A Well Written Article.

Seminar 2 Homework.

Article: The Case Against Awards; Why the Wrong Person Always Wins

By Jonathan Chait

- My Response

The writer’s choice of title seems extremely apt, straight to the point and creates interest in the article. Using the highly publicised event of Kanye West’s interruption of Taylor Swift’s receipt of a MTV Video Award, he relates it to Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. These two examples instantly give credence to the title and highlights the key point he is trying to make. He soon draws on several examples, not least of those from personal experience. Finally, he returns to the Nobel Peace Prize, with which he had started the article with, to reiterate his message that one should not place too much emotional investment in awards.

I found his personal experience on his teacher’s NASA selection intriguing. As he rightfully pointed out, the people at NASA were rocket scientists (lol).. therefore should and would have had concrete reasons for the teacher’s selection, no? Taking nothing away from what I personally feel is an excellent article, I felt that there was a tad too much generalization on how awards are merely a measure of tastes and preference. He could have possibly shown some rare cases of some award “successes”. Though one must note that if his argument is to be believed, then even those “successes” would have their own detractors. Another point deserving of reflection would be the emotional investment in the outcomes of awards. Here, the author is saying that even as some of the awards can be ridiculed, that the people most critical were also those that allowed themselves to be emotionally attached. Simply put, we should not take these awards too seriously.

Key words. Wrong Person always wins. Imbroglio. Subjectivity. Emotional Investment.

I felt that the author was very successful, if not because of the abundance of examples he provided, then perhaps because the article probably appeals to the masses, when you consider that statistically, more people do not win awards than do.  Again, potential gaps lay in anticipating comments on what some critics may deem as examples to the contrary.

I felt that the takeaway point of the article was that the criteria for prizes is not always judged on meritocratic terms. The writer cites personal preference as of having a higher determining factor. I also found the content about emotional investment in awards and their effects rather interesting