CIE100: Common Intellectual Experience - Essay 3 (100 Points)

Background Reading and References

Please refer to the following readings and examples offering templates to help get you started:

The Assignment

Purpose/Context [1]

This paper is an opportunity to pursue how the CIE texts may have influenced your thinking around the four questions, OR to explore a concept that arises in the texts that has been of interest to you, but hasn’t been feasible in the prompts to date. We’ve read these texts on our own, discussed them in class, and now it’s time to return to the texts and dig deeper.

In our first two papers, we worked on integrating thought-provoking analysis of the texts into our essays, and how to build an insightful thesis statement. We will continue to apply and build on these skills, while now adding a focus on the content of the paragraphs and how they support the argument of our paper.

Writing Prompts (Choose one!)

CIE and the Four Questions (from the CIE Working Group)

The Ursinus Quest is focused on helping us answer four questions; what should matter to us, how should we live our lives, how can we understand the world, and what will we do. In this essay reflect on how 2-3 of the texts we have read during CIE have combined to affect our answer to at least one of these questions.

The personal nature of this assignments means that we will devote some words to what we thought before, what we think now and why our thinking has changed. However, engagement with the texts is crucial , especially as they are what altered our thinking.

Our task: Consider the above prompt by doing the following: (a) choosing two texts from the semester that have confronted of changed our way of think or perception of the world, (b) reflect on how the texts considers considered a particular idea or concept differently then you have before, (c) reflect on your reaction to encountering an alternative perspective and (d) explore the ways the text has complicated your answers to the four questions.

Why did the Ursinus faculty make me read that? (from the CIE Working Group)

Write a formal, thesis-driven proposal explaining why 2-3 readings from the CIE 100 syllabus should be retained and/or deleted for next year. To do so will require that we explain how the chosen text answers a specific CIE question (or sub-question) in an interesting way, or that we explain how a text fails to do so. In other words, we will need to ground our argument in a larger thesis about the purpose of the course (see description of course and learning objectives in our syllabus) and the extent to which these particular readings accomplish that goal. So, although the course has many goals, for this particular paper we need to be very specific about which aspects of those goals the texts address and how.

Our task: When considering the above prompt note that it is not simply enough to say we like/do not like a text. We must (a) explore a text’s meaning and merits or lack thereof, (b) offer an intelligent critique grounded in a larger overarching thesis for texts we do not like and (c) discuss what aspects of the texts are especially powerful and how they connect to the particular aspects of the course we are exploring.

The Ursinus Questions and Biblical Teachings

Earlier this semester, Rabbi David Wolpe visited Ursinus to give a talk entitled, “Get Over Yourself: Self-Transcendence in the Book of Genesis.” It focused on how biblical characters, particularly in Genesis, grow beyond their limitations.

We also read several biblical passages, including the Sermon on the Mount, the Good Samaritan, and Genesis. Reflecting upon these passages and Rabbi Wolpe’s talk, discuss ways in which one’s academic pursuits might be best placed for the good of humanity. One could, for example, acquire a lifetime of knowledge, and then pass on before putting it to use. Alternatively, one might seek to be known for some success or accomplishment as their “reward” for a lifetime of learning (akin to a billionaire becoming a philanthropist late in life).

Our task: Thinking about the Ursinus Questions, these biblical passages, and other texts of your choosing (including The Matrix), take a position on the purpose of education, and what obligations, if any, one should consider as a result of the gift of learning.

Coded Bias (Select Your Quest)

The documentary Coded Bias and the video Are We Automating Racism? examine the implicit biases in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. Often, these biases result from the use of “training data” that AI uses to learn patterns. These biases are then amplified through the automated decisions the system makes when presented with new scenarios. Sometimes, the developers are unaware that these historical biases existed and manifested in the training data they use; often, it is difficult to scrutinize the automated system because it does not necessarily justify its decisions or its rationale.

In this reflection, please comment on the extent to which you believe AI could be responsibly deployed to avoid, mitigate, and audit for potential harms. Do you think it is more likely that the AI will harm people directly, or, rather, will the people interpreting the decisions made by AI present a greater risk? Have you experienced bias from automated systems in your own life? How can technologists better ensure that their systems mitigate these risks prior to deployment? Cite at least two examples (at least one each from Coded Bias and from Are We Automating Racism?) in your discussion.

Our task: Consider the Ursinus Questions. Organize your reflection with one section dedicated to each question. Here are a few prompts to consider for each section (however, you are welcome to come up with your own instead!):

  1. Understanding Bias in AI (Ursinus Question: What should matter to me?):
    • Analyze the biases depicted in both “Coded Bias” and “Are We Automating Racism.” How do these biases manifest in AI systems, and why should they matter to individuals, communities, and society at large?
    • Identify the potential challenges and risks these biases pose to vulnerable populations. How might they exacerbate existing inequalities and injustices?
  2. Transparency, Accountability, and Social Justice (Ursinus Question: How should we live together?):
    • Evaluate the ethical considerations of transparency and accountability in AI. How do these principles contribute to social justice and communal harmony?
    • Discuss the role of regulation, industry standards, and community engagement in ensuring responsible AI practices. What collaborative efforts are needed to foster ethical AI development?
  3. Human-Centric Computing and Automation (Ursinus Question: How can we understand the world?):
    • Reflect on the balance between human judgment and automated decision-making. How can human-centric computing principles guide the design and deployment of AI systems?
    • Consider the video’s question, “Are We Automating Racism?” What are the implications of automating human biases, and how can we mitigate these risks?
  4. Envisioning Responsible AI (Ursinus Question: What will I do?):
    • Envision a future where AI is developed and applied with care and responsibility. What steps must be taken by researchers, policymakers, educators, and industry leaders to achieve this vision?
    • Propose interdisciplinary solutions that address the challenges and risks highlighted in both the documentary and the video. How can we ensure that AI serves the greater good without compromising ethical values and social equity?

Writing Goals

  • A thesis statement that is debatable, concise, clear, indicative of our essay’s argument, detailed, specific, and insightful.
  • A clear understanding of the texts and their influence on our thinking, as demonstrated by careful quotation and paraphrasing accompanied by a clear explanation of their significance to our thesis
  • A logical organization in which each paragraph clearly advances a distinct point and builds upon the last to pursue a larger claim
  • Lively, distinctive, original voice.
  • Clear, dynamic sentences; accurate, varied diction; lack of grammar and spelling mistakes.
  • One of the goals of CIE is to develop a process of writing that includes incorporating feedback and substantial revision. There needs to be substantive change between the first and final draft. Submitting a slightly edited, or unedited, version of the first draft does not reflect the development of a writing process.

Our writing will be assessed based on how well we meet these goals.

Submission Requirements:

Whichever option you choose, the following requirements need to be meet:

  • The essay should be 1500-1800 words
  • Essay must include quotes from at least two of our CIE texts.
  • The essay must be typed, double-spaced, in 12-point font
  • Do not include a cover page.
  • Include your name on the document
  • Every essay should have an informative and interesting title. Titles such as “Essay 3”, “CIE Essay on Education,”, “Sappho Essay”, etcetera, don’t count.

  1. Essay prompts and instructions were adapted from assignments by Stephanie Mackler from the Education Department and Talia Argondezzi, the Director of the Writing and Speaking Program. ↩

Submission

In your submission, please include answers to any questions asked on the assignment page in your README file. If you wrote code as part of this assignment, please describe your design, approach, and implementation in your README file as well. Finally, include answers to the following questions:
  • Describe what you did, how you did it, what challenges you encountered, and how you solved them.
  • Please answer any questions found throughout the narrative of this assignment.
  • If collaboration with a buddy was permitted, did you work with a buddy on this assignment? If so, who? If not, do you certify that this submission represents your own original work?
  • Please identify any and all portions of your submission that were not originally written by you (for example, code originally written by your buddy, or anything taken or adapted from a non-classroom resource). It is always OK to use your textbook and instructor notes; however, you are certifying that any portions not designated as coming from an outside person or source are your own original work.
  • Approximately how many hours it took you to finish this assignment (I will not judge you for this at all...I am simply using it to gauge if the assignments are too easy or hard)?
  • Your overall impression of the assignment. Did you love it, hate it, or were you neutral? One word answers are fine, but if you have any suggestions for the future let me know.
  • Using the grading specifications on this page, discuss briefly the grade you would give yourself and why. Discuss each item in the grading specification.
  • Any other concerns that you have. For instance, if you have a bug that you were unable to solve but you made progress, write that here. The more you articulate the problem the more partial credit you will receive (it is fine to leave this blank).

Assignment Rubric

Description Pre-Emerging (< 50%) Beginning (50%) Progressing (85%) Proficient (100%)
Thesis Statement (25%) Lacks a clear thesis statement or the statement is irrelevant to the topic. Thesis statement is present but lacks clarity or specificity. Thesis statement is clear and specific but may lack depth or originality. Thesis statement is clear, specific, original, and thought-provoking, guiding the reader's understanding of the essay's purpose.
Introduction and Conclusion (20%) Introduction lacks a hook or relevance to the topic, and conclusion does not summarize or provide closure. Introduction and conclusion are present but lack connection to the thesis or main argument. Introduction effectively introduces the topic, and conclusion summarizes the main points but may lack insight or reflection. Introduction engages the reader with a strong hook and clear connection to the thesis, and conclusion provides insightful summary and reflection.
Argument Development (25%) Arguments are underdeveloped or irrelevant, lacking evidence or logical reasoning. Arguments are present but lack sufficient evidence or reasoning, making them weak or unconvincing. Arguments are well-developed with some evidence and reasoning but may lack depth or complexity. Arguments are thoroughly developed with strong evidence and logical reasoning, contributing to a persuasive and compelling essay.
Paper Organization (10%) Paper lacks clear organization, making it difficult to follow the flow of ideas. Paper has some organization but lacks clear transitions or logical flow between paragraphs. Paper is mostly well-organized with clear transitions but may have minor inconsistencies in flow. Paper is excellently organized with clear transitions and logical flow, enhancing the reader's understanding and engagement.
Use of References and Proper Citations (10%) Lacks references or citations, or they are improperly formatted. Includes some references and citations but with inconsistencies or errors in formatting. Includes appropriate references and citations with minor errors or inconsistencies in formatting. Includes appropriate references and citations, all properly formatted according to the relevant citation style.
Synthesis of Materials into a Cohesive Argument (10%) Lacks synthesis of materials, resulting in a disjointed or fragmented argument. Some synthesis of materials is present but lacks cohesion or connection to the main argument. Materials are mostly synthesized into a cohesive argument but may lack depth or complexity. Materials are expertly synthesized into a cohesive and complex argument, enhancing the overall quality and persuasiveness of the essay.

Please refer to the Style Guide for code quality examples and guidelines.