Actually, I am having a great day. As someone very concerned about what our best universities are producing I have solved several problems all at one time.
First, I have been trying, for some time, to understand the divergence between college admission scores, notionally correct answers on preparatory tests which I know to be incorrect, and the intellectual quality of the students so marked. I understand now what I had only been able to hypothesize before.
Second, I have been trying to understand the divergence between what I would describe as "character" and the output of our better universities. Now I do. It is related to my first problem.
Third, I have always been a bit in awe of the writing style-mavens that appear around here, those who seem to be able to recognize problems in writing which I view as perfectly well composed, if perhaps short of flawless. This I now also understand far better. The nitpickers are applying the rote sentence construction templates that they have memorized, and slaved over, for years, and forced their thoughts and writings into for years, and it is that to which is referred when one uses the term sentence structure. There is a similar one for paragraph structure.
But this all forgest a few other things, like first, having something worth saying, which requires developing a sense of what is important and how to think through a problem. Second, but not separate, it requires a logical framework to structure arguments. And this is where the whole thing falls apart. Narrative frameworks do not start first with a paragraph structure (topical sentence and supporting sentences) and sentence structures, but a picture or sequence of pictures to be presented, i.e. what the filmakers refer to as montage, composed of a sequence of scenes containing an idea, the viewpoint of the author and the viewpoint of the reader.
So, structure properly is dictated by that which is to be presented and how best to represent the idea(s) to the viewpoint of the viewer, the reader, etc. It can start with the conclusion first, or it can describe the weather first, or it can describe the farcial jurnalistic harridan first, all dependent upon the needs the author perceives to paint the picture.
And all of that, and the fact that individual character matters, is lost in what is going on in modern education.
And forth, since a thesis was presented here in this forum which I just had a hard time buying in to, I wanted to see whether I could sustain an argument against that thesis or be pursuaded by the strength of the arguments in support. I figured I might learn in the process. I learned a lot, but not what my interlocutors hoped to teach me.
So, yes I have had a wonderful afternoon understanding Trump's letter from the various vantage points of its readers. A great afternoon.
I hope that yours has been as gratifying and as productive.
Fourth, not forth.
And, you misunderstood my post completely. I am on your side. I did not analyze to criticize, but to support Mr. Trump’s letter as not as ‘horrible’ as it was being suggested by some. Most of us agreed it was good, but I wanted to give some substantiation to my assessment and not just come off as someone who purported to know-it-all, but given my credentials, had some qualifications for making my comments.
You, on the other hand, have just come across as a know-it-all. Perhaps you do. I defer to your wisdom on all matters heretofore and thereto.