Day One(?) in Daytona

So today was my first day of reading, but it wasn't the first day of the reading. So perhaps today is day zero, or negative one, or something.

I'm upstairs, designated as an "early reader," reading question two on the alternate (aka "Form B") exam. The question asks about the term "muckracker" and, specifically, about Jessica Mitford's initial disdain for the term and her eventual embracing of the title "Queen of the Muckrakers." It asks students if journalists have, indeed, gone too far in their efforts to expose the truth or if, on the other hand, we should honor them for such attempts.

Generally speaking, the essays fall into three categories:
1. Essays written by students who have both (a) some knowledge of history and (b) the ability to write coherently.
2. Essays written by students who have either (a) or (b), but not both.
3. Essays written by students who have neither (a) or (b).

Category 1 essays tend to score from high 6 to 9; category 2, from 4 to middling 6; and category 3, below that.

There have been some outstanding essays--notably on the media in China--,but What I wonder after reading somewhere between 150 and 200 of them today is why students immediately associate muckraking with the papparazi. The idea of investigative journalism (Watergate, anyone) seems to escape many of them, as they can focus only on "stolen" photos of Lindsey Lohan driving and Britney Spears shaving her head or on the car crash that killed Princess Di. (Note: One student actually footnoted "Princess Diana," just in case we didn't know who she was.)

I wonder how students keep thinking that Roosevelt, who coined the term in 1906, applied it to Mitford, who wasn't born until 1917.

I wonder about Leonard and Bernstein, who quite famously reported the exposure of the Watergate scandal. That would be the scandal that forced Reagan to resign. Or actually, was it Wordsworth who investigated that incident...

I wonder about the student who told me not once but twice in the course of two pages, "I don't know a damn thing about muckraking." It was clearly not his place, he told me, to comment on what Mitford did or did not do, or on how she felt or should feel about her chosen profession.

And I wonder why it is that "muckraker" is so difficult to spell. Try it with me: "M-U-C-K-R-A-K-E-R." It's not "mutraker." It's not "muckracker." It's not "mutracker." Or "mutcraker," or "mutcracker," or any of the other abominations that appear in these essays. Perhaps it's too much for me to expect that students would spell this word correctly, but seriously, it's central to the essay and yes, it's right there in the prompt. Just copy it down, letter by glorious letter, and you'll be just fine.