write Annotations (after/ while doing a close reading of the essay). You can do this in multiple ways:as handwritten notes over the essay [if you scan or make a copy of it you can do this]As comments,

write Annotations (after/ while doing a close reading of the essay). You can do this in multiple ways:as handwritten notes over the essay [if you scan or make a copy of it you can do this]As comments,
1302Final Summaryand Annotation Assignment [15% of grade] Please choose one (1) of the topics from Chapters 13-25 in “Current Issues and Enduring Questions textbook”, then choose one of the essays from those available on that one topic.You should have already done this. Document 1=After you have done that, you should read, then reread and annotate the essay (e.g. make comments and notes about it-See Maslane’s Guide to Annotations in Content tab).Note: You should have already done this, but this should be a revised version, if necessary. #.Afterwards, find the main claim of the author. Note: Remember that claims can be explicitly or implicitly stated. Often the author will reveal his/her topic and position in the title, though, the title may not articulate the full claim. Document 2=Additionally, you should write a LONG AND CONDENSED summary of that essay [Note: this means 2 documents]. It should include these elements: The first line should include the author’s name(s), the title of the essay, and the main argument/ thesis of the essay. Then, the essay should include ONLY those most important portions of the essay that defend the thesis. Note: Look at the summarizing section of your textbook (pages 46-59) and the Annotating and Summarizing examples that I have posted under the Content tab for guidance. Note: Each paragraph of each essay usually includes important new information and/or a new topic that should be included in the long summary. In addition, each paragraph should have At Least 1 annotation/ comment on your annotation document A good summary writes in the third person and presents ONLY the author of the essay’s thoughts, not yours. Document 3=Finally, you need to write a 1-1.5 page (e.g. 250-400 words) response/ mini argument to the topic that does the following: It presents a claim that you think is true. Note: This can be the same/ similar position as the author’s, but it needs to be paraphrased (e.g. written in your own words) It gives some reasons (grounds) to support your claim. Note: These can be the same as the author’s, but they need to be paraphrased (e.g. rewritten in your own words) It presents another position/ counterargument re: the topic Note: see opposing viewpoint essay under chapter chosen. It should NOT be a copy of the summary, but you can use elements from the summary. It can be written in the first person, and should use some analogies, stories, anecdotes, examples, etc. to support your claim and reasons. Itshould be MLA formatted throughout. This is all due Monday March 22nd, 2021 by 11:59PM in the Summary Annotations Response Essay Assignment Drop box. Also, you can receive +5 pts if you send the assignment to the Writing Center for help. 
write Annotations (after/ while doing a close reading of the essay). You can do this in multiple ways:as handwritten notes over the essay [if you scan or make a copy of it you can do this]As comments,
EDWARD CONARD Edward Conard (b. 1956), who has an MBA from Harvard, is best known for his controversial book on the US economy, Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told about the Economy Is Wrong (2012). He has made more than one hundred television appearances, debating luminaries such as Paul Krugman and Jon Stewart. This article appeared as part of a Pro/Con debate in the Washington Post on July 30, 2013. We Don’t Need More Humanities Majors It’s no secret that innovation grows America’s economy. But that growth is constrained in two ways. It is constrained by the amount of properly trained talent, which is needed to produce innovation. And it is constrained by this talent’s willingness to take the entrepreneurial risks critical to commercializing innovation. Given those constraints, it is hard to believe humanities degree programs are the best way to train America’s most talented students. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. employment has grown roughly 45 percent since the early 1980s. Over the same period, Germany’s employment grew roughly 20 percent, while France’s employment grew less than 20 percent and Japan’s only 13 percent. U.S. employment growth put roughly 10 million immigrants to work since the BLS started keeping track in 1996 and it has employed tens of millions of people offshore. The share of people in the world living on less than $1.25-a-day has fallen from over 50 percent to nearly 20 percent today, according to The World Bank. Name another high-wage economy that has done more than the United States for the employment of the world’s poor and middle class during this time period. Contrary to popular belief, U.S. employment growth isn’t outpacing other high-wage economies because of growing employment in small businesses. Europe has plenty of small family-owned businesses. U.S. growth is predominately driven by successful high-tech startups, such as Google, Microsoft, and Apple, which have spawned large industries around them. A Kauffman Institute survey of over 500 engineering and tech companies established between 1995 and 2005 reveals that 55 percent of the U.S.-born founders held degrees in the science, engineering, technology or mathematics, so called STEM-related fields, and over 90 percent held terminal degrees in STEM, business, economics, law and health care. Only 7 percent held terminal degrees in other areas — only 3 percent in the arts, humanities or social sciences. It’s true some advanced degree holders may have earned undergraduate degrees in humanities, but they quickly learned humanities degrees alone offered inadequate training, and they returned to school for more technical degrees. Other studies reach similar conclusions. A seminal study by Stanford economics professor Charles Jones estimates that 50 percent of the growth since the 1950s comes from increasing the number of scientific researchers relative to the population. Another recent study from UC–Davis economics professor Giovanni Peri and Colgate economics associate professor Chad Sparber finds the small number of “foreign scientists and engineers brought into this country under the H-1B visa program have contributed to 10%–20% of the yearly productivity growth in the U.S. during the period 1990–2010.” Despite the outsized importance of business and technology to America’s economic growth, nearly half of all recent bachelor’s degrees in the 2010–2011 academic years were awarded in fields outside these areas of study. Critical thinking is valuable in all forms, but it is more valuable when applied directly to the most pressing demands of society. At the same time, U.S. universities expect to graduate a third of the computer scientists our society demands, according to a study released by Microsoft. The talent gap in the information technology sector has been bridged by non-computer science majors, according to a report by Daniel Costa, the Economic Policy Institute’s director of immigration law and policy research. Costa finds that the sector has recruited two-thirds of its talent from other disciplines — predominately workers with other technical degrees. But with the share of U.S. students with top quintile SAT/ACT scores and GPAs earning STEM-related degrees declining sharply over the last two decades, the industry has turned to foreign-born workers and increasingly offshore workers to fill its talent needs. While American consumers will benefit from discoveries made in other countries, discoveries made and commercialized here have driven and will continue to drive demand for U.S. employment — both skilled and unskilled. UC–Berkeley economics professor Enrico Moretti estimates each additional high-tech job creates nearly five jobs in the local economy, more than any other industry. Unlike a restaurant, for example, high-tech employment tends to increase demand overall rather than merely shifting employment from one competing establishment to another. If talented workers opt out of valuable training and end up underemployed, not only have they failed to create employment for other less talented workers, they have taken jobs those workers likely could have filled. Thirty years ago, America could afford to misallocate a large share of its talent and still grow faster than the rest of the world. Not anymore; much of the world has caught up. My analysis of data collected by economics professors Robert Barro of Harvard University and Jong-Wha Lee of Korea University reveals that over the last decade America only supplied 10 percent of the increase in the world’s college graduates, much less than the roughly 30 percent it supplied thirty years ago. Fully harnessing America’s talent and putting it to work addressing the needs of mankind directly would have a greater impact on raising standards of living in both the United States and the rest of the world than other alternatives available today.
write Annotations (after/ while doing a close reading of the essay). You can do this in multiple ways:as handwritten notes over the essay [if you scan or make a copy of it you can do this]As comments,
Example of Summary of McGregor Essay She starts by giving the reader information about a U.S. Army program that moves 14,000 new positions that allows for women to be closer to the front lines, but points out that there are 250,000 positions that are still closed to female soldiers . First, t he essay states that 2 Senators and 2 female reservists then oppose the ‘Ground Combat Exclusion’ that leaves these positions closed to women saying that it limits their promotions, earnings and retirement opportunities. Then, McGregor points out that a major argument against this ‘Ground Combat Exclusion’ is that it limits the opportunities for women soldiers to advance further in the U.S. Army. The essay further argues in favor of allowing women in combat roles because it breaks down the currently existing ‘Brass Ceiling’ that exists . The essay also points out that a different way to break down this ceiling is to consider talented women for top leadership positions, despite the fact that they have not served in combat. However, the author acknowledges that this would require that the military and male troops make many adjustments, both psychological and logistical. In addition, the essay claims that experience in military combat is crucial for getting top posts in the military, which makes the necessity for official changes to be made. In conclusion, her essay states by reiterating its support for a change in restrictions that keep women from serving in combat in the military.
write Annotations (after/ while doing a close reading of the essay). You can do this in multiple ways:as handwritten notes over the essay [if you scan or make a copy of it you can do this]As comments,
Military women in combat: Why making it official matters By Jena McGregor May 25, 2012 Washington Post online It’s been a big couple of weeks for women in the military. Last week, female soldiers began formally moving into jobs in previously all-male battalions, a program that will later go Army-wide. The move is a result of rule changes following a February report that opened some 14,000 new positions to women in critical jobs much closer to the front lines. However, some 250,000 combat jobs still remain officially closed to them. The same week, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D, Calif.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D, N.Y.) introduced legislationin both houses of Congress that would encourage the “repeal of the Ground Combat Exclusion policy” for women in the armed forces. Then this Wednesday, two female U.S. Army reservists filed a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the remaining restrictions on women in combat, saying they limit “their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits.” (A Pentagon spokesperson told Bloomberg News that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “is strongly committed to examining the expansionof roles for women in the U.S. military, as evidenced by the recent step of opening up thousands of more assignments to women.”) One of the arguments behind both the lawsuit and the new legislation is that the remaining restrictions hurt women’s opportunities for advancement. Advocates for women in the military say that even if women like Gen. Ann Dunwoody have reached four-star general status, she and women like her without official front-line combat experience apparently haven’t been considered for the military’s very highest posts.  “If women remain restricted to combat service and combat service support specialties, we will not see a woman as Commandant of the Marine Corps, or CENTCOM commander, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” writes Greg Jacob, policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network. “Thus women in the military are being held back simply because they are women. Such an idea is not only completely at odds with military ethics, but is distinctly un-American.” Women have been temporarily “attached” to battalions for the last decade; still, allowing women to formally serve in combat operations could help to break down the so-called brass ceiling. Another way to break down the ceiling would be to consider talented women for top military leadership positions, whether or not they’ve officially held certain combat posts. Presidents have chosen less-senior officers for Joint Chiefs roles, which are technically staff jobs, wrote Laura Conley and Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, in the Armed Forces Journal last year. They argue that putting a woman on the Joint Chiefs would help the military grapple with rising sexual harassment issues, bring nontraditional expertise (which women have developed because of some of their role exclusions) at a time when that’s increasingly critical, and send the signal that the military is not only open to women, but puts no barriers in their way. Yes, putting women in combat roles beyond those that have been recently formalized would require many adjustments, both logistical and psychological, for the military and for its male troops. There are plenty of women who may not be interested in these jobs, or who donot meet the physical demands required of them. And gradual change may be prudent. The recent openings are a start; Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno’s acknowledgement last week that if women are allowed into infantry, they will at some point probably go through Ranger School, is encouraging. But at a time when experience like the infantry is reportedly crucial for getting top posts, it’s easy to see how official and sizeable policy changes are needed in order to create a system that lets talented women advance to the military’s highest echelons. In any field where there are real or perceived limitations for women’s advancement, it’s that much harder to attract the best and brightest. Indeed, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended last March that the services end combat exclusion policies for women, along with other “barriers and inconsistencies, to create a level playing field for all qualified service members.” As the commission chairman, Retired Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles, told the American Forces Press Service at the time, “we know that [the exclusion] hinders women from promotion.” For the military to achieve the diverse workforce it seeks, interested and capable women should either not face exclusions, or the culture of the armed forces needs to change so that women without that particular experience can still reach the very top. Both changes may be difficult, but the latter is extraordinarily so. Ending the restrictions is the shortest route to giving the military the best pool of talent possible and the most diverse viewpoints for leading it.