Category: Education in the AI Age

  • What If the Cranky Old Man on the Lawn Has a Point?

    What If the Cranky Old Man on the Lawn Has a Point?

    I’ve kept in touch with one of my former colleagues who retired from the college where she taught French for thirty years. She is close to eighty now. She told me she was already starting to feel a lack of engagement in her classroom at the end of her teaching days in 2016. Even though phones had to be turned to silent and be stowed away during class, she felt that the kids were just waiting until class was over to get back to their phones and social media. Their brains had changed, their attention spans had been truncated, and they needed to be constantly entertained.

    “Edutainment” was already influencing the way we teach, but the situation grew worse. Now, the addiction to screens has sucked the students into a black hole. Without their phones, they are detached, disengaged, and sullen. 

    It is a cliche that old people are annoying as hell because they are prone to reminisce about a golden age while lecturing the modern world for its recently acquired pathologies. They wax nostalgic for some mythical past that was full of grotesque prejudices, ignorance, and chicanery. To be a scold telling the world that you came from a better place is to be a pompous ass and a bore. I will concede all of that. But objectively speaking as someone who has taught over five decades, I can say there was a Before Times when life in the analog world wasn’t in competition with the digital world. Objectively speaking, something gets lost when we vacillate between the analog and the digital worlds. Public intellectuals such as Sam Harris and Jaron Lanier have made it clear that the digital landscape has become about commerce, addiction, loss of privacy, surveillance, fragmentation, and outrage. In other words, the Internet has had dehumanizing effects on us. 

    Parents who saw their children lying in bed scrolling over TikTok videos during the pandemic can tell you their children have been damaged, and that nothing makes them happier than to see their children hanging out with other kids–without their phones–and hanging out at the park, playing sports, taking walks at the beach, and finding respite from their screen existence. Parents wept with relief. 

    I enjoyed my youth without screens and curating my life on social media. Every summer between 1975 and 1979 when I was a high school teen, my family and ten other families and friends made the sojourn to Pt. Reyes Beach where the Johnson’s Oyster farm provided us with what seemed like bottomless truck beds of oysters. From noon to sunset, hundreds of us ate an infinite amount of barbecued oysters served with garlic butter and Tabasco sauce, thousands of loaves of garlic bread, and colossal slices of moist chocolate cake. Ignoring warnings of nearby great white shark sightings, we’d punctuate our feasting with forays into the waves before emerging from the ocean. Our muscular pecs shiny with rivulets of salt water, we returned to the picnic tables and had another serving of barbecued oysters. In the summer of 78, I opted to have my parents drive home without me. I got a ride home in the back of a truck with a bunch of random people I had met that day. Full from a day of feasting and feeling like King Neptune, we stared into the stars with our glazed lizard eyes and entertained each other with crazy stories. We had a healthy disregard for chronicling our experiences on social media, for monitoring the enormous food we consumed, and for time itself. Those were happy days indeed and pointed to an era gone and lost forever. 

    I would not have had that memory had I lived such a life with a smartphone. My memories would have been filtered through a prism of digital curation and a rewired brain that needs to filter my experience in such a way. We don’t grasp the depth of our brain’s rewiring because, like fish, we don’t know we are wet when all we know is the ocean around us. We have been rewired for this new oceanic environment.

    The screen has rewired the brains of young people. They don’t read. Many college instructors don’t assign books, or if they do, the books are on the short side. In the place of books, instructors assign short essays. When it comes to writing assignments, some high schools and colleges don’t assign essays anymore. They have the students hand-write paragraphs in class. 

    Of course, as you get older, you don’t want to be a bore and lecture the world on the way things were during Before Times. At the same time, if you taught in the 1980s to the 2020s and have seen the way technology has affected the human brain, self-esteem, addiction, reading comprehension, and critical thinking skills, you may have a lot to offer by contrasting the Screen Brain with the Pre-Screen Brain. You can can write academic books about this subject full of graphs and statistics, or you can give anecdotal narrative accounts, or some combination of the two, but it would be absurd to keep your mouth shut because you feared being reduced to the grumpy old person on the lawn arms akimbo screaming that the world is going to hell. Better to risk sounding like a crank than to watch silently as an entire generation scroll itself into oblivion.

  • Paul Bunyan Meets the Chainsaw in Freshman Comp

    Paul Bunyan Meets the Chainsaw in Freshman Comp

    During the Fall Semester of 2024, the English Department had one of those “brown bag” sessions—an optional gathering where instructors actually show up because the topic is like a flashing red light on the education highway. This particular crisis-in-the-making? AI. Would writing tools that millions were embracing at exponential speed render our job obsolete? The room was packed with nervous, coffee-chugging professors, myself included, all bracing for a Pandora’s box of AI-fueled dilemmas. They tossed scenario after scenario at us, and the existential angst was palpable.

    First up: What do you do when a foreign language student submits an essay written in their native tongue, then let’s play translator? Is it cheating? Does the term “English Department” even make sense anymore when our Los Angeles campus sounds like a United Nations general assembly? Are we teaching “English,” or are we, more accurately, teaching “the writing process” to people of many languages with AI now tagging along as a co-author?

    Next came the AI Tsunami, a term we all seemed to embrace with a mix of dread and resignation. What do we do when we’ve reached the point that 90% of the essays we receive are peppered with AI speak so robotic it sounds like Siri decided to write a term paper? We were all skeptical about AI detectors—about as reliable as a fortune teller reading tea leaves. I shared my go-to strategy: Instead of accusing a student of cheating (because who has time for that drama?), I simply leave a comment, dripping with professional distaste: “Your essay reeks of AI-generated pablum. I’m giving it a D because I cannot, in good conscience, grade this higher. If you’d like to rewrite it with actual human effort, be my guest.” The room nodded in approval.

    But here’s the thing: The real existential crisis hit when we realized that the hardworking, honest students are busting their butts for B’s, while the tech-savvy slackers are gaming the system, walking away with A’s by running their bland prose through the AI carwash. The room buzzed with a strange mixture of outrage and surrender—because let’s be honest, at least the grammar and spelling errors are nearly extinct.

    Our dean, ever the Zen master in a room full of jittery academics, calmly suggested that maybe—just maybe—we should incorporate personal reflection into our assignments. His idea? By having students spill a bit of their authentic thoughts onto the page, we could then compare those raw musings to their more polished, suspect, possibly ChatGPT-assisted essays. A clever idea. It’s harder to fake authenticity than to parrot a thesis on The Great Gatsby.

    I nodded thoughtfully, though with a rising sense of dread. How exactly was I supposed to integrate “personal reflections” into a syllabus built around the holy trinity of argumentation, counterarguments, and research? I teach composition and critical thinking, not a creative writing seminar for tortured souls. My job isn’t to sift through essays about existential crises or romantic disasters disguised as epiphanies. It’s to teach students how to build a coherent argument and take down a counterpoint without resorting to tired platitudes. Reflection has its place—but preferably somewhere far from my grading pile.

    Still, I had to admit the dean was on to something. If I didn’t get ahead of this, I’d end up buried under an avalanche of soul-searching essays that somehow all lead to a revelation about “balance in life.” I needed time to mull this over, to figure out how personal writing could serve my course objectives without turning it into group therapy on paper.

    But before I could even start strategizing, the Brown Bag session was over. I gathered my notes, bracing myself for the inevitable flood of “personal growth narratives” waiting for me next semester. 

    As I walked out of that meeting, I had a new writing prompt simmering in my head for my students: “Write an argumentative essay exploring how AI platforms like ChatGPT will reshape education. Project how these technologies might be used in the future and consider the ethical lines that AI use blurs. Should we embrace AI as a tool, or do we need hard rules to curb its misuse? Address academic integrity, critical thinking, and whether AI widens or narrows the education gap.”

    When I got home later that day, in a fit of efficiency, I stuffed my car with a mountain of e-waste—ancient laptops, decrepit tablets, and cell phones that could double as paperweights—and headed to the City of Torrance E-Waste Drive. The line of cars stretched for what seemed like miles, all of us dutifully purging our electronic skeletons to make room for the latest AI-compatible toys. As I waited, I tuned into a podcast with Mark Cuban chatting with Bill Maher, and Cuban was adamant: AI will never be regulated because it’s America’s golden goose for global dominance. And there I was, sitting in a snaking line of vehicles, all of us unwitting soldiers in the tech wars, dumping our outdated gadgets like a 21st-century arms race.

    As I edged closer to the dumpster, I imagined ripping open my shirt to reveal a Captain America emblem beneath, fully embracing the ridiculousness of it all. This wasn’t just teaching anymore—it was a revolution. And if I was going to lead it, I’d need to be like Moses descending from Mt. Sinai, armed with the Tablets of AI Laws. Without these laws, I’d be as helpless as a fish flopping on a dry riverbank. To face the coming storm unprepared wasn’t just unwise; it was professional malpractice. My survival depended on it.

    I thought I had outsmarted AI, like some literary Rambo armed with signal phrases, textual analysis, and in-text citations as my guerrilla tactics. ChatGPT couldn’t handle that level of academic sophistication, right? Wrong. One month later, the machine rolled up offering full signal phrase service like some overachieving valet at the Essay Ritz. That defense crumbled faster than a house of cards in a wind tunnel.

    Okay, I thought, I’ll outmaneuver it with source currency. ChatGPT didn’t do recent articles—perfect! I’d make my students cite cutting-edge research. Surely, that would stump the AI. Nope. Faster than you can say “breaking news,” ChatGPT was pulling up the latest articles like a know-it-all librarian with Wi-Fi in their brain.

    Every time I tried to pin it down, the AI just flexed and swelled, like some mutant Hulk fed on electricity and hubris. I was the noble natural bodybuilder, forged by sweat, discipline, and oceans of egg whites. ChatGPT? It was the juiced-up monster, marinated in digital steroids and algorithmic growth hormones. I’d strain to add ten pounds to my academic bench press; ChatGPT would casually slap on 500 and knock out reps while checking its reflection. I was a relic frozen on the dais, oil-slicked and flexing, while the AI steamrolled past me in the race for writing dominance.

    That’s when the obvious landed like a kettlebell on my chest: I wasn’t going to beat ChatGPT. It wasn’t a bug to patch or a fad to outlast—it was an evolutionary leap, a quantum steroid shot to the act of writing itself. So I stopped swinging at it. Instead, I strapped a saddle on the beast and started steering, learning to use its brute force as my tool instead of my rival.

    It reminded me of a childhood cartoon about Paul Bunyan, the original muscle god with an axe the size of a telephone pole. Then came the chainsaw. There was a contest: man versus machine. Paul roared and hacked, but the chainsaw shredded the forest into submission. The crowd went home knowing the age of the axe was dead. Likewise, the sprawling forest of language has a new lumberjack—and I look pathetic trying to keep up, like a guy standing on Hawthorne Boulevard with a toothbrush, vowing to scrub clean every city block from Lawndale to Palos Verdes.

  • David Letterman Killed Disco, But Can He Save My Class?

    David Letterman Killed Disco, But Can He Save My Class?

    In one fell swoop, David Letterman killed disco. Not just the music, but the entire polyester empire of rhinestone smarm and sweat-drenched earnestness. Letterman wasn’t seduced by mirror balls. He walked on stage with his arctic deadpan, and with irony as his weapon, executed disco in front of a live studio audience.

    I was just starting college then—a lifelong bodybuilder and Olympic weightlifter who could hoist a barbell but couldn’t hoist a personality. Muscles, yes. Presence, no.

    I didn’t just want to be David Letterman. I wanted to graft his sardonic detachment onto the icy brilliance of Vladimir Nabokov—a cocktail of late-night sarcasm and literary menace. I didn’t know what I wanted to be, exactly, only that it had to involve confidence, storytelling, performance—something that allowed me to “give a presentation.”

    By accident, I stumbled into teaching. In 1987, the chancellor of Humanities at Merritt College launched a pilot program to deliver classes at Skyline High School in Oakland, and none of the full-time faculty wanted the job. My neighbor, Felix Elizalde, whose kids went to school with me, threw me a lifeline. One gig snowballed into another, and soon I was a full-time college writing instructor.

    That was thirty-eight years ago. For most of them, I would have told you the hardest part of the job was grading essays—an endless swamp of half-baked theses and misplaced commas. But now, in 2025, grading essays is only the second hardest task. The first? Something educators and administrators alike love to call “student engagement.”

    I don’t know if it’s the black hole of smartphones or the simple math of age—I’m nearly forty-five years older than my students. Probably both. Either way, I can no longer stand in front of a classroom, channel my inner Letterman, and spin stories until the room vibrates with attention. Instead, I stand beside a giant screen plastered with Google Slides. My students are “visual learners,” raised on swipes and emojis.

    I could go back to the Letterman Method, earn some laughs, maybe even spike engagement for a few minutes. But at what cost? The Google Slides aren’t as funny as my comedy routine, but they do hit the sacred “core concepts” and “Student Learning Outcomes.”

    I’ve become a ghost haunting the pedagogy manuals. Occasionally I slip, crack a joke, earn some chuckles, channel my younger self—but then I reel myself back in, because the templates for counterarguments and rebuttals won’t teach themselves.

    The students aren’t fooled. A few of the candid ones smirk: “Don’t worry, McMahon, ChatGPT will do it for us.”

    And so, as I enter my mid-sixties, I keep trying to stay aligned with the modern world. Yet every step forward feels like five steps backward, as if I’m not teaching writing anymore but rehearsing my own obsolescence.

  • Boomer Samsung in a Gen Z OLED World

    Boomer Samsung in a Gen Z OLED World

    Two months shy of sixty-four in August of 2025, I found myself on the 405 heading north, fantasizing about writing a book on life’s last trimester. My wife (still spry at fifty), one twin daughter, and I were crawling toward Studio City for cousin Pete’s seventy-fifth birthday. Around Westwood, the freeway collapsed into one lane of misery thanks to a construction project that looked like it was engineered by Dante himself. A trip that should have been forty-five minutes mutated into a two-hour festival of fumes and despair. Traffic isn’t just exhausting—it’s the nihilist’s victory parade, proof that “progress” and “civilization” are marketing scams.

    By the time we arrived, Pete’s lush estate felt less like Studio City and more like Sherwood Forest with valet parking. He asked how I was doing. I told him I needed a “405 Traffic Therapist” to exorcise the demons of my commute. Was there a triage tent with a cot so I could convalesce for a couple of hours and then join the party refreshed?

    The party teemed with cousins and their friends, ninety percent of them over seventy, including the Beatles-and-Stones cover band. I admired them: financially secure but not pompous, health-conscious without being kale cultists, capable of joy in ways I’ve never mastered. When twilight came—salmon sky, ninety degrees—they stripped down and leapt into the pool like aging dolphins, while I swatted mosquitoes and sulked in long pants.

    Later, in the spacious backyard beneath the canopies, I sat with a plate of hummus, feta, figs, and baba ghanoush and talked with Jim, my cousin Diane’s husband—a seventy-eight-year-old retired ophthalmologist.

    He complimented my kettlebell regimen, and I confessed the truth: early bedtimes, bladder-draining night patrols, and terror of driving after dark. He leaned in, lowered his voice, and delivered the line that should be etched on my tombstone: “The hardest part of aging is becoming invisible. You still take up space, but people’s eyes skip over you, as if you’re furniture.” 

    I countered that invisibility was merciful compared to the greater horror: we are annoying relics in a world sprinting at 5G speed. Father Time has us hardwired for lag. You can swallow kale and swing iron all you want, but in the end, you’re a Samsung with a dying processor.

    I bit into a fig, dribbled juice onto my shirt, and told Jim about my actual Samsung QLED. Four years old, picture fine, processor a fossil—menus freeze, apps load slower than a Pentium II. Samsung skimped on the chip. My fix? Upgrade to an LG OLED with a 4K AI processor that doesn’t choke when I click Netflix. The irony was obvious: I scorn Samsung for its lag while lumbering through life as a laggy processor myself. My thirty-something colleagues update effortlessly; I freeze, buffer, and curse the interface. I’m a Boomer Samsung in a Gen Z OLED world.

    Jim tried to comfort me—“You’re still funny, the students must love you”—but I waved him off. Nature documentaries have already written my script: Scar the lion rules until the young challenger rips him down, and then Scar limps off, invisible, licking his wounds. You don’t fight the arc; you nod, maybe crack a joke, then spend five grand on an OLED so you can pretend you still belong in the modern ecosystem. I looked down at the feta crumbs on my lap and muttered, “Did they forget napkins?” Meanwhile, dozens of voices rose from the pool in a raucous “Hey Jude” singalong under a moonlit salmon sky. It was a magical moment, and all I could think about was how I’d forgotten to spray myself with DEET.

  • My Lifelong Marriage to Convenience

    My Lifelong Marriage to Convenience

    There is much to admire about centering our lives on convenience. We save time and resources, avoid wasted effort, and maximize efficiency in the name of what is too often called “optimization.” A life built around convenience often becomes a quest for “life hacks.” But if our behavior is less inventive, we don’t call it a hack at all—just a preference.

    For example, I refuse to go to the gym. It’s inconvenient, time-consuming, costly, and exposes me to airborne illnesses. I prefer to work out in the garage. That’s not a life hack—it’s just easier. The same goes for meals: having a bowl of oatmeal with protein powder and soy milk instead of lunch or dinner isn’t clever or innovative. It’s simply what I do when my family is out and I’m eating alone. Spending more than five minutes on a meal under those circumstances feels unnecessary. Calling a bowl of steel-cut oats or buckwheat groats a “life hack” would be grandiose.

    During the pandemic, three-fourths of my classes moved online through Canvas, a Learning Management System (LMS). Hard copies disappeared. Graded documents were uploaded to the platform, which was remarkably efficient. I didn’t have to drive to campus. The college saved on electricity. That was five years ago, and my classes remain online. I now drive less than 3,000 miles a year. Online classes have made me very efficient. Once you taste efficiency, it’s nearly impossible to go back to inefficiency.

    I admit I’m a less than admirable parent. I don’t like driving my teen daughters to their social functions—birthday parties, football games, dance practices, amusement parks. I find it all inconvenient. That’s my choice. If I were truly devoted to convenience, I wouldn’t have become a parent at all. And certainly not a cat owner. Kitty litter, flea control, vet visits, and travel arrangements are an affront to any serious commitment to convenience.

    As desirable as convenience is, some personalities—mine included—turn it into a pathology. We center our lives around it, and any violation of our convenience policies breeds resentment. Many of these resentments are unreasonable. I resent old age and death, primarily because they are inconvenient. Doctor appointments and funerals interfere with my routine.

    Convenience culture also makes us adore routine. I suspect routine is the groom to the bride of convenience.

    Even my worldview is infected by this impulse. I am an agnostic, which I despise, because it is inconvenient. Agnosticism demands reading and constant reflection. I’ve consumed books by agnostics, atheists, universalists, infernalists, and the post-mortem-salvation curious. While Elizabeth Anderson’s critique of scripture has many compelling points, her notion of morality as nothing more than evolution feels inadequate. Paul’s vision of humanity as fallen and divided is more persuasive and mirrors my own psychology. I wish I could settle happily into Anderson’s worldview. It would be so convenient.

    Speaking of religion, Jesus preached a gospel of inconvenience. His willingness to sacrifice his life in such a manner stands as the very opposite of convenience. For devotees of the gospel of ease, following Jesus is nearly unthinkable—a path that demands nothing less than a Damascus-level upheaval like Paul’s.

    When I think of convenience, I’m reminded of Chris Grossman, a wine salesman I worked with in the 1980s. He was brilliant and affable but had no close relationships. He admitted he didn’t care much for life. He had tried having a girlfriend once and said it was awful—not because of her, but because it was too inconvenient. By his late thirties, he was a bachelor. He ate the same foods every day for simplicity’s sake and once a year drove his Triumph to a car show in Carmel. I loved him for it, because I knew we were both soulmates in convenience culture.

    Some of us are more diseased by this devotion to convenience than others, and it often lowers our standards. I am appalled by factory farming and would like to be vegan. Perhaps if I lived alone, I could do it. But in a family of omnivores, that move would not go over well. I could prepare plant-based meals for myself, but I don’t—partly because of the inconvenience. Vegans I’ve spoken to say the hardest part isn’t the food but the social ostracism.

    I’m already the black sheep in my family—the anti-social shut-in whose quirks are laughed at on good days and resented on bad ones. If I imposed a vegan diet, I fear it would alienate me further, and I’d have to grovel my way back into some semblance of connection.

    As a lifelong neurotic who already alienates people more than I’d like, I know that repairing frayed relationships is an excruciating, arduous task. And it’s so inconvenient.

  • Rage-Bait Justice: How TV and Conspiracy Manufacture Vigilantes (A College Essay Prompt)

    Rage-Bait Justice: How TV and Conspiracy Manufacture Vigilantes (A College Essay Prompt)

    David Osit’s 2025 documentary Predators argues that the television series To Catch a Predator (2004–2007) trafficked in a sensational form of “rage bait”: staged ambushes, blurred safety protocols, and police tactics sacrificed to the show’s appetite for ratings. The program framed itself as public service, but its producers often prioritized spectacle over procedure, converting criminal justice into prime-time theater. Osit links this practice to a broader media phenomenon—rage bait—that rewards outrage, erodes critical thinking, and normalizes vigilantism and voyeurism. The same dynamics, we could argue, animate conspiracy entrepreneurs such as Alex Jones (see The Truth vs. Alex Jones): both convert moral panic into entertainment and profit, with corrosive effects on civic life.

    In a 1,700-word argumentative essay, evaluate the claim that treating criminality and conspiracy as spectacle—whether through To Catch a Predator or Alex Jones’s media operations—cultivates our worst impulses rather than our better angels. Using specific examples from both Predators and The Truth vs. Alex Jones and other reliable sources, analyze the ethical and civic consequences of rage bait in an attention economy


    Three sample thesis statements (with mapping components)

    Thesis 1 — Ethical-civic critique (best for moral analysis)
    Thesis: By converting crime and conspiracy into spectacle, both To Catch a Predator and Alex Jones manufacture moral panic and reward voyeuristic retribution; rather than fostering accountability, they degrade due process, incentivize unsafe policing practices, and train audiences to prefer outrage over inquiry.
    Map: (1) define “rage bait” and show how each case uses spectacle; (2) document procedural and ethical harms (policing compromises, doxxing, false beliefs); (3) analyze effects on civic habits (decline of deliberation, rise of vigilantism); (4) propose remedies (media ethics standards, platform governance, public media literacy).

    Thesis 2 — Psychological-manipulation frame (best for evidence-driven argument)
    Thesis: Rage-bait media—exemplified by To Catch a Predator and Alex Jones—exploits cognitive biases (moral outrage, availability heuristic, social proof) to increase engagement, and that manipulation converts viewers into amateur prosecutors and conspiracy enforcers, producing measurable social harms like harassment, miscarriages of public trust, and political polarization.
    Map: (1) summarize psychological mechanisms; (2) show how production choices trigger those biases in the two cases; (3) cite empirical consequences (harassment, wrongful accusations, erosion of trust); (4) recommend policy and audience-level interventions.

    Thesis 3 — Comparative-intent frame (best for nuanced balance)
    Thesis: While To Catch a Predator and Alex Jones both monetize outrage, they differ in intentionality and practical outcomes—one trafficked in staged public shaming with ambiguous law-enforcement complicity; the other peddles wholesale distrust—yet both converge in the same social result: normalizing spectacle as a substitute for justice and public reasoning.
    Map: (1) compare production intent and methods; (2) detail convergent harms despite different aims; (3) argue why intent does not absolve societal damage; (4) close with corrective measures that address both content creation and platform incentives.


    Three likely counterarguments and tight rebuttals

    Counterargument 1 — “They serve the public good: exposing predators / exposing lies.”
    Claim: Defenders argue To Catch a Predator and figures like Jones uncover dangerous people and warn the public—both perform watchdog functions that mainstream institutions neglect.
    Rebuttal: Exposure can be legitimate, but methods matter. When producers stage confrontations or flout safety protocols, they risk false positives, entrapment claims, and endangering both suspects and vigilante viewers. Similarly, Jones’s “exposés” often rely on unverified claims that harm innocents and erode trust in verified institutions; exposing wrongdoing while abandoning standards of verification is not accountability but sensationalism. Evidence-based journalism follows verification and respects due process; rage-bait substitutes spectacle for those constraints.

    Counterargument 2 — “Audience agency: viewers choose to watch—blame the audience for wanting spectacle.”
    Claim: Some say demand creates supply: if people didn’t tune in to outrage, producers wouldn’t supply it. Viewers are responsible for their choices.
    Rebuttal: Demand is shaped by supply. Media design and platform algorithms amplify outrage, reinforce confirmation bias, and make the extreme more visible. Moreover, many viewers do not have the media-literacy tools to parse staged setups or conspiratorial rhetoric. Responsibility therefore rests both with producers and with platforms that monetize attention; blaming passive viewers ignores the structural incentives that manufacture and magnify the spectacle.

    Counterargument 3 — “Different aims—public safety vs. entertainment—so comparison is unfair.”
    Claim: Critics argue the comparison collapses distinct categories: a sting operation aimed at child safety is not morally equivalent to a conspiracy show that pushes falsehoods.
    Rebuttal: Distinguishing aims matters, but consequences and methods matter more for public judgment. When public-safety rhetoric is deployed to justify theatrics—compromising police protocols for ratings—the boundary between service and spectacle disappears. Both enterprises monetize outrage, and both can cultivate a culture of punishment without procedure. Comparing them is not moral leveling so much as showing how different rationales can converge on the same harmful social model.

  • The Aesthetic Pharmaceutical Complex (a College Essay Prompt)

    The Aesthetic Pharmaceutical Complex (a College Essay Prompt)

    Write a 1,700-word argumentative essay that evaluates this claim: GLP-1 weight-loss drugs (e.g., Ozempic/Wegovy) offer a Faustian bargain–they blunt appetite and deliver rapid results, but at significant cultural, moral, and social costs. Examine whether these drugs simply cure an individual problem or whether they reshape appetite, pleasure, gender and marital dynamics, class inequality, body aesthetics, and personal agency in ways that should alarm us.

    Use Rebecca Johns (“A Diet Writer’s Regrets”), Johann Hari (“A Year on Ozempic…”), Harriet Brown (“The Weight of the Evidence”), Sandra Aamodt (“Why You Can’t Lose Weight on a Diet”), and at least two additional reputable sources of your choice. Address both sides: acknowledge the medical benefits (for diabetes, metabolic disease, disability reduction) while testing the claim that GLP-1s amount to a societal deal with the devil — trading desire, culinary culture, and autonomy for narrow aesthetic and market outcomes.

    Be sure to define terms (e.g., “Faustian bargain,” “GLP-1 drugs,” “body aesthetics”), offer evidence, and include a clear counterargument and rebuttal.


    Five Sample Thesis Statements (with mapping components)

    1. Thesis 1
      GLP-1 drugs are a Faustian bargain: they deliver rapid weight loss and metabolic benefit, but they also erode culinary pleasure, exacerbate social inequality, and replace disciplined habits with pharmaceutical dependence.
    • Mapping: (1) immediate medical and psychological benefits, (2) cultural costs to food and pleasure, (3) social/economic consequences and dependence.
    1. Thesis 2
      While GLP-1 medications can rescue lives in a clinical sense, their mainstreaming industrializes thinness—privileging aesthetics over health, amplifying economic divides, and outsourcing self-control to corporations and prescribers.
    • Mapping: (1) clinical life-saving benefits, (2) commercialization of body aesthetics, (3) economic and ethical fallout.
    1. Thesis 3
      GLP-1 drugs pose an ethical dilemma: they promise to erase cravings and curb addiction, but in doing so they risk flattening human desire, unsettling intimate relationships, and converting a public-health problem into a luxury aesthetic market.
    • Mapping: (1) pharmacological suppression of appetite, (2) impact on relationships and social life, (3) marketization and inequality.
    1. Thesis 4
      The rise of GLP-1s reframes weight management from moral failing to medicalized consumerism—undeniable benefits for some masked by troubling costs: cultural loss, shifting marital dynamics, and a dangerous dependence on biotech fixes.
    • Mapping: (1) medical reframing of obesity, (2) cultural and interpersonal costs, (3) risks of technological dependence.
    1. Thesis 5
      GLP-1 drugs give individuals the power to silence hunger, but that power comes tethered to troubling social outcomes: it amplifies privilege, intensifies pressure for aesthetic conformity, and weakens the role of habit and self-discipline in healthy living.
    • Mapping: (1) appetite suppression and individual gains, (2) exacerbation of aesthetic and class pressure, (3) erosion of habit-based agency.

    Counterargument (fair, strong):
    Proponents of GLP-1 drugs argue that calling them a “Faustian bargain” ignores the very real medical and social benefits these medications deliver. For many patients—especially those with type 2 diabetes, obesity-related hypertension, or mobility-limiting weight—GLP-1s reduce blood sugar, lower cardiovascular risk, and unlock functional gains that years of dieting could not. Early reports also show improvements in mood, self-efficacy, and social participation: when chronic hunger is quieted, people can exercise more, sleep better, and engage with life instead of being consumed by food preoccupation. From this perspective, the drugs restore agency rather than remove it; they are tools that expand options for people trapped by biology, food environments, and limited access to behavioral medicine. To label them morally corrosive risks stigmatizing patients who finally find relief.

    Rebuttal:
    That claim deserves respect—but it doesn’t dissolve the deeper social harms that mainstreaming GLP-1s threatens to produce. Medicine can relieve individual suffering while simultaneously reshaping culture in ways that reward aesthetic conformity and widen inequality: when a pharmaceutical becomes the fastest route to thinness, weight status shifts further from a health metric to a marketable badge of status, attainable first by those with money, time, and prescriber access. The drugs also substitute biochemical fixes for social solutions—affordable nutritious food, safer neighborhoods for exercise, workplace protections—that address root causes of metabolic disease; this medicalization risks absolving policymakers and corporations of responsibility. Finally, the long-term psychosocial costs are real: appetite suppression can blunt pleasure and disrupt food’s role as social glue, and couples who diverge in access to these drugs face novel tensions over desirability, divided resources, and identity. In short, GLP-1s can be miracles for patients; they can also be catalysts for cultural and economic shifts that deserve critical scrutiny before we call the bargain a fair trade.

  • Florida Fever Dreams and Katrina Floodwaters: Future Writing Prompts I Can’t Quit

    Florida Fever Dreams and Katrina Floodwaters: Future Writing Prompts I Can’t Quit

    I work obsessively hard to develop essay prompts for my college students. When they prove effective and resonate with the students, I am gratified beyond words and will keep the prompt for perhaps too long. I have an assignment about a diet writer Rebecca Johns who in her essay “A Diet Writer’s Regrets” explores the irony and misery of gaining weight while dispensing weight-loss tips in her women’s magazine articles. Her inability to execute her own advice becomes an opportunity for my students to explore the notion of free will when it comes to weight management, especially now that GLP-1 drugs are proving that dependence on technology can be so much more reliable than aspirations toward self-agency. The students’ essays over the last four semesters have been truly engaging, revealing either their own weight-management torment or a friend or family member’s. 

    One problem, though, with an essay prompt is that as it gets used semester after semester some of the essay components, such as the counterargument-rebuttal section, start looking the same. I suspect the previously written essays become in some form or other available to the new batch of students, and for this reason, I think even the best essay prompts have a limited shelf life. 

    Another challenge with creating essay prompts is that you don’t really know how they will land with the students until you actually try it out. For example, I was very enthusiastic about my freshman composition class’s first assignment in which they write about the crisis of young men who lack a sense of belonging and purpose and how in their vulnerable state they become vulnerable to the deceptions, manipulations, and false claims of bro influencers. We studied the Liver King who is said to have made over a hundred million dollars and in his caveman cosplay, he was simply too ridiculous and grotesque for my students–all athletes–to take him seriously. He proved so absurd that whatever gravitas I was trying to squeeze out of the assignment just felt like a joke. While millions of men followed their organ-eating cult leader, my athletes were not impressed, and I felt that my essay prompt suffered for it. As a result, I doubt I’ll do that one again.

    Looking ahead, I’m thinking of Florida as less of a physical place and more of a mental fever swamp where I can explore the notion of freedom in its immature and mature incarnations. The TV comedy series It’s Florida, Man and the documentary Some Kind of Heaven about a hedonistic senior citizen home could be an effective exploration of the perils of perpetual adolescence. To avoid making the essay prompt nihilistic, I am leaning toward a contrast essay in which the students explore a more healthy kind of freedom as Cal Newport advocates in his message of “deep work”–the idea that focused work is essential to flourishing and self-fulfillment. 

    Another topic that possesses me is Hurricane Katrina, the idea that a natural disaster was made into a man-made catastrophe through neglect and reckless disregard for the people of New Orleans. This ignominious chapter in American history is a powerful window into red-lining, government corruption, and media misinformation. The riveting documentaries Hurricane Katrina: Race Against Time (Hulu) and Katrina: Come Hell and High Water (Netflix) convince me that I will be exploring Hurricane Katrina next semester. 

    My challenge with Katrina is making sure the story doesn’t collapse into pure tragedy. To balance the devastation, I need to highlight the unique culture of New Orleans—the joy, the tight-knit families, the music, food, and resilience that define the city. The message I want to leave students with is that, despite catastrophe, New Orleans has a distinctive soul that continues to draw the world to its city.

    I suspect even after I retire in less than two years I will still sniff out writing prompts. Coming up with essay prompts is my addiction, and this addiction isn’t going away anytime soon. 

  • Adolescent Vs. Adult Freedom: College Essay Prompt

    Adolescent Vs. Adult Freedom: College Essay Prompt

    Introduction

    I find myself embarrassingly smitten with It’s Florida, Man on HBO Max, a six-episode documentary romp that most critics dismiss with a shrug. The Hollywood Reporter’s Daniel Fienberg summed it up with clinical indifference: “The premise is very straightforward. Each half-hour recounts a real-life mishap of the kind that helped Florida develop its national reputation as a meme in state form . . .”

    Fienberg is right about the meme, but he undersells the spectacle. Florida isn’t just weird—it’s a hallucinatory soup pot where the heat never turns down. A bubbling Bouillabaisse of runaways, con artists, half-baked dreamers, and humidity-pickled misfits; the broth gets richer, stranger, and more intoxicating by the hour. Novelists like Carl Hiaasen dip their ladles in and remind us with glee: “You couldn’t write this if you tried.” Comedian Marc Maron, who has roamed the continental madhouse, concurs: there is no asylum wing quite as deranged as the Sunshine State.

    The final episode, “Mugshot,” is my favorite. A wanted man from Pensacola turns into a social-media celebrity after his mugshot detonates across Instagram. The local police, suddenly auditioning for daytime television, turn their manhunt into a Jerry Springer-style circus, complete with suspect-shaming and moral squalor masquerading as civic duty. You couldn’t script it unless you were drunk, desperate, and willing to risk being fired by HBO for turning in satire disguised as reportage.

    As a college writing instructor, I confess I watch shows like this with an ulterior motive: I’m always looking for essay prompts hidden in the wreckage. It’s Florida, Man practically delivers one to my desk, gift-wrapped in neon: “Freedom and its Discontents.” Not the noble kind of freedom—what philosophers used to call “freedom for”—where self-discipline leads to self-agency, flourishing, and mastery, the Cal Newport variety of cultivated freedom. No, Florida, Man wallows in the basement: “freedom from.” Freedom from the Id, from restraint, from consequence, from sobriety. It’s Pleasure Island on a peninsula, and the longer you stay the faster your ears sprout into donkey ears, your voice degenerates into animal brays, and your dreams curdle into swamp gas.

    It’s Florida, Man isn’t just entertainment. It’s anthropology of the grotesque, a front-row ticket to America’s most unruly carnival, where freedom is mistaken for license and the monsters are very much real.

    With the background and this assignment’s origin story out of the way, let’s get to the writing prompt.

    The Assignment

    In a 1,700-word essay, your task is to address the following claim:  Cal Newport’s notion of “deep work” is an argument for adult freedom, which results in self-agency, happiness, and flourishing while It’s Florida, Man is a rebuke of adolescent freedom, showing the personal disintegration that results from living in a tropical fever dream where the unbridled Id reigns supreme. 

    Important Concepts to Understand for Your Essay:

    Adult Freedom in the Context of Deep Work

    In Deep Work, Cal Newport frames adult freedom as the disciplined ability to direct one’s attention toward meaningful, cognitively demanding tasks. For Newport, freedom isn’t the absence of restraint but the mastery of it: the deliberate cultivation of focus, the rejection of digital noise, and the channeling of energy into work that produces lasting value. This definition of freedom requires self-command, delayed gratification, and an acceptance that the mind must sometimes be trained against its immediate impulses. Adult freedom, then, is paradoxical: by constraining distraction and choosing rigor, one becomes more autonomous, more capable of shaping a life of purpose rather than drifting along on cultural currents.

    This vision stands in stark contrast to adolescent freedom, which is defined less by self-mastery than by the intoxication of doing whatever one pleases. It is the “freedom from” rather than “freedom for”: a pursuit of unbounded indulgence, of perpetual novelty, of a life with no guardrails. Adolescent freedom mistakes rebellion and impulse for liberation, when in reality it often leads to dependence, mediocrity, or even self-destruction. Where Newport’s adult freedom grows out of discipline and results in greater agency, adolescent freedom resists boundaries altogether, mistaking chaos for autonomy and mistaking license for liberation.

    Adolescent Freedom in the Context of It’s Florida, Man

    The HBO series It’s Florida, Man is essentially a case study in adolescent freedom run amok. Each episode parades a cast of misfits whose choices reflect “freedom from” responsibility rather than “freedom for” growth or virtue. Characters pursue impulse, chaos, and notoriety as if these were badges of independence. In one episode, a fugitive becomes a minor celebrity when his mugshot goes viral, and the spectacle escalates into a carnival of bad decisions—police exploiting fame, communities laughing at ruin, and the fugitive himself reveling in his fifteen minutes. This is adolescent freedom in its rawest form: the unchecked Id let loose in the swamps, mistaking recklessness for liberation.

    Adult freedom, by contrast, would require self-command, reflection, and purposeful direction—the very qualities absent in the fever dream of It’s Florida, Man. Where adult freedom cultivates discipline to expand genuine autonomy, adolescent freedom collapses into spectacle, chaos, and eventual self-destruction. The show becomes a cautionary tale: when freedom is stripped of responsibility, it ceases to empower and instead devours, leaving its practitioners transformed into caricatures or, in Newport’s terms, “donkeys on Pleasure Island.” By staging these spectacles, HBO doesn’t just entertain—it inadvertently dramatizes the gulf between the hollow thrill of adolescent license and the deeper, harder-won autonomy of adult freedom.

    Required Sources for Your Essay

    To support your essay, you will use the following:

    1. At least 3 episodes from It’s Florida, Man.  
    2. Cal Newport’s YouTube video: “Core Idea: Deep Work”
    3. Escaping Ordinary (B.C. Marx) YouTube video: “How to Build a Brain That Doesn’t Get Distracted.”
    4. Huberman Lab Clips YouTube video: “Avoiding Distractions & Doing Deep Work.”

    Prescribed Outline for Your Essay

    Paragraphs 1 and 2: Profile people you know who embody adolescent and adult freedom with vivid details. Each paragraph should be about 300 words. 

    Paragraph 3, your thesis: Address the following claim:  Cal Newport’s notion of “deep work” is an argument for adult freedom, which results in self-agency, happiness, and flourishing while It’s Florida, Man is a rebuke of adolescent freedom, showing the personal disintegration that results from living in a tropical fever dream where the unbridled Id reigns supreme. 

    Paragraphs 4-6: Analyze adolescent freedom by breaking it down into 3 major characteristics with salient examples.

    Paragraphs 7-9: Analyze adult freedom by breaking it down into 3 major characteristics with salient examples. 

    Paragraph 10: Write a powerful conclusion that underscores that it is urgent to understand the difference between adolescent and adult freedom. 

    Sample Thesis Statements with Mapping Components

    1. Straightforward, Clear Thesis
    Cal Newport’s Deep Work defines adult freedom as the disciplined ability to channel one’s attention toward meaningful work, while It’s Florida, Man dramatizes the collapse of adolescent freedom into chaos. Adult freedom is marked by discipline, purpose, and flourishing, while adolescent freedom is characterized by impulsiveness, spectacle, and eventual self-destruction.

    Mapping components:

    1. Adolescent freedom, as shown in It’s Florida, Man, is impulsive and reckless.
    2. Adolescent freedom thrives on spectacle and fleeting notoriety.
    3. Adolescent freedom often ends in self-destruction rather than liberation.
    4. Adult freedom, as defined in Deep Work, begins with self-discipline.
    5. Adult freedom aims toward meaningful purpose rather than distraction.
    6. Adult freedom results in flourishing and autonomy.

    2. Analytical & Nuanced Thesis
    While adolescent freedom promises limitless possibilities, It’s Florida, Man shows it devolving into chaos and dehumanization. In contrast, Cal Newport’s Deep Work frames adult freedom as a paradox: by imposing constraints on distraction, individuals gain the autonomy to flourish. The contrast between these two models reveals that true freedom lies not in the absence of rules but in the deliberate embrace of structure.

    Mapping components:

    1. Adolescent freedom rejects boundaries, mistaking chaos for autonomy.
    2. Adolescent freedom feeds on distraction, notoriety, and spectacle.
    3. Adolescent freedom leaves individuals diminished rather than empowered.
    4. Adult freedom requires disciplined focus and deliberate boundaries.
    5. Adult freedom transforms attention into purpose and meaning.
    6. Adult freedom produces self-agency and long-term flourishing.

    3. Provocative Thesis (for stronger student voices)
    It’s Florida, Man is more than cheap entertainment—it is a grotesque anthropology of what happens when adolescent freedom dominates: people mistake license for liberty and collapse into parody versions of themselves. Cal Newport’s Deep Work, however, insists that adult freedom emerges only through focus and discipline. Together, these texts reveal that our culture must choose between two freedoms: adolescent chaos that consumes us, or adult discipline that liberates us.

    Mapping components:

    1. Adolescent freedom exalts the Id: reckless pleasure, chaos, and notoriety.
    2. Adolescent freedom mistakes rebellion for liberation but breeds collapse.
    3. Adolescent freedom, when unchecked, dehumanizes individuals.
    4. Adult freedom demands restraint and cultivated attention.
    5. Adult freedom transforms constraint into autonomy and purpose.
    6. Adult freedom builds lasting agency and flourishing.

  • Pleasure Island with Humidity: My Obsession with It’s Florida, Man

    Pleasure Island with Humidity: My Obsession with It’s Florida, Man

    I find myself embarrassingly smitten with It’s Florida, Man on HBO Max, a six-episode documentary romp that most critics dismiss with a shrug. The Hollywood Reporter’s Daniel Fienberg summed it up with clinical indifference: “The premise is very straightforward. Each half-hour recounts a real-life mishap of the kind that helped Florida develop its national reputation as a meme in state form . . .”

    Fienberg is right about the meme, but he undersells the spectacle. Florida isn’t just weird—it’s a hallucinatory soup pot where the heat never turns down. A bubbling Bouillabaisse of runaways, con artists, half-baked dreamers, and humidity-pickled misfits; the broth gets richer, stranger, and more intoxicating by the hour. Novelists like Carl Hiaasen dip their ladles in and remind us with glee: “You couldn’t write this if you tried.” Comedian Marc Maron, who has roamed the continental madhouse, concurs: there is no asylum wing quite as deranged as the Sunshine State.

    The final episode, “Mugshot,” is my favorite. A wanted man from Pensacola turns into a social-media celebrity after his mugshot detonates across Instagram. The local police, suddenly auditioning for daytime television, turn their manhunt into a Jerry Springer-style circus, complete with suspect-shaming and moral squalor masquerading as civic duty. You couldn’t script it unless you were drunk, desperate, and willing to risk being fired by HBO for turning in satire disguised as reportage.

    As a college writing instructor, I confess I watch shows like this with an ulterior motive: I’m always looking for essay prompts hidden in the wreckage. It’s Florida, Man practically delivers one to my desk, gift-wrapped in neon: “Freedom and its Discontents.” Not the noble kind of freedom—what philosophers used to call “freedom for”—where self-discipline leads to self-agency, flourishing, and mastery, the Cal Newport variety of cultivated freedom. No, Florida, Man wallows in the basement: “freedom from.” Freedom from the Id, from restraint, from consequence, from sobriety. It’s Pleasure Island on a peninsula, and the longer you stay the faster your ears sprout into donkey ears, your voice degenerates into animal brays, and your dreams curdle into swamp gas.

    It’s Florida, Man isn’t just entertainment. It’s anthropology of the grotesque, a front-row ticket to America’s most unruly carnival, where freedom is mistaken for license and the monsters are very much real.