In the problem statement of Chris Murphy’s first writing project, he deals with his discipline directly. Contrariwise, I discussed an issue that exists on the periphery of my discipline. From my point of view, this is indicative of my lack of desire to work directly within my industry (computer engineering). I want, at this point, to work as some form of litigator, or at least to work within the judicial system, while Chris, being most likely a more rational person, identifies a problem within the industry with which he has actual training.
Looking at Chris’ markup, it is much cleaner than mine. The indentation is more uniform and the spacing between each citation makes the whole document easier to read, directly in contrast to my bibliography which is generally describable as haphazard. In the domain of similarities, we made ample use of the “general” and “application” attributes for the summary and relevance tags, respectively.
Looking at Chris’ bibliography and others from this class does make me think about what I would do differently given a second chance. Probably the main change is that I would have a more focused problem statement. Chris’ statement is focused and to the point, mine is rambling and frankly doesn’t even come to a point by the end. This can be generalized to the whole document in saying that I wish that I could have put more time into it. This final point is something that I wish about my entire life.
