-of-court settlements because the industry has so much money to pay them off.
*It is difficult for claimants to use the research of the industry against them because they made sure to write their documents in such ways that the public could not understand them. Also, they did many documents in the presence of a lawyer in order to keep them from opposing sides through the lawyer-client privilege.
1950s
*The American Cancer Society began to make great research strides. The tobacco industry realized that its public relations may be going down, so it launched an effort because of their concern with their PUBLIC RELATIONS not their concern for health.
*The aim was to complicate the matter generally and to divert attention from smoking to other causes of cancer and disease.
Released "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" in 1954:
1. Causation and proof have not been demonstrated.
2. Shows the industry's disdain for all scientific, medical and technical research accepted by nearly all professionals outside the industry.
3. It attempts to give the appearance of scientific honesty and rigor.
1960s
*The surgeon general appointed an advisory committee to investigate the effects of smoking.
*Against a huge majority of opposition, the industry was forced to keep calling on the same scientists to defend their position because they could no longer find new scientists to back the cause.
*The TIRC was seen as not credible because they could not provide information that was not biased because their scientists were looking were a specific outcome of the research.
1970s
*The industry became interested in filtered cigarettes as a "healthier" solution.
*The public had become concerned with the effects of second-hand smoke as well.
*The industry finally "acknowledges" but they are acknowledging the existence of a controversy, not knowledge or facts.
*The information against smoking became so prevalent that the industry shut down some of its research centers to prevent their own research from being used against them.
1980s
*Lawyers for the industry began to control the information leak more tightly.
*Dr. Gary Huber, a longtime smoking researcher, became a whistle blower in 1998 about the industry's attempts to control each scientist's work by a "lawyer" or rather a "keeper".
1990s
*The single major tobacco company, the Leggett Group, finally admitted that nicotine is addictive.
*Many law suits and legislative actions took place.
A SINGLE WORD
Because the CEOS use the words "I believe that nicotine is not addictive" the charges against them for perjury were dropped because it is highly difficult to prosecute someone over their beliefs. It is ironic that these are the same CEOs who sell a product that explicitly reads, "Smoking causes cancer."
Graphical Images
*Joe Camel's image has charm, silliness, and even innocence, which masks the realities of the product.
*The images of the tobacco industry are "antitechnical" in response to the technical, matter-of-fact opponents. The images seem carefree and have a less serious appeal.
*Realizing that the younger generation must be hooked in order to ensure prolonged business, the industry even made the camel look more youthful and cartoon-like.
*The Marlboro Man is another example. The men seem so strong and rugged, when in actuality their insides are deteriorating.
Ethical Appraisal
*Aristotle would disagree with this "debate" completely because he believed there are matters not suitable for rhetorical debate, those in which truth is already apparent.
*Kant would disagree with the tobacco industry completely because he believed that acting ethically was a matter of acting in which your actions could become a universal principle applying similarly to everyone. The industry has tried to completely undermined those who are working for the common good. They are self-seeking.
*Utilitarian perspective weighs costs and benefits and therefore the question becomes "for whom?" For the public, it is obvious that the costs of smoking far out weigh the benefits. For the industry, they have always outweighed their personal benefits over the costs.
*Feminists are completely against the industry and use this as an another example of out science has become corrupt and simply an enterprise.
*Ethics of care are completely against the industry because the proponents have no care for the customers; they are only looking to their self-interests.
Star Wars: Hope vs. Reality
*Star Wars nuclear missile defense system is short for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) set up by Ronald Reagan to keep the country safe from nuclear weapons.
*It presented a hope against nuclear annihilation that actually had not be grounded in reality.
*Although not realistic, these claims were not necessarily unethical at the core. However, they had a lot of influence on the public and therefore have been highly questioned.
*The question is not whether nuclear weapons are dangerous. The question is whether the goals and appeals released through the Star Wars project were misleading due to the fact that they were technically unrealistic.
*The Fletcher Report was the report that outlined the goals and ways of obtaining the goals of Star Wars.
*Technological organizations such as the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) released information from the very beginning stating their concerns for the reality of SDI and its software.
*The congressional hearings show that, "Seemingly definite technical information can be derived from speculation and wishes and from backward reasoning that might not hold up under scrutiny."
*On one hand, scientific optimism is what drives progression.
*Proponents of SDI played on emotions of the audience through moral, political, ideological statements about safety and defense, but they did not address the feasibility of the cause.
*Opponents emphasized the infeasibility of the plan and the overemphasis of the president on "technical optimism."
*David Parnas is the father of software engineering and resigned from his position because he was against the Fletcher plan. He released an easy-to-understand, clear, technical response. It is educated and articulated but in words that anyone could understand. It takes a clear ethical stance against the attempts for SDI.
*He says that the public was misled about the feasibility of SDI as well as the amount of money spent on it. He objects to the problems with SDI not military research in general. He says that there is no software that could possibly be developed along the lines of SDI that would be "trustworthy".
Star Wars Boycott Pledge
*Pledge started at Cornell and University of Illinois not to accept funding for Star Wars by scientists, engineers, professionals. It was very technical but clear.
*According to Aristotle's view, it would be hard to say whether or not the claims made by the supporters of SDI were virtuous. On the surface they are seemingly virtuous, but they mask the realistic feasibility of the program.
*According to Kant, the supporters were most likely not ethical if they presented hope for this program without presenting the facts of feasibility because this is not how most people would want to be treated. They would not want this masking to become an universal principle.
*From the Utilitarianism perspective it could be viewed either way according to what is a greater cost: national defense or enormous sum of money for a seemingly infeasible goal.
*Feminist would want to back an effort to end violence thus could support ending the efforts specifically of the Soviet Union. However, the efforts to quiet the dissenting voices is completely against feminists views.
*Ethics of care proponents would insists on a caring concern American people but not an offensive attack through weapons. They might insist on putting the money to more social uses, such as education and health care.
Why do the deadly effects of the Challenger outrage us more than the deadly effects of smoking?
1. The effect of the Challenger was immediate, certain, and dealt with individuals. The effects of smoking are seen more in probabilities and populations, but we forget that we are all a part of the population.
2. The tobacco industry has used media and information to cloud the public and even present the idea that their is a "debate" over whether smoking actually causes cancer.
*The tobacco industry has taken on a "sophists" appeal from the beginning: using rhetoric to persuade their audience, not to what is right, but simply to get what they want at all costs.
*The industry set out in the early 50's to find any doctor, scientist, lawyer, or writer to defend their cause. They formed the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) to do this.
*In writings such as that on pg. 159, the industry dances in circles about what the meaning of "cause" is. They argue that many things could have led to lung cancer.
*The funny thing is that very very few of these people were considered credible and respected, but just because there was a voice of opposition, there was considered a debate. The sophists have an insistence that every topic has two sides worth of argument, even it it was just for the sake of argument and self-interest.
*In the case of the Challenger, although the engineers did not speak up and the managers did not listen, we can honestly say that they were not really expecting someone to die because of their decisions. The reality of the consequences was not as "real" to them. In the case of the tobacco industry, though, they are very aware of the consequences of their unethical decisions, no matter how much they argue their case.
*The industry continues to insist on the most impossible standards of causation simply for their own self-interest.
*The industry will not identify even a few legitimate scientists who will argue on the issue of causation.
*The industry has financial and legal resources that far exceed their opponents simply because they are so profitable. The claimants either don't have enough money, die to early to fight the long court process, or reach out-of-court settlements because the industry has so much money to pay them off.
*It is difficult for claimants to use the research of the industry against them because they made sure to write their documents in such ways that the public could not understand them. Also, they did many documents in the presence of a lawyer in order to keep them from opposing sides through the lawyer-client privilege.
1950s
*The American Cancer Society began to make great research strides. The tobacco industry realized that its public relations may be going down, so it launched an effort because of their concern with their PUBLIC RELATIONS not their concern for health.
*The aim was to complicate the matter generally and to divert attention from smoking to other causes of cancer and disease.
Released "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" in 1954:
1. Causation and proof have not been demonstrated.
2. Shows the industry's disdain for all scientific, medical and technical research accepted by nearly all professionals outside the industry.
3. It attempts to give the appearance of scientific honesty and rigor.
1960s
*The surgeon general appointed an advisory committee to investigate the effects of smoking.
*Against a huge majority of opposition, the industry was forced to keep calling on the same scientists to defend their position because they could no longer find new scientists to back the cause.
*The TIRC was seen as not credible because they could not provide information that was not biased because their scientists were looking were a specific outcome of the research.
1970s
*The industry became interested in filtered cigarettes as a "healthier" solution.
*The public had become concerned with the effects of second-hand smoke as well.
*The industry finally "acknowledges" but they are acknowledging the existence of a controversy, not knowledge or facts.
*The information against smoking became so prevalent that the industry shut down some of its research centers to prevent their own research from being used against them.
1980s
*Lawyers for the industry began to control the information leak more tightly.
*Dr. Gary Huber, a longtime smoking researcher, became a whistle blower in 1998 about the industry's attempts to control each scientist's work by a "lawyer" or rather a "keeper".
1990s
*The single major tobacco company, the Leggett Group, finally admitted that nicotine is addictive.
*Many law suits and legislative actions took place.
A SINGLE WORD
Because the CEOS use the words "I believe that nicotine is not addictive" the charges against them for perjury were dropped because it is highly difficult to prosecute someone over their beliefs. It is ironic that these are the same CEOs who sell a product that explicitly reads, "Smoking causes cancer."
Graphical Images
*Joe Camel's image has charm, silliness, and even innocence, which masks the realities of the product.
*The images of the tobacco industry are "antitechnical" in response to the technical, matter-of-fact opponents. The images seem carefree and have a less serious appeal.
*Realizing that the younger generation must be hooked in order to ensure prolonged business, the industry even made the camel look more youthful and cartoon-like.
*The Marlboro Man is another example. The men seem so strong and rugged, when in actuality their insides are deteriorating.
Ethical Appraisal
*Aristotle would disagree with this "debate" completely because he believed there are matters not suitable for rhetorical debate, those in which truth is already apparent.
*Kant would disagree with the tobacco industry completely because he believed that acting ethically was a matter of acting in which your actions could become a universal principle applying similarly to everyone. The industry has tried to completely undermined those who are working for the common good. They are self-seeking.
*Utilitarian perspective weighs costs and benefits and therefore the question becomes "for whom?" For the public, it is obvious that the costs of smoking far out weigh the benefits. For the industry, they have always outweighed their personal benefits over the costs.
*Feminists are completely against the industry and use this as an another example of out science has become corrupt and simply an enterprise.
*Ethics of care are completely against the industry because the proponents have no care for the customers; they are only looking to their self-interests.
Star Wars: Hope vs. Reality
*Star Wars nuclear missile defense system is short for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) set up by Ronald Reagan to keep the country safe from nuclear weapons.
*It presented a hope against nuclear annihilation that actually had not be grounded in reality.
*Although not realistic, these claims were not necessarily unethical at the core. However, they had a lot of influence on the public and therefore have been highly questioned.
*The question is not whether nuclear weapons are dangerous. The question is whether the goals and appeals released through the Star Wars project were misleading due to the fact that they were technically unrealistic.
*The Fletcher Report was the report that outlined the goals and ways of obtaining the goals of Star Wars.
*Technological organizations such as the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) released information from the very beginning stating their concerns for the reality of SDI and its software.
*The congressional hearings show that, "Seemingly definite technical information can be derived from speculation and wishes and from backward reasoning that might not hold up under scrutiny."
*On one hand, scientific optimism is what drives progression.
*Proponents of SDI played on emotions of the audience through moral, political, ideological statements about safety and defense, but they did not address the feasibility of the cause.
*Opponents emphasized the infeasibility of the plan and the overemphasis of the president on "technical optimism."
*David Parnas is the father of software engineering and resigned from his position because he was against the Fletcher plan. He released an easy-to-understand, clear, technical response. It is educated and articulated but in words that anyone could understand. It takes a clear ethical stance against the attempts for SDI.
*He says that the public was misled about the feasibility of SDI as well as the amount of money spent on it. He objects to the problems with SDI not military research in general. He says that there is no software that could possibly be developed along the lines of SDI that would be "trustworthy".
Star Wars Boycott Pledge
*Pledge started at Cornell and University of Illinois not to accept funding for Star Wars by scientists, engineers, professionals. It was very technical but clear.
*According to Aristotle's view, it would be hard to say whether or not the claims made by the supporters of SDI were virtuous. On the surface they are seemingly virtuous, but they mask the realistic feasibility of the program.
*According to Kant, the supporters were most likely not ethical if they presented hope for this program without presenting the facts of feasibility because this is not how most people would want to be treated. They would not want this masking to become an universal principle.
*From the Utilitarianism perspective it could be viewed either way according to what is a greater cost: national defense or enormous sum of money for a seemingly infeasible goal.
*Feminist would want to back an effort to end violence thus could support ending the efforts specifically of the Soviet Union. However, the efforts to quiet the dissenting voices is completely against feminists views.
*Ethics of care proponents would insists on a caring concern American people but not an offensive attack through weapons. They might insist on putting the money to more social uses, such as education and health care.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Ethics (Harty) pg. 347-381
Communication Failures Contributing to Challenger Accident (Winsor)
The two majors issues with the Challenger:
1. Managers and engineers viewed the same facts from different perspectives. This is all about the discrepancy in interpretation. Lund, who had strongly recommended delayed launch was asked to take off his "engineering hat" and put on a "management hat."
2. The general difficulty in receiving or sending bad news, especially to a superior or outsider. The information moved slowly from engineers to managers and between the three organizations involved: NASA, Marshall Space Center and MTI. ex. the tone of Boisjoly's letter within MTI on pg. 355 vs. the tone Russell's letter to Marshall on pg. 356
*Communication is not just shared information: it is shared interpretation.
*Open communication with superiors as well as outsiders cannot be developed short notice or when emergencies arise.
*Contractors should be aware that be full disclosure is unlikely but should make every attempt to reach that point.
*Managers and engineers should be aware that they are most likely presenting information in more positive light than what is actually true.
How to Lie with Statistics (Huff)
The Sample with the Built-In Bias: The sample must be representative or truly random in order for the statistics to be accurate. "No statistical information can rise above the quality of the sample it is based on."
The truncated, gee-wiz, graph: cut off the bottom of the graph.
The souped-up graph: change the proportion between the ordinate and the abiscca. Make line look much more exaggerated.
The well-chosen average: Mean vs. Median ex. Income: "You can be sure that when an income average is given in the form of a mean, nearly everybody has less than that."
The insignificant difference or the elusive error: You cannot make a valid comparison between two figures unless you know deviations. And unless the difference is many times greater than the error, you only can guess which is actually greater.
The one-dimensional figure: ex. money bag symbol vs. simple bars in bar graph on pg. 366
The ever-impressive decimal: Add a decimal to a statistic and it automatically sounds more accurate.
The semi attached figure: Use statistics to prove something non-related. Ex. that one type of medicine has been proven to kill thousands of germs, but it may not kill the one that it is intended to kill.
The unwarranted assumption, or post hoc rides again: cause and effect relationships in statistics can be completely inaccurate especially if you don't even know what the cause and the effect are ex. college students and smoking
Determining the Ethics of Style (Jones)
Ethics- the study of right and wrong; the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; set of moral principles or values; a guiding philosophy
We will face many questions in our careers regarding ethics:
Are knowing omitting any essential information?
If you are exaggerating a product's features in marketing, are you lying?
If your poor instructions cause injury to someone, are you morally responsible?
See the Ten Commandments for Computer Ethics by the computer ethics institute on pg. 370 and 371
Legal and Ethical Issues in Editing (Rude)
Intellectual Property
Copyright: The US Copyright Act of 1976 protects authors of "original works of authorship" whether or not the works are published. Registration with the Copyright Office gives maximum legal protection but is not needed.
Permissions and "Fair Use"
The permission from the writer should be obtained in written form and include:
1. Title, author, and edition of the materials to be reprinted
2. Exact material to be used: include page numbers and photocopy
3. How it will be used; the nature of the document
Copyright and online publication
Most information is fair use as long as cited simply because it is on the WWW. However, distributing someone else's information to make money is unethical.
Trademarks, Patents and Trade Secrets
Trademarks- brand names, phrases, graphics, logos that identify products
Patents- protect inventions in the way that copyright protects expressions
Trade secrets- ex. illegal to hire someone to find out about their previous employer
Product Safety and Liability
Write clear and precise instructions. Hazards and risks must be posted.
Libel, Fraud, and Misrepresentation
libel- defamatory statement without basis in fact that shames or lowers the public reputation of an identifiable person.
Fraud and misrepresentation- deceive the public. ex. in labeling products
The two majors issues with the Challenger:
1. Managers and engineers viewed the same facts from different perspectives. This is all about the discrepancy in interpretation. Lund, who had strongly recommended delayed launch was asked to take off his "engineering hat" and put on a "management hat."
2. The general difficulty in receiving or sending bad news, especially to a superior or outsider. The information moved slowly from engineers to managers and between the three organizations involved: NASA, Marshall Space Center and MTI. ex. the tone of Boisjoly's letter within MTI on pg. 355 vs. the tone Russell's letter to Marshall on pg. 356
*Communication is not just shared information: it is shared interpretation.
*Open communication with superiors as well as outsiders cannot be developed short notice or when emergencies arise.
*Contractors should be aware that be full disclosure is unlikely but should make every attempt to reach that point.
*Managers and engineers should be aware that they are most likely presenting information in more positive light than what is actually true.
How to Lie with Statistics (Huff)
The Sample with the Built-In Bias: The sample must be representative or truly random in order for the statistics to be accurate. "No statistical information can rise above the quality of the sample it is based on."
The truncated, gee-wiz, graph: cut off the bottom of the graph.
The souped-up graph: change the proportion between the ordinate and the abiscca. Make line look much more exaggerated.
The well-chosen average: Mean vs. Median ex. Income: "You can be sure that when an income average is given in the form of a mean, nearly everybody has less than that."
The insignificant difference or the elusive error: You cannot make a valid comparison between two figures unless you know deviations. And unless the difference is many times greater than the error, you only can guess which is actually greater.
The one-dimensional figure: ex. money bag symbol vs. simple bars in bar graph on pg. 366
The ever-impressive decimal: Add a decimal to a statistic and it automatically sounds more accurate.
The semi attached figure: Use statistics to prove something non-related. Ex. that one type of medicine has been proven to kill thousands of germs, but it may not kill the one that it is intended to kill.
The unwarranted assumption, or post hoc rides again: cause and effect relationships in statistics can be completely inaccurate especially if you don't even know what the cause and the effect are ex. college students and smoking
Determining the Ethics of Style (Jones)
Ethics- the study of right and wrong; the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; set of moral principles or values; a guiding philosophy
We will face many questions in our careers regarding ethics:
Are knowing omitting any essential information?
If you are exaggerating a product's features in marketing, are you lying?
If your poor instructions cause injury to someone, are you morally responsible?
See the Ten Commandments for Computer Ethics by the computer ethics institute on pg. 370 and 371
Legal and Ethical Issues in Editing (Rude)
Intellectual Property
Copyright: The US Copyright Act of 1976 protects authors of "original works of authorship" whether or not the works are published. Registration with the Copyright Office gives maximum legal protection but is not needed.
Permissions and "Fair Use"
The permission from the writer should be obtained in written form and include:
1. Title, author, and edition of the materials to be reprinted
2. Exact material to be used: include page numbers and photocopy
3. How it will be used; the nature of the document
Copyright and online publication
Most information is fair use as long as cited simply because it is on the WWW. However, distributing someone else's information to make money is unethical.
Trademarks, Patents and Trade Secrets
Trademarks- brand names, phrases, graphics, logos that identify products
Patents- protect inventions in the way that copyright protects expressions
Trade secrets- ex. illegal to hire someone to find out about their previous employer
Product Safety and Liability
Write clear and precise instructions. Hazards and risks must be posted.
Libel, Fraud, and Misrepresentation
libel- defamatory statement without basis in fact that shames or lowers the public reputation of an identifiable person.
Fraud and misrepresentation- deceive the public. ex. in labeling products
Monday, October 27, 2008
Resumes (Harty) pgs. 275-306
*There is no ONE WAY to write a resume or cover letter. The templates should only be used as a guide. You should adjust your resume according to the job.
*Recruiting manager will be the toughest audience because they hear everything, have seen it all, and they all differ.
*In studies conducted, nearly all managers say that they looked at the appearance of the cover letter and application first and just scanning the following:
*written and oral communication skills
*computer skills
*interpersonal skills
*self-reliance and initiative, as demonstrated by the ability to work alone
*a sense of what the world of work demands in terms of dead lines
*specific skills in at least one business or technical area
*Put yourself in the employer’s position and talk to them about their needs rather than your wants.
*A resume is a good way to outline facts, but a cover letter is beneficial because prose can develop analogies that cannot be explained in short phrases.
*Edit, edit, edit. Take out any unnecessary words. Pg. 283
A good pattern to use (but not limited to this):
1. The first paragraph should state who the write is and what he/she wants.
2. The second paragraph, sometime the third, indicates why the writer wrote to the employer and mentions areas f mutual interests, special talents that night be of interest to the employers, or other factors relating to qualifications that could be better described in a letter than in a resume.
3. A final paragraph that suggests a course of action.
*Hard work and attention to detail make for a good letter.
*Don't say that you are willing to learn if someone can teach you. It goes without saying that there will be on-the-job training. You don't need to include that in your resume/cover letter.
*Don’t delegate the job of letter writing. It will sound fake.
*Sometimes a resume is not as beneficial as a cover letter, but still make one because it will help you outline the facts. The value of a resume is frequently more in its preparation than in its use.
*Use double-spacing to emphasize important things and use single-spacing to cut down on emphasizing the less important items or items that you might not want to highlight.
*Beware of misleading headlines. When you use a headline, think about what you are preparing the reader to anticipate. You don’t want to let them down with the following information.
*Ask yourself, “What words will catch the reader’s eye? What words will put the reader off?”
*Prepare your resume for a specific job. The best way to do this is to go through the job description and step by step develop your letter/resume from this.
*The functional resume allows you to develop a different message for each job or type of job you wish to apply for. Different functions can be highlighted, depending on what the job requires, and your specific experiences rearranged under different headings. Put the most relevant information at the top, not by date.
*A curriculum vitae (CV), literally, “course of life” in Latin, is a resume of academic positions. It does not need statement of goals or interest. Unlike the usual resume that focuses on the employer’s needs rather than merit, a CV should heavily highlight the applicant’s merit because faculty is often looking for the prestige that the applicant can bring to the department more so than their teaching ability, etc.
*Suggest using “career interest” rather than “job objective.”
*Try to keep it to one page. Take out any extra fluff and remember that the employer has very little time to scan your resume. Respect their time. However, do not make the resume fit on one page just for the sake of following a rule. An outline needs white space to make it easy to read.
*Get friends, especially ones in the occupation that you are applying for, to critique your resume.
*Get a friend to look at your resume from a few feet away and ask for comments on its appearance.
*Make sure the primary question of the person doing the critique is “What message do I get from this?”
*Recruiting manager will be the toughest audience because they hear everything, have seen it all, and they all differ.
*In studies conducted, nearly all managers say that they looked at the appearance of the cover letter and application first and just scanning the following:
*written and oral communication skills
*computer skills
*interpersonal skills
*self-reliance and initiative, as demonstrated by the ability to work alone
*a sense of what the world of work demands in terms of dead lines
*specific skills in at least one business or technical area
*Put yourself in the employer’s position and talk to them about their needs rather than your wants.
*A resume is a good way to outline facts, but a cover letter is beneficial because prose can develop analogies that cannot be explained in short phrases.
*Edit, edit, edit. Take out any unnecessary words. Pg. 283
A good pattern to use (but not limited to this):
1. The first paragraph should state who the write is and what he/she wants.
2. The second paragraph, sometime the third, indicates why the writer wrote to the employer and mentions areas f mutual interests, special talents that night be of interest to the employers, or other factors relating to qualifications that could be better described in a letter than in a resume.
3. A final paragraph that suggests a course of action.
*Hard work and attention to detail make for a good letter.
*Don't say that you are willing to learn if someone can teach you. It goes without saying that there will be on-the-job training. You don't need to include that in your resume/cover letter.
*Don’t delegate the job of letter writing. It will sound fake.
*Sometimes a resume is not as beneficial as a cover letter, but still make one because it will help you outline the facts. The value of a resume is frequently more in its preparation than in its use.
*Use double-spacing to emphasize important things and use single-spacing to cut down on emphasizing the less important items or items that you might not want to highlight.
*Beware of misleading headlines. When you use a headline, think about what you are preparing the reader to anticipate. You don’t want to let them down with the following information.
*Ask yourself, “What words will catch the reader’s eye? What words will put the reader off?”
*Prepare your resume for a specific job. The best way to do this is to go through the job description and step by step develop your letter/resume from this.
*The functional resume allows you to develop a different message for each job or type of job you wish to apply for. Different functions can be highlighted, depending on what the job requires, and your specific experiences rearranged under different headings. Put the most relevant information at the top, not by date.
*A curriculum vitae (CV), literally, “course of life” in Latin, is a resume of academic positions. It does not need statement of goals or interest. Unlike the usual resume that focuses on the employer’s needs rather than merit, a CV should heavily highlight the applicant’s merit because faculty is often looking for the prestige that the applicant can bring to the department more so than their teaching ability, etc.
*Suggest using “career interest” rather than “job objective.”
*Try to keep it to one page. Take out any extra fluff and remember that the employer has very little time to scan your resume. Respect their time. However, do not make the resume fit on one page just for the sake of following a rule. An outline needs white space to make it easy to read.
*Get friends, especially ones in the occupation that you are applying for, to critique your resume.
*Get a friend to look at your resume from a few feet away and ask for comments on its appearance.
*Make sure the primary question of the person doing the critique is “What message do I get from this?”
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Project Multimedia Component
For the multimedia component of our project we are going to film a video of the top 5 rated restaurants of our restaurant database. We will go around to each of the five restaurants and take brief segments of the restaurants along with quotes of customers and employees. The goal is to make the website more interactive as well as make the restaurants more personal for the audience. It will also be a tool to highlight the top-rated restaurants.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Ethics (Dombrowski) pgs. 81-121
Nazi Records: The Origen and Use of Information
*genocide was coined after this horrible time of massive killing in Nazi Germany
*When technical objectivity is emphasized, sometimes ethics are compromised.
*Therefore, technical documents are not as ethically neutral as you might think.
*In the case of the Nazi regime, “science” was not actually science, but a means to obtain an end result: racial supremacy.
*When determining whether a document is ethical, you must consider not only the content, but also how and from where the information was obtained.
Controversy in the Present
*Due to the unethical “scientific” or pseudoresearch of the Nazi’s, scientific research in Europe and America is scrutinized much more closely by the government and objective panels.
*Recently, the Israelis have protested that some universities in Germany are using human organs from the Nazi prison camps for research. They protest because these people did not have any informed consent or choice about this, not to mention there was no reason for their execution, and therefore it is unethical to use them.
*The New England Journal of Medicine took a strong stance against using the hypothermia research of the Nazis even though there could be possible medical implications because the research was unscientific, gathered by unsound methods.
*In Journal of American Medical Association Jeremiah Barondess stated that the there was a huge reversal that happened in the Nazi regime, from medicine as healing to medicine as killing. It became a means to justify and carry out mass genocide rather than aid in helping sustain life.
Values in Nazi Medical Science
*Physicians held a lot of power in the Nazi regime. Reasons for this: the unemployment of medical school graduates in bad economy and the need for the regime to “legitimize” its foul practices.
*Facts should be seen as things that can be severely altered by social circumstances and are not completely certain.
*Masked language become prominent:
*Physicians were seen as killing with reason when the people were seen as “already dead” or in other words “not worthy of life”
* “Euthanasia” is known as mercy killing but is suppose to be by the knowing consent of the person. The Nazi’s termed their killing as “Euthanasia” but their people had no consent, no choice.
* “Special treatment” is usually very strong treatment used in extreme cases with the purpose of still helping the person. The Nazi’s used this for mass killing.
Nazi Antiscience
*Some say that the “science” of the Nazi’s was indeed science and shows how its objectivity is inhumane and impersonal and the enemy of human values.
*Others argue that what the Nazi’s were doing was not at all science, but the exact opposite. They opposed traditional science and its objectivity, its formal logic, its emotional neutrality in order to bring about their desired end result.
Research in the United States
*There are strict standards that not only must the information of research be accurate but the means by which it was obtained must meet specific guidelines. If not, the evidence is inadmissible, no matter how “beneficial” it could be to society.
*An example if the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in the 1920s where only African American patients were treated with placebos and effective drugs.
*Another instance is the research of the effects of radiation on humans by the utilization of unknowing humans.
*Another point of controversy is the utilization of animals in research.
Nazi Technical Memorandum
*science has become the goal, the end, itself instead of a means by which to obtain a goal
*expediency and efficiency is a top priority, some say it even surpasses the content of the research being done and the goal of which the technology is being used for
*the Just memorandum is full of masked language, ellipses (the glaring absence of key words), and technical purpose
-disguises the true subject and meaning of the document
-takes away any emotions that could be associated with the subject
-for instance there was a ellipsis of the subject because people are never mentioned.
-people are referred to as "subjects" or "cargo" but never people
-the purpose is solely technical and has no care for people
*the Dr. Becker excerpt is all about the the soldiers chosen to clean the death vans
-the soldiers are treated with care in the document but the people being killed were treated as nothing
*circular self justification of Nazi Germany- "What we can do, we should do, largely because we can do it."
-There is no room for critisism.
-The genetic engineering industry has taken this stance on cloning.
*in the Hirt document the purpose is to secure the skulls of Jews
-once again completely technical and scientific with no regards to ethics.
-uses term "induced death" instead of cold blooded murder
*Report on Experiments Concerning X-Ray Castration is a highly technical document that is so technical that is "masks" the true purpose of the technology
Graphical Images
*Social Darwinism developed in the late 1800s and it was used by the Nazi's to justify that the Aryan race was the dominant race and therefore only they should survive because they were the fittest
*The Nuremburg Race Laws required that one's race be clearly identified and used the chart (pg.110) to clearly establish who was Aryan
*tons of overlap in science and politics
*Facial features were also measured to determine the race (pg. 111)
Aristotle
*would not have agreed with Nazi Germany because ethics are based on honesty, virtue, fairness, compassion
*on the question of using technical information obtained from that time, he would say use it
Kant
*assumes that all people are equal and you should treat everyone the way that you want to be treated so he would not approve of the Nazi Germany
*on the question of using the technical information, he could go either way. On one hand, some would benefit from it, but on the other hand families of victims would not benefit
Utilitarianism
*did not agree with racial differences in worth
*would say to use the technical information because it would benefit the most people
Feminist and Ethics of Care
*Authoritarianism is the opposite of feminist beliefs so they would not at all agree with Nazi Germany
*and they were so uncaring towards their victims which is completely opposite to the ethics of care
*on the question of using the technical information, if it could care for the people of today, then they would say use it
*genocide was coined after this horrible time of massive killing in Nazi Germany
*When technical objectivity is emphasized, sometimes ethics are compromised.
*Therefore, technical documents are not as ethically neutral as you might think.
*In the case of the Nazi regime, “science” was not actually science, but a means to obtain an end result: racial supremacy.
*When determining whether a document is ethical, you must consider not only the content, but also how and from where the information was obtained.
Controversy in the Present
*Due to the unethical “scientific” or pseudoresearch of the Nazi’s, scientific research in Europe and America is scrutinized much more closely by the government and objective panels.
*Recently, the Israelis have protested that some universities in Germany are using human organs from the Nazi prison camps for research. They protest because these people did not have any informed consent or choice about this, not to mention there was no reason for their execution, and therefore it is unethical to use them.
*The New England Journal of Medicine took a strong stance against using the hypothermia research of the Nazis even though there could be possible medical implications because the research was unscientific, gathered by unsound methods.
*In Journal of American Medical Association Jeremiah Barondess stated that the there was a huge reversal that happened in the Nazi regime, from medicine as healing to medicine as killing. It became a means to justify and carry out mass genocide rather than aid in helping sustain life.
Values in Nazi Medical Science
*Physicians held a lot of power in the Nazi regime. Reasons for this: the unemployment of medical school graduates in bad economy and the need for the regime to “legitimize” its foul practices.
*Facts should be seen as things that can be severely altered by social circumstances and are not completely certain.
*Masked language become prominent:
*Physicians were seen as killing with reason when the people were seen as “already dead” or in other words “not worthy of life”
* “Euthanasia” is known as mercy killing but is suppose to be by the knowing consent of the person. The Nazi’s termed their killing as “Euthanasia” but their people had no consent, no choice.
* “Special treatment” is usually very strong treatment used in extreme cases with the purpose of still helping the person. The Nazi’s used this for mass killing.
Nazi Antiscience
*Some say that the “science” of the Nazi’s was indeed science and shows how its objectivity is inhumane and impersonal and the enemy of human values.
*Others argue that what the Nazi’s were doing was not at all science, but the exact opposite. They opposed traditional science and its objectivity, its formal logic, its emotional neutrality in order to bring about their desired end result.
Research in the United States
*There are strict standards that not only must the information of research be accurate but the means by which it was obtained must meet specific guidelines. If not, the evidence is inadmissible, no matter how “beneficial” it could be to society.
*An example if the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in the 1920s where only African American patients were treated with placebos and effective drugs.
*Another instance is the research of the effects of radiation on humans by the utilization of unknowing humans.
*Another point of controversy is the utilization of animals in research.
Nazi Technical Memorandum
*science has become the goal, the end, itself instead of a means by which to obtain a goal
*expediency and efficiency is a top priority, some say it even surpasses the content of the research being done and the goal of which the technology is being used for
*the Just memorandum is full of masked language, ellipses (the glaring absence of key words), and technical purpose
-disguises the true subject and meaning of the document
-takes away any emotions that could be associated with the subject
-for instance there was a ellipsis of the subject because people are never mentioned.
-people are referred to as "subjects" or "cargo" but never people
-the purpose is solely technical and has no care for people
*the Dr. Becker excerpt is all about the the soldiers chosen to clean the death vans
-the soldiers are treated with care in the document but the people being killed were treated as nothing
*circular self justification of Nazi Germany- "What we can do, we should do, largely because we can do it."
-There is no room for critisism.
-The genetic engineering industry has taken this stance on cloning.
*in the Hirt document the purpose is to secure the skulls of Jews
-once again completely technical and scientific with no regards to ethics.
-uses term "induced death" instead of cold blooded murder
*Report on Experiments Concerning X-Ray Castration is a highly technical document that is so technical that is "masks" the true purpose of the technology
Graphical Images
*Social Darwinism developed in the late 1800s and it was used by the Nazi's to justify that the Aryan race was the dominant race and therefore only they should survive because they were the fittest
*The Nuremburg Race Laws required that one's race be clearly identified and used the chart (pg.110) to clearly establish who was Aryan
*tons of overlap in science and politics
*Facial features were also measured to determine the race (pg. 111)
Aristotle
*would not have agreed with Nazi Germany because ethics are based on honesty, virtue, fairness, compassion
*on the question of using technical information obtained from that time, he would say use it
Kant
*assumes that all people are equal and you should treat everyone the way that you want to be treated so he would not approve of the Nazi Germany
*on the question of using the technical information, he could go either way. On one hand, some would benefit from it, but on the other hand families of victims would not benefit
Utilitarianism
*did not agree with racial differences in worth
*would say to use the technical information because it would benefit the most people
Feminist and Ethics of Care
*Authoritarianism is the opposite of feminist beliefs so they would not at all agree with Nazi Germany
*and they were so uncaring towards their victims which is completely opposite to the ethics of care
*on the question of using the technical information, if it could care for the people of today, then they would say use it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)