Your Thoughts Please (College Paper)

[Boots Electric]

WARNING: This is going to be very long.

Ok, so I was just handed back a paper earlier today that I feel has been graded unfairly. In four years of college I have yet to actively protest a graded assignment, but I feel compelled to do so in this case. However, I'd like an outside opinion on the matter.

What happened:

I wrote a paper four weeks ago for my "Kiwi Culture" class. The topic we were given to discuss is as follows:

"Drawing upon accounts of his life and times, critically examine Sir Edmund Hillary's status as a 'Great' New Zealander."

I believed that this topic was calling for me to examine Edmund Hillary's life and accomplishments and determine whether or not he is/was deserving of the praise he has been given over the years by New Zealanders and other people the world over.

When I got my paper back, I was more than a little shocked to see that I had received a 43 on it. I was even more shocked to learn that I recieved such a low grade not because the paper itself was bad (the grading sheet said my grammar was good, the flow of the paper was good, the clarity of my thoughts and ideas was good, the academic style was good, my citations/bibliography were good, etc), but because I had misinterpreted the question.

In the brief five minute conversation I had with the grader, he said that we should have talked about how Hillary's personal accomplishments perpetuated a preexisting"dominant male" ideology found in New Zealand culture, and how this ideology spilled over in the form of problems such as domestic violence.

My argument is:

1) If we were supposed to talk about things like a "preexisting dominant male ideology" or domestic violence in New Zealand society, the question should have called for it directly. The question said to examine Edmund Hillary's life and times, not New Zealand culture as a whole.

and 2) Edmund Hillary didn't beat his wife or preach to the masses about the inferiority of women, so how can I possibly judge him based on ideological perversions created in lieu of his completely unrelated accomplishments? Should we try the Beatles for murder simply because Charles Manson fabricated a story based on their work?

If the grader is correct in how he believed the question should have been answered, I believe the question itself is not only vague, but grossly misleading. I've talked to one other American in the class (I'm just studying here in New Zealand for one semester), and he coincidentally received the exact same grade as I, which does indeed support my claims. However, I know for a fact that at least five people in the class received grades of A or higher. How they could have possibly answered the question properly is beyond me though. Unless they received some sort of outside help, maybe talked to the professor during office hours perhaps? Or maybe this particular subject has been covered in-depth in New Zealand high schools or other educational outlets unknown to us American students?

I'll post my paper in full below...if you could, please read it and tell me whether or not I'm completely off the mark here in my interpretation of the question. Please note however that I am not arguing that this should be an "A paper" by any means--I rushed through it quickly in two or three hours time about a month ago and it is far from my best work (the conclusion in particular is embarrassingly bad), but I hate the idea of me failing a class I "misinterpreted" a topic. Also, I won't be posting any of my citations, but I assure you, the paper was properly cited and did ******* a completed bibliography.

One last time, the question is:

"Drawing upon accounts of his life and times, critically examine Sir Edmund Hillary's status as a 'Great' New Zealander."

Edmund Hillary is held in the highest of regards by the people of New Zealand (as is shown by his picture being included on the New Zealand five dollar bill) and is without a doubt the most universally recognized New Zealander in history. One must ask however, is Edmund Hillary deserving of all of this fame and praise? While Hillary also managed to make trips to both the North and South poles, as well as serve the New Zealand government as High Commissioner to India, the vast majority of his fame stems from his climbing of Mount Everest. Should the act of climbing a mountain, which is by every definition an unnecessary accomplishment, earn a man an iconic status for rest of his life? Under most circumstances the answer would be a resounding “no,” but Hillary’s case is different than that of most other mountaineers. Through his fame, Hillary was able to do much more than climb mountains; he funded and built schools and hospitals for a poor and largely uneducated people in Nepal, thus solidifying his place in history as a great New Zealander.

It is easy to understand why Edmund Hillary became so famous initially; he was the first man in the world to conquer Mount Everest, the single highest point on the entire planet, but the extreme height is only half of why climbing Everest is so impressive. In addition to Everest being incredibly tall, it is also a remarkably difficult mountain to climb. Prior to Hillary’s successful ascent in 1953, Everest had already claimed thirteen climber’s lives, and many other expeditions had been forcibly cut short by inclement weather and injury. These many failures were not kept secret either. The likelihood of severe injury or death during ascent or descent was well-known. Even if you were to disregarding Hillary’s success, the fact that he had even attempted the climb despite the daunting odds is an impressive feat among itself.

Shortly after the ascent of Everest, Hillary was knighted--one of the very highest honours in Britain and her many commonwealths. This was viewed as much more than just a personal accomplishment however. All of New Zealand shared in the glory of the newly titled “Sir” Edmund Hillary. Many people felt as though Hillary had finally put New Zealand on the map. This notion is still felt in current times as well. At Sir Edmund Hillary’s Funeral this past January, Prime Minister Helen Elizabeth Clark called Edmund Hillary “our [New Zealand’s] hero,” and went on to say that he “brought fame to our country.”

While Hillary’s Everest achievement did indeed put his home country in the spot-light, his accomplishment was of particular significance back home for another reason. New Zealand culture at the time was very andocentric, and there were certain traits that defined the ideal pakeha male. Sir Edmund just so happened to be a personification of them all. In A Man’s Country?, Jock Phillips said “Hillary was the perfect expression of New Zealand’s superior Anglo-Saxon Manhood. He was tall, immensely strong, fiercely determined—the picture of colonial honesty.” In addition to his physical attributes, Phillips also commented on Hillary’s personality, saying “When it was all over, he remained modest and plain-speaking—just an ordinary bloke.” Because Edmund Hillary was the embodiment (in terms of both physical prowess and personality) of the ideal New Zealand male, people were not just celebrating the conquering of a simple mountain by a native son—they were celebrating the success of New Zealand and its culture.

Everest may have earned Edmund Hillary world-wide fame and distinction, but climbing a mountain does not make a man “great.” Achieving true greatness is accomplished through humanitarianism and selflessness, two more traits which Hillary happened to possess. Following his successful Everest expedition and his many subsequent returns to Nepal, Hillary developed an overwhelming fondness of the Nepalese Sherpas. Through further and extended contact, it became clear to Hillary that the Sherpas were at a huge disadvantage living in the Himalayas where the weather was harsh, there was a lack of hospitals or other forms of health care, and technology and education were limited. During a subsequent voyage to the Himalayas during the 1960s, Hillary was mulling over ways to help the people of the region and asked a Sherpa friend what he could do for the Sherpa people. The Sherpa replied that “building a school in our village of Khumjung” would be the best thing to do. After hearing this, Hillary started fundraising immediately, and by the end of 1961, the very first school was built in Khumjung village.

This was not Sir Edmund Hillary’s last contribution to the people of the Everest region. With help from friends and other humanitarians, Hillary established the Himalayan Trust. The Himalayan Trust is a strictly non-profit organization designed to help the Sherpa people through the building of schools, hospitals, and through supplying other basic human needs. Hillary describes the plights of the Sherpas on the Himalayan Trust website: “For the Sherpas who live there [Everest]...life has few privileges. Medicine and Education are scarce, bridges and paths are often destroyed, and the forest on which they depend are rapidly depleting.” He goes on to describe the gentle and friendly nature of the Sherpas and pleads for assistance, saying “they are the most warm-hearted people I know. Any help you can provide will be so important and so gratefully received.”

The Himalayan Trust has grown immensely since it was first established and has offered a great deal of assistance to the Sherpa people. Two hospitals and numerous health clinics have been built, resulting in a gain in life expectancy. Thirty schools have been established, which has lead to a large number of Sherpas earning degrees in fields such as forestry and park management.

In addition to the humanitarian aid the Himalayan Trust has offered the Sherpas, nature conservation has been another major focus—incredibly, over one million trees have been planted in the region in an attempt to replenish the dwindling plant life.

Sir Edmund Hillary’s contributions to the Sherpa people do not end there however. He has also helped the Sherpas deal with various forms of outside influence to ensure that they are treated fairly and their independence is maintained. On example of this can be seen in the early 70s. A company obtained permission to build a fancy hotel at the foot of Everest, and the only feasible way to transport people in and out of the hotel was by plane. This would require that a runway be placed in fields used for crops. While the company offered a regular shipment of food and monetary compensation for the sacrifice, Hillary recognized that such a move would compromise the Sherpas independence. Hillary called a village meeting to explain the long-term disadvantages of the deal, and the Sherpas decided not to give up their fields. Through some compromise, another airfield was eventually built at a different site and the Sherpas did not have to forfeit anything for its construction.

Being the first man to successfully climb Mount Everest is an impressive accomplishment. Edmund Hillary had succeeded where so many others had failed before him. However, his mountaineering accomplishments pale in comparison to the humanitarian accomplishments later in his life. While so many people waste their fame on trivial and selfish things, Hillary did something great and brought health, education, and identity to an underprivileged people high up in the Himalayan Mountains. Climbing a mountain may have earned him fame, but selflessness and charity earned him greatness.
_________________________

So what do you think? Do I have an argument here, or did I answer the question improperly?

[Starla]

I am guessing the grader did not find the account as you presented it thorough enough.
I had an Eng/lit prof who would assign a topic but expected much more. kwim?

[Hate the Hater]

sounds like you got the shaft. better talk to the prof.