midterm paragraph midterm paragraph midterm paragraph midterm paragraph

User Generated

pnbavzn

Humanities

Description

midterm paragraph

midterm paragraph midterm paragraph midterm paragraph midterm paragraph


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Reading for Question 1 U.S. News ranking categories, subfactors, and weights Student selectivity Graduation and retention 1---------"'---"' ---------i Alumni giving Gra uaJipn'frate· · ·· performance How U.S. News Calculated the 2016 Best Colleges Rankings Here's a breakdown of the key college data that go into the annual rankings. Sept. 8, 2015 By Robert Morse, Eric Brooks and Matt Mason The host of intangibles that makes up the college experience can't be measured by a series of data points. But for families concerned with finding the best academic value for their money, the U.S. News Best Colleges rankings provide an excellent starting point for the search. They allow you to compare at a glance the relative quality of institutions. The measures, their weights in the ranking formula and an explanation of each follow. Undergraduate academic reputation (22.S percent): The U.S. News ranking formula gives significant weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The academic peer assessment survey allows top academics - presidents, provosts and deans of admissions - to account for intangibles at peer institutions, such as faculty dedication to teaching. To get another set of important opinions on National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges, we also surveyed 2,200 counselors at public high schools, each of which was a gold, silver or bronze medal winner in a recent edition of the U.S. News Best High Schools rankings, as well as 400 college counselors at the largest independent schools. The counselors represent nearly every state and the District of Columbia. Each academic and counselor surveyed was asked to rate schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who didn't know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know." The score used in the rankings is the average score of those who rated the school on the 5 point scale; "don't knows" are not counted as part of the average. In order to reduce the impact of strategic voting by respondents, we eliminated the two highest and two lowest scores each school received before calculating the average score. The academic peer assessment score in this year's rankings is based on the results from surveys in spring 2014 and spring 2015. Previously, only the most recent year's results were used. The results from the three most recent years of counselor surveys, from spring 2013, spring 2014 and spring 2015, were averaged to compute the high school counselor reputation score. This was done to increase the number of ratings each college received from the high school counselors and to reduce the year-to-year volatility in the average counselor score. lpsos Public Affairs collected the data in spring 2015. Of the 4,530 academics who were sent questionnaires, 40 percent responded. This response rate is down very slightly from the 42 percent response rate to the surveys conducted in spring 2014 and spring 2013. The counselors' one-year response rate was 7 percent for the spring 2015 surveys. Retention (22.5 percent): The higher the proportion of first-year students who return to campus for sophomore year and eventually graduate, the better a school is apt to be at offering the classes and services that students need to succeed. This measure has two components: six-year graduation rate {80 percent of the retention score) and first-year retention rate {20 percent). The graduation rate indicates the average proportion of a graduating class earning a degree in six years or less; we consider first-year student classes that started from fall 2005 through fall 2008. First-year retention indicates the average proportion of first-year students who entered the school in the fall of 2010 through the fall of 2013 and returned the following fall. Faculty resources (20 percent): Research shows that the more satisfied students are about their contact with professors, the more they will learn and the more likely they are to graduate. We use six factors from the 2014-2015 academic year to assess a school's commitment to instruction. Class size has two components: the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students {30 percent of the faculty resources score) and the proportion with 50 or more students {10 percent of the score). Faculty salary (35 percent) is the average_ faculty pay, plus benefits, during the 2013 -2014 and 2014-2015 academic years, adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living using indexes from the consulting firm Runzheimer International. We also weigh the proportion of professors with the highest degree in their fields (15 percent), the student-faculty ratio (5 percent) and the proportion of faculty who are full time {5 percent). Student selectivity {12.5 percent}: A school's academic atmosphere is determined in part by the abilities and ambitions of the students. This measure has three components. We factor in the admissions test scores for all enrollees who took the critical reading and math portions of the SAT and the composite ACT score {65 percent of the selectivity score). We also consider the proportion of enrolled first-year students at National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes or the proportion of enrolled first-year students at Regional Universities and Regional Colleges who graduated in the top quarter of their classes (25 percent). The third component is the acceptance rate, or the ratio of students admitted to applicants {10 percent). The data are all for the fall 2014 entering class. While the ranking calculation takes account of both the SAT and ACT scores of all entering students, the ranking tables on usnews.com display the score range for whichever test was taken by most students. We use footnotes on usnews.com to indicate schools that did not report to U.S. News the fall 2014 SAT and ACT scores for all first-time, first-year, degree-seeking students for whom the schools had data. Schools sometimes fail to report SAT and ACT scores for students in these specific categories: athletes, international students, minority students, legacies, those admitted by special arrangement and those who started in the summer of 2014. We also use footnotes to indicate schools that declined to tell U.S. News whether all students with SAT and ACT test scores were represented. For schools that did not report all scores or that declined to say whether all scores were reported, we reduced the value of their SAT and ACT scores in the Best Colleges ranking model. This practice is not new; since the 1997 rankings, we have discounted the value of such schools' reported scores in the ranking model, because the effect of leaving students out could be that lower scores are omitted. If a school told U.S. News that it included all students with scores in its reported SAT and ACT scores, then those scores were counted fully in the rankings and were not footnoted. If less than 75 percent of the fall 2014 entering class submitted SAT and ACT scores, their test scores were discounted in the ranking calculations. This policy was also used in the 2015 edition of the rankings. Financial resources {10 percent}: Generous per-student spending indicates that a college can offer a wide variety of programs and services. U.S. News measures financial resources by using the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services and related educational expenditures in the 2013 and 2014 fiscal years. Spending on sports, dorms and hospitals doesn't count. Graduation rate performance (7.5 percent): This indicator of added value compares expected graduation rates with actual ones. It shows the effect of the college's programs and policies on the graduation rate of students after controlling for spending and student characteristics, such as test scores and the proportion receiving Pell Grants. We measure the difference between a school's six-year graduation rate for the class that entered in 2008 and the rate we predicted for the class. If the school's actual graduation rate for the 2008 entering class is higher than the rate U.S. News predicted for that same class, then the college is enhancing achievement, or overperforming. If a school's actual graduation rate is lower than the U.S. News prediction, then it is underperforming. Alumni giving rate (5 percent): This reflects the average percentage of living alumni with bachelor's degrees who gave to their school during 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, which is an indirect measure of student satisfaction. To arrive at a school's rank, we first calculated the weighted sum of its standardized scores. The final scores were rescaled so that the top school in each category received a value of 100, and the other schools' weighted scores were calculated as a proportion of that top score. Final scores were rounded to the nearest whole number and ranked in descending order. Readings for Question 2 Memo from Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz on Dec. 14, 2010: Yahoos, I want to share some tough news with you. Today, we began notifying some Yahoos that they will lose their jobs. Most of the reductions will come from the Products org and, when completed, will affect about 4% of the company. I know this has been rumored for some time. It's disappointing when things like this leak, and it certainly doesn't make it any easier for anyone involved. This was a tough call, but a necessary one. We need to make these changes now to ensure that Products is structured and running the way we want as 2011 begins. And that means we need fewer Yahoos in some areas, and different types of Yahoos in others. There are several reasons for this. First, we've found a lot of duplication in work between Products and the regions. Second, it's no secret that we're cutting investment in underperforming and non-core products so we can focus on our strengths (like email, the homepage, search, mobile, advertising, content and more). And lastly, we need to get the Products cost-structure in order so it aligns with our development plans for next year and beyond. You've heard me say before that I didn't come to cut Yahoo! to greatness. That's still true. This decision is about more than cost savings. The changes are meant to get us into a position so we can invest more in the kind of products and technology we know we need to be successful. The process that begins today- along with Blake's past org changes and new Products operational plan - helps to get us there. It's never easy to say goodbye to Yahoos we know and work with, especially before the holidays. Please know that we're helping those affected with severance pay and benefits, plus services to help them find other jobs. One last thing before I go: It's important to put this in perspective, and remember that we're making good progress on our turnaround. Margins have expanded. Revenue growth has stabilized after a long period of decelerating trends. Product rollouts are accelerating as we modernize our infrastructure. Our Search alliance with Microsoft continues on schedule, and more. We've got a lot of potential, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Let's stay focused and not lose sight of that. Carol Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara's memo to staff in September 2014 There is no easy way to deliver today's message. As you know, we at Warner Bros. have committed to reducing costs across the company in order to meet our long-term financial targets, and that includes cutting staff. These changes are challenging, but we believe they will allow us to reallocate resources and position the company for growth and stability in the years ahead. We've now completed much of our company-wide review, and most business groups will be announcing staff changes this week, beginning today. However, some groups, including Finance, MIS and Technical Operations, have been engaged in more complex reorganizations; they will make some staff changes now, with most coming in the first quarter of next year. Similarly, international territories will proceed according to local policies and protocol, and most of their changes will be announced in the early part of next year. I know that every employee around the world is a part of Warner Bros.' success, and it's difficult to lose colleagues who have helped make the Studio the global industry leader it is today. As always, we are committed to taking care of our employees, and we will be as generous as possible with those who are impacted by these cuts. These are difficult decisions, and we don't take them lightly. We examined every aspect of our businesses to ensure that we were restructuring in a way that would allow us to mini mize the impact on our employees, while continuing to adapt to the changing global marketplace. With your continued help and support, I am confident that Warner Bros. will remain the best studio in the world, while preserving the culture that has made this company so special. EA executive chairperson Larry Probst, April 2013 As we begin the new fiscal year, I want to provide you with a brief update on some important changes to our organization. As Executive Chairman, my focus is to ensure EA is deliver ing high quality games and services to our consumers, while helping the executive team develop a FY14 operating plan that drives growth, rationalizes headcount and controls costs. In recent weeks, the executive team has been tasked with evaluating every ar ea of our business to establish a clear set of priorities, and a more efficient organizational structure. This process has led to some difficult decisions about the number of people and locations needed to achieve our goals. The workforce reductions which we communicated in the last two weeks represent the majority of our planned personnel actions. We are extremely grateful for the contributions made by each of these individuals -they will be missed by their colleagues and friends at EA. We are also taking action to streamline our organization, including changes in two key areas: • Core marketing functions have been consolidated under our COO, Peter Moore. The combined group will bring together our Label marketing teams, Global Acquisition Marketing and Marketing Analytics into one multi-talented team under Todd Sitrin's • leadership. The development and marketing teams will continue to work as cohesive units, driving clear and consistent messaging and consumer engagement for each of our franchises. Origin will move into Frank Gibeau's Labels organization. Andrew Wilson will take on the leadership of Origin, working with CJ Prober and the team to create more value and an enhanced entertainment experience for our consumers. Change is sometimes difficult, but essential. The adjustments we are making will put us in the best position to build great. games and services, deliver them more efficiently to consumers, and demonstrate to players around the world why they should spend their time with us. EA is a great company, with talented and hard-working teams, a strong portfolio of products and an extremely bright future. Thank you all for your dedication and commitment to our long term success! Reading for Question 3 The New Cheating Economy By Brad Wolverton, August 28, 2016 Excerpted from The Chronicle of Higher Education On any given day, thousands of students go online seeking academic relief. They are first-years and transfers overwhelmed by the curriculum, international students with poor English skills, lazy undergrads with easy access to a credit card. They are nurses, teachers, and government workers too busy to pursue the advanced degrees they've decided they need. The Chronicle spoke with people who run cheating companies and those who do the cheating. The demand has been around for decades. But the industry is in rapid transition. A decade ago, cheating consisted largely of students' buying papers off the internet. That's still where much of the money is. But in recent years, a new underground economy has emerged, offering any academic service a student could want. Now it's not just a paper or one-off assignment. It's the quiz next week, the assignment after that, the answers served up on the final. Increasingly, it's the whole class. And if students are paying someone to take one course, what's stopping them from buying their entire degree? The whole-class market is maturing fast. More than a dozen websites now specialize in taking entire online courses, including BoostMyGrade.com, OnlineClassHelp.com, and TakeYourClass.com. One of them, NoNeedtoStudy.com, advertises that it has completed courses for more than 11,000 students at such colleges as Duke, Michigan State, even Harvard. As cheating companies expand their reach, colleges have little incentive to slow their growth. There's no money in catching the cheaters. But there's a lot of money in upping enrollment. Two professors at Western Carolina University were so concerned about the encroachment of cheating that they set up a fake online class to learn more about the industry's tactics, and see what they could detect. About a dozen students agreed to enroll in the introductory psychology course, including John Baley, then a graduate student in clinical psychology. They were provided with fake names, email addresses, and ID numbers, plus a pot of money for cheating services. Half were asked to cheat, and they did so in a variety of ways, collaborating inappropriately with classmates; buying papers, and paying others to take tests. Mr. Baley went looking for a company to take the whole class for him. He typed a few words into his browser - "cheat for me in my online class" - and turned up dozens of results. Many sites seemed untrustworthy: Their content was misspelled or grammatically incorrect, or their customer-service reps had trouble with basic English. Some requested confidential banking information or asked him to enter it into a website with no security protection. But one company impressed him. Its representatives responded promptly, explained how their colleagues would complete the course, and guaranteed a B or better - or his money back. He agreed to pay the company $900, half upfront, and handed over his course username and password. Over the next 10 weeks, the company, which Mr. Baley declined to name, to protect any further research, passed him from the customer-service staff to the management team to the person who took his course. At each stage, he says, he dealt with people who were efficient, responsive, and reliable. In fact, the cheaters performed better than he thought they would. They completed every assignment without prompting, at one point providing a written script for a video presentation with less than 36 hours' notice. The instructors, Alvin Malesky, an associate professor of psychology, and Robert Crow, an assistant professor of educational research, used Turnitin and Google to check students' work for plagiarism and monitored them to see if groups were taking exams at the same time. The professors caught several students plagiarizing material. But they didn't spot the paid test takers, purchased papers, or coordinated assignments. And they had no clue that a person in New York to whom Mr. Baley had mailed his books was behind the A's they were giving. Mr. DeGaeta got the idea for Student Network Resources in the late 1990s, when he was still in high school, he says in an email to The Chronicle. Over the years, he has registered more than a dozen domains, including PaperDue.com and HelpMyEssay.com, which funnel work to his company, whose name is relatively unknown. When students place a request through one of the sites, they enter their name, email address, and as much information about the assignment as possible, including due date and level (undergraduate, master's, or doctoral). That information goes into Student Network's system, where a price is set based on the difficulty of the assignment. The job is posted to a private board for writers, stripped of any personal details about the student. From there, a willing writer picks up the order and corresponds with the client through a private channel in which students often disclose personal information about themselves and their courses. Then the writer delivers the completed assignment. Mr. DeGaeta is mum about the revenue he has brought in, but the business appears to be lucrative. Two longtime writers say they've earned as much as $10,000 a month. At peak times, the company says on its website, most of its 150 writers earn more than $1,800 a week. Writers typically pocket half the price of an order; the company gets the rest. If those numbers are accurate, annual revenue for Student Network Resources would be in the millions. The company has only two employees. The founder has made a good living, according to public records. He owns an apartment in a tony neighborhood of New York, near the United Nations building, and seems to reside near Miami Beach. But his business has fallen off in recent years, he says, as the industry has expanded overseas. The company emph tically denies that it is a cheating service. It says it tells customers that they may not use its material for academic credit - and requires them to acknowledge as much before purchasing papers, during the research process, and before receiving the work. "We vehemently protect our copyright," Mr. DeGaeta said in a written statement. "If the customer decides to use our material as a reference they must cite Student Network Resources Inc." Several current and former writers told The Chronicle that they had believed that. Amelia Albanese, a former community-college tutor who worked for the company in 2010, says she thought she was writing sample papers for tutors and teachers. When she realized she was doing students' work, she quit. "I worked at a college," she says, "and if the students I worked with had cheated, I would have been furious." The company's business depends on covering its tracks. A memo it sent to writers last year gives stepby-step instructions for wiping the metadata from documents they produce. "Every document that you submit must have 100% blank 'Summary' properties," the memo says. "You can make the 'Author' field (and other fields} blank by default for all new documents by going to 'Preferences' --> 'User Information' and replacing the content of the 'First:' and 'Last:' fields with a blank space." According to Mr. DeGaeta, the memo was aimed at preventing writers from poaching clients. But if there's no trace of a cheater on a document, a college has no way of knowing - or if an instructor suspects something, no proof - that the student didn't do the work. Cheating has become second nature to many students. In studies, more than two-thirds of college students say they've cheated on an assignment. As many as half say they'd be willing to purchase one. To them, higher education is just another transaction, less about learning than about obtaining a credential. The market, which includes hundreds of websites and apps, offers a slippery slope of options. Students looking for class notes and sample tests can find years' worth on Koofers.com, which archives exams from dozens of colleges. And a growing number of companies, including Course Hero and Chegg, offer online tutoring that attempts to stay above the fray (one expert calls such services a "gateway drug"}. Many students turn to websites like Yahoo Answers or Reddit to find solutions to homework problems. And every month, hundreds of students put assignments up for bid on Freelancer.com and Upwork, where they might get a paper written for the cost of a few lattes. Some of the most explicit exchanges happen on Craigslist, which has become a hub of cheating activity. Over two days in April, The Chronicle analyzed Craigslist posts in seven cities in which a cheater or cheating service offered to complete whole courses for students. The search turned up more than 200 ads. In many cases, the same ads ran in multiple cities, suggesting a coordinated marketing effort. Craigslist posters appealed to students by acknowledging how little time they had for busywork. "Online classes are a pain in the ass," said one Chicago-area ad. Others outright asked students to hand over their online credentials. "You can trust us with your login and password information," said a Phoenix post. "We will do every section of your online class including discussion boards, tests, assignments, and quizzes." The Chronicle exchanged messages with several Craigslist posters to inquire about the cost of their service and how it worked. One person who has posted regularly in the Los Angeles area said he had been in business for 10 years and had a staff of "over 20 experts." His prices, he said, depended on the number of hours it would take to complete a class, not how well a student wanted to do. "We always get A's and B's," he said in a text message. "Calculation based classes are $750. All others are $600. Anyone quoting different is not a pro and doesn't know what they are doing. Cheap quotes= F grades. Another poster said his prices depended on the institution. "A course from Penn State World Campus requires more effort than a course from Post University," he said in an email. "Previously, I completed a remedial English course for a client at Kaplan University. This person requested a 'B' for $90/week for eight weeks. Another client at a Cal State University required an 'A' in a four week upper division Asian Studies course for $300/week." Some displeased students have threatened to go public with their stories, but more often it's the paid cheaters who make threats. After Mr. Sambrano, the high-school guidance specialist, transferred $500 to have the whole course at Arizona State done for him, he stopped hearing from his Craigslist cheater and filed a PayPal claim against him. The cheater advised him to drop the claim or he'd hand over evidence of the arrangement to the university. Mr. Sambrano, afraid he'd be expelled, dropped the charge. He says he ended up doing the class himself. In another case, if not for a cheater turning a student in, a college may never have known that the student was paying someone else to log in to the course and complete the work. In May an undergraduate at Colorado State University-Global Campus, dissatisfied with the quality of the work done for him, filed a PayPal claim. Angered, the cheater gave the student's name to the instructor, along with text messages, screen shots of the student's portal, and payment records detailing how the student had arranged to have the entire course done for him, says Jon M. Bellum, the provost. CSU-Global, an online institution with about 15,000 students, had its information-technology department look at the IP addresses used for the student's coursework and found more than one. Mr. Bellum would not disclose the penalty the student faced, citing privacy law, but says such abuses can result in expulsion. Often, though, the university is not aware of the violation. Colleges have tried technology to combat cheating. Several thousand institutions around the world use the anti-plagiarism software Turnitin, which says it has a database of some 600 million papers. But a recent study found that custom work is "virtually undetectable." Coursera, an online education platform employed by dozens of prominent colleges, uses webcams and "keyboard dynamics," which attempt to verify students' identities on the basis of their typing patterns. But that doesn't do much good if the cheater is always typing. CSU-Global says it spends about $60,000 a year administering random identity checks on its students. The tests require them to provide answers to personal questions like what banks service their loans or what streets they've lived on. If they don't answer accurately, they can't log in to their classes. About 2 percent of identity checks result in students' getting locked out of the CSU system. Other institutions have blocked access to sites that help students cheat. Victor Valley College, in California, has prevented anyone on a campus computer from accessing the website of Student Network Resources. But students can turn to their own laptops or other devices. But some professors are catching on. Last fall, Megan Elwood Madden, an associate professor in the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma, spotted a suspicious passage in a student's paper. She ran it through Turnitin, finding severai plagiarized sources but no match for the bulk of the text. So she Googled the student's research topic and found the assignment posted on Course Hero with the student's request for help. A web search did not turn up the text the student had handed in, because it was hidden in Course Hero's system. But once Ms. Elwood Madden had logged in to the site, she could see communication between the student and a contractor suggesting that the student had had the work completed for him, the professor said in an email. She discovered that the student had used Course Hero to arrange work in at least four other classes as well. The revelations led the universityto expel the student. Such stories are rare, academic-integrity officers say, because there are so few would-be enforcers in pursuit. After The Chronicle published an article about the Western Carolina experiment, two federal law-enforcement officials contacted the professors, eager to hear more about the business. William Josephson, a former assistant attorney general in New York who has investigated fraud, says companies that assume false identities violate federal laws governing interstate commerce. Laws in at least 17 states prohibit students from using cheating services to complete their assignments. But prosecutors aren't enforcing them. Faculty members on the front lines are no more active. That's also true in other countries where the cheating industry has developed. This spring, Marcus J. Ball, a higher-education reformer in Britain, came across an advertisement for academic cheating services on the wall of a London subway station. The ad offended Mr. Ball, who began emailing college administrators and professors, trying to persuade them to sign a petition for the British government to debate the issue of contract cheating. His goal was to create a "unified block" of people willing to stand up to the cheating companies, with hopes of taking the fight to Canada, the United States, and elsewhere. In May, Mr. Ball contacted more than 250 college officials, including academic-integrity leaders in several countries. Only five responded. ''Academics are constantly complaining about the essay-mill problem," he said in the email. But when presented with a "practical way forward to potentially solve the problem, they don't engage." Last year, Ms. Bertram Gallant, who is director of the academic-integrity office at the University of California at San Diego, organized a dozen international experts to study the growth of contract cheating and how to stop it. The group laid out a series of big goals. Chief among them: Mobilize faculty members and students to demand laws making it more difficult for cheating companies to operate. It is creating a tool kit to help professors detect and prevent cheating. And it is organizing an international awareness day to bring more attention to the problem. But the group can only muster so much fight. "There's just not enough of us who care," says Ms. Bertram Gallant. "It's a very small cadre internationally who really dedicate our lives to working on this issue, and that's just not enough people." College leaders haven't helped, she says. Many have failed to make the issue a priority. Few colleges have academic-integrity offices, she says, or devote dollars to the problem. "There is a lot of money to support these companies, but not a lot of money to support our research," she says. "All the money is going to the illegal part of the industry, and none of it is going to combat the industry." Colleges also might need to rethink their approach, says Ms. Bertram Gallant. As online education continues to grow, and cheating companies have more opportunities to infiltrate classes, institutions would do well to enlist people with the skills to ferret out violations, she says. While educators may be equipped to catch plagiarism, they don't have the tools to track a paid cheater who is assuming someone else's identity. Instead, colleges continue to rely on proud traditions to fight the scourge of cheating. This fall, as students return to campus, some colleges will require them to sign an honor code. Others will spell out for them the potential consequences of academic dishonesty. In October, academic-integrity officials at the University of Oklahoma plan to hold a session to warn new students about paper mills. The tool they're using to combat cheating? Tea bags. To remind the students of the importance of ethics, the university is encouraging them have a cup of "integri-tea." Netflix Sample Prompt: Review Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’s 2011 memo to Netflix customers upset by Netflix’s change in services, and argue — in one concise, direct, assertive paragraph — your response to the following question: Was Hastings’ communication EITHER effective OR ineffective in appeasing his audience, and why? To support your argument, use specific details from the provided text and your own logic and knowledge. Color-coding to emphasize analysis: • Factual evidence support (from the reading) • Interpretive analysis support Sample Response #1 (good) Nexflix CEO Reed Hastings memo is ineffective in appeasing upset customers because he spends the early part of the memo justifying and explaining his own experience, while failing to address customers’ primary concern about cost until much later in the document. For example, Hastings states toward the beginning of his memo that he “should have” preemptively explained to customers why Netflix is splitting its services and increasing prices. He explains that “it wouldn’t have changed the price increase, but it would have been the right thing to do.” Hastings ruminates on his own feelings about Netflix’s changed service, discussing his love of Netflix’s streaming service and justifying his rationale for separating that service from the DVD by mail one. His own experiences, both as a Netflix viewer and as company CEO, inform the bulk of the memo, making it seem out of touch with consumer concerns. Had Hastings based his communication with consumers around their collective concerns rather than around his unique experiences, he would have appeared more relatable and less self-righteous. Although Hastings does rescind Netflix’s price increase for current customers later in the document, his memo is ineffective in appeasing his audience because it is likely that many would have stopped reading by then due to the self-centered and out-of-touch rhetoric throughout the early part of the memo. Sample Response #2 (bad – vague evidence) Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ memo is effective in appeasing upset customers because the memo uses conversational, emotional language that connects with customers on a human level. Hastings talks to the customers like they are people he knows, not like they are just people that he makes money from. His words make it clear that he really cares about them as people. He makes them care about him, too, by showing that the Netflix changes hurt him just like they hurt the customers. Appealing to customers’ feelings makes this memo effective in making sure people feel positively toward Netflix after this crisis. Sample Response #3 (bad – topic drift) Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ memo is effective in appeasing upset customers because the memo uses conversational, emotional language that connects with customers on a human level. For example, Hastings explains that he “love[s]” both the DVD and streaming services for different reasons; that, for him, “the Netflix red envelope has always been a source of joy;” and that he knows the new Qwikster logo will grow on him over time but that “it is hard.” A mass memo can seem like a cold document, but the fact that this memo is long enough to address all the issues that customers are worried about in a detailed and heartfelt way makes customers feel cared for. In addition to relating to customers emotionally, Hastings’ memo appeases customers’ primary financial concern by assuring current customers that, for them, the switch in business model will not involve a price increase. The many references Hastings makes to the future also make them feel reassured, because they understand that the business will actually offer them greater benefits in the end. Sample Response #4 (good) Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ memo is effective in appeasing upset customers because the memo uses conversational, emotional language that connects with customers on a human level. For example, Hastings explains that he “love[s]” both the DVD and streaming services for different reasons; that, for him, “the Netflix red envelope has always been a source of joy;” and that he knows the new Qwikster logo will grow on him over time but that “it is hard.” By using words like “love” and “joy” and by making clear that the Netflix CEO, like his customers, uses and enjoys Netflix’s present services and experiences feelings of sadness during the transition to a new business model, Hastings relates to customers on a person-to-person level. He shows that he feels the same as his customers while allowing those customers insight into—and ultimately, empathy for—how he must feel as CEO. With its appeal to customers’ feelings, Hastings’ memo is effective in repairing Netflix’s reputation with its customers. Netflix Sample Prompt: Review Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’s 2011 memo to Netflix customers upset by Netflix’s change in services, and argue — in one concise, direct, assertive paragraph — your response to the following question: Was Hastings’ communication EITHER effective OR ineffective in appeasing his audience, and why? To support your argument, use specific details from the provided text and your own logic and knowledge. Sample Response #1 Nexflix CEO Reed Hastings memo is ineffective in appeasing upset customers because he spends the early part of the memo justifying and explaining his own experience, while failing to address customers’ primary concern about cost until much later in the document. For example, Hastings states toward the beginning of his memo that he “should have” preemptively explained to customers why Netflix is splitting its services and increasing prices. He explains that “it wouldn’t have changed the price increase, but it would have been the right thing to do.” Hastings ruminates on his own feelings about Netflix’s changed service, discussing his love of Netflix’s streaming service and justifying his rationale for separating that service from the DVD by mail one. His own experiences, both as a Netflix viewer and as company CEO, inform the bulk of the memo, making it seem out of touch with consumer concerns. Had Hastings based his communication with consumers around their collective concerns rather than around his unique experiences, he would have appeared more relatable and less self-righteous. Although Hastings does rescind Netflix’s price increase for current customers later in the document, his memo is ineffective in appeasing his audience because it is likely that many would have stopped reading by then due to the self-centered and out-of-touch rhetoric throughout the early part of the memo. Sample Response #2 Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ memo is effective in appeasing upset customers because the memo uses conversational, emotional language that connects with customers on a human level. Hastings talks to the customers like they are people he knows, not like they are just people that he makes money from. His words make it clear that he really cares about them as people. He makes them care about him, too, by showing that the Netflix changes hurt him just like they hurt the customers. Appealing to customers’ feelings makes this memo effective in making sure people feel positively toward Netflix after this crisis. Sample Response #3 Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ memo is effective in appeasing upset customers because the memo uses conversational, emotional language that connects with customers on a human level. For example, Hastings explains that he “love[s]” both the DVD and streaming services for different reasons; that, for him, “the Netflix red envelope has always been a source of joy;” and that he knows the new Qwikster logo will grow on him over time but that “it is hard.” A mass memo can seem like a cold document, but the fact that this memo is long enough to address all the issues that customers are worried about in a detailed and heartfelt way makes customers feel cared for. In addition to relating to customers emotionally, Hastings’ memo appeases customers’ primary financial concern by assuring current customers that, for them, the switch in business model will not involve a price increase. The many references Hastings makes to the future also make them feel reassured, because they understand that the business will actually offer them greater benefits in the end. Sample Response #4 Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ memo is effective in appeasing upset customers because the memo uses conversational, emotional language that connects with customers on a human level. For example, Hastings explains that he “love[s]” both the DVD and streaming services for different reasons; that, for him, “the Netflix red envelope has always been a source of joy;” and that he knows the new Qwikster logo will grow on him over time but that “it is hard.” By using words like “love” and “joy” and by making clear that the Netflix CEO, like his customers, uses and enjoys Netflix’s present services and experiences feelings of sadness during the transition to a new business model, Hastings relates to customers on a person-to-person level. He shows that he feels the same as his customers while allowing those customers insight into—and ultimately, empathy for—how he must feel as CEO. With its appeal to customers’ feelings, Hastings’ memo is effective in repairing Netflix’s reputation with its customers. Dear ___, I messed up. I owe you an explanation. It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming and the price changes. That was certainly not our intent, and I offer my sincere apology. Let me explain what we are doing. For the past five years, my greatest fear at Netflix has been that we wouldn't make the leap from success in DVDs to success in streaming. Most companies that are great at something – like AOL dialup or Borders bookstores – do not become great at new things people want (streaming for us). So we moved quickly into streaming, but I should have personally given you a full explanation of why we are splitting the services and thereby increasing prices. It wouldn’t have changed the price increase, but it would have been the right thing to do. So here is what we are doing and why. Many members love our DVD service, as I do, because nearly every movie ever made is published on DVD. DVD is a great option for those who want the huge and comprehensive selection of movies. I also love our streaming service because it is integrated into my TV, and I can watch anytime I want. The benefits of our streaming service are really quite different from the benefits of DVD by mail. We need to focus on rapid improvement as streaming technology and the market evolves, without maintaining compatibility with our DVD by mail service. So we realized that streaming and DVD by mail are really becoming two different businesses, with very different cost structures, that need to be marketed differently, and we need to let each grow and operate independently. It’s hard to write this after over 10 years of mailing DVDs with pride, but we think it is necessary: In a few weeks, we will rename our DVD by mail service to “Qwikster”. We chose the name Qwikster because it refers to quick delivery. We will keep the name “Netflix” for streaming. Qwikster will be the same website and DVD service that everyone is used to. It is just a new name, and DVD members will go to qwikster.com to access their DVD queues and choose movies. One improvement we will make at launch is to add a video games upgrade option, similar to our upgrade option for Blu-ray, for those who want to rent Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 games. Members have been asking for video games for many years, but now that DVD by mail has its own team, we are finally getting it done. Other improvements will follow. A negative of the renaming and separation is that the Qwikster.com and Netflix.com websites will not be integrated. There are no pricing changes (we’re done with that!). If you subscribe to both services you will have two entries on your credit card statement, one for Qwikster and one for Netflix. The total will be the same as your current charges. We will let you know in a few weeks when the Qwikster.com website is up and ready. For me the Netflix red envelope has always been a source of joy. The new envelope is still that lovely red, but now it will have a Qwikster logo. I know that logo will grow on me over time, but still, it is hard. I imagine it will be similar for many of you. I want to acknowledge and thank you for sticking with us, and to apologize again to those members, both current and former, who felt we treated them thoughtlessly. Both the Qwikster and Netflix teams will work hard to regain your trust. We know it will not be overnight. Actions speak louder than words. But words help people to understand actions. Respectfully yours, -Reed Hastings, Co-Founder and CEO, Netflix p.s. I have a slightly longer explanation along with a video posted on our blog, where you can also post comments. BA 2196/2996 Mid-term Examination Grading Rubric – 50 Points Levels of Achievement Proficient Criteria Limited/Developing Topic Sentence (10 points) 0 to 6 points Either does not include a topic sentence or includes a topic sentence (first of each paragraph) that is weak. Topic sentence is not clear, logical, and/or assertive. 7 to 8 points Includes a topic sentence (first of each paragraph) that responds to the question. Topic sentence is somewhat clear, logical, and assertive. 9 to 10 points Includes a clear, logical, assertive topic sentence (first of each paragraph) that directly responds to the question. Topic Drift (5 points) 0 to 3 points Paragraph includes large sections of content that have drifted from the original topic. 4 points Paragraph briefly drifts off topic. 5 points Paragraph focuses on only topic sentence claim – NO TOPIC DRIFT. Evidence (10 points) 0 to 6 points Lacks evidence that supports topic sentence claim without plagiarizing. Paragraph doesn’t include accurate details and specifics. 7 to 8 points Includes evidence that somewhat supports topic sentence claim without plagiarizing. Paragraph may lack details and specifics. 9 to 10 points Adequate, accurate and specific evidence that strongly supports topic sentence claim without plagiarizing. Analysis (10 points) 0 to 6 points Little to no analysis included or analysis is redundant. Weak analysis that does not demonstrate an understanding of the source material and/or does not flow logically from the evidence. 7 to 8 points Analysis that flows logically from the chosen evidence and demonstrates an understanding of the source material. Analysis may be somewhat redundant. 9 to 10 points Thorough analysis that flows logically, without redundancy, from the chosen evidence and demonstrates an excellent understanding of the source material. Balance of Evidence & Analysis (5 points) 0 to 3 points No balance of relevant evidence and student analysis to support the topic sentence claim. 4 points Somewhat of a balance of relevant evidence and student analysis to support the topic sentence claim. 5 points Balance of relevant evidence and student analysis to support the topic sentence claim. 0 to 3 points Does not adhere to grammatical, spelling or punctuation rules. Contains many errors. 4 points Adheres to some grammatical, spelling or punctuation rules. Contains some errors. 5 points Demonstrates sophisticated awareness and use of grammar and written mechanics. Free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. 0 to 3 points Uses language that is wordy and does not include precise details. Writing is not clear and/or understandable. 4 points Uses language that is somewhat concise and includes some precise details. Writing is somewhat clear and understandable. 5 points Uses language that is active and concise and includes precise details. Writing is clear and understandable. Grammar (5 points) Language (5 points) Exemplary
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

The market needs to justify the unethical services provided by essay mills as they compromise the assessment process at higher education institutions. In all of its forms, academic misconduct represents a threat to the integrity of students involved and to the institutions in which it takes place. Perhaps the most prominent in the literature provided is the emerged underground economy...


Anonymous
Very useful material for studying!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags