| Research and Educational Projects at the Maryland State Archives |
|
|
|
|
| Contact the Department of Special Collections for location. |
Student: Tyra Williams
Mentor: John Maranto
Case: State vs. Jenkins
Lawyer: George W. F. McMechan
Date: December 17, 2001
Biography
Ms. Williams presents many interesting facts in her biography about George W. F. McMechan. The paper is adequately footnoted, but use of primary sources is lacking. The facts are not clearly organized or presented, nor does the paper seem to have an overall theme. Paragraphs are short and choppy, many containing only two sentences.
There are many mistakes in the paper, some including spelling errors. One small, but noticeable, error occurs on page 2 of the paper. Ms. Williams writes that "McMechan was married to Anna L. Mason with whom he had three daughters." She continues by listing the names of all FOUR daughters.
It seems that Ms. Williams did not take advantage of the primary resources posted on our website, using only the Coleman Directories. She spends four sentences on the case of the State vs. Jenkins, glossing over the trial and avoiding any analysis. Ms. Williams spends more time discussing the case of the State vs. Gurry, then talking about a case that Archives staff spent hours researching and preparing for her use. I met with her on two different occasions (each for less than 30 minutes) to discuss the use of original documents and the MSA webpage, neither of which she seems to have used.
Overall, I find this a poor paper for a graduate student. There is no organization, no continuity, and no transition from paragraph to paragraph or idea to idea. This paper might serve as an adequate outline of McMechan's life, but it does him no justice.
Case Study
Ms. Williams' case study of State vs. Jenkins is even less impressive than her biography of McMechan. As with the biography, the facts are not clearly organized or presented, nor does the paper seem to have an overall theme. The paragraphs are poorly organized, containing unrelated sentences and statements.
Ms. Williams does include a wide variety of sources, both primary and secondary, to compile a timeline of events. However, her overuse of footnotes suggests that she relied solely on the Opinion of the Court of Appeals and did little, if any, of her own analysis of the case. Entire paragraphs are taken from the COA Opinion with no attempt to properly quote the documents she copied.
The abundance of spelling and grammar errors makes it clear that no editing was done by Ms. Williams. Words are jumbled within sentences, rendering the sentences almost incomprehensible. Paragraphs contain sentences that are unrelated, or make no sense. Ms. Williams' writing level seems far below the level at which a graduate student should be.
Overall, I find this an extremely poor paper for a graduate student. There is no organization, no continuity, and no transition from paragraph to paragraph or idea to idea. This paper might serve as an adequate timeline of events, but it does a poor job of "reveal[ing] the story and people behind the written opinion." |
