  Received my essay back after the Easter holidays and was left a little perplexed by a few things. I wonder whether you would be able to enlighten me on the following points. 1.The marking grid on the cover sheet has been left untouched. I have no way of telling what factors attributed to my low mark. 2. You seem to insinuate that only academic knowledge is worthy knowledge, down-playing the significant contribution of journalism as a valid source for information. It is absurd to suggest that academics is the only avenue of securing sound knowledge. By questioning the credentials of Melanie Phillips, you effectively disregard her view-point and hold your own knowledge as superior. She has been the lead social policy writer for the Guardian and surely has an understanding of Social Policy? If my milkman has pearls of wisdom, do I reject his pearls for not being an academic? "Awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996.
Her ideas have influenced politicians in both government and opposition. Styled a conservative by her opponents, she prefers to think of herself as defending authentic liberal values against the attempt to destroy western culture from within. Melanie read English at St Anne's College, Oxford before training as a journalist on the Evening Echo, Hemel Hempstead. After a short period on New Society magazine, she joined the Guardian in 1977 and soon became its social services correspondent and social policy leader writer.
After a stint as the paper's news editor, she started writing her column in 1987, taking it to the Observer and then the Sunday Times before starting to write for the Daily Mail in December 2001. " 3.An opinion poll, as I understand it reflects public opinion, not newspaper opinion. You have instructed me not to quote public opinion. 4. 'You don't engage with the complexity of feminist views'. With a restrictive word limit of 1800 words, you can only comment on certain facets of feminism. 5. It is always a delight to receive constructive instruction. My essay is described as a 'rant', 'hyperbolic', full of 'animosity' towards the 'wicked feminists'. There is not a shred of animosity within me against any feminist, but do I have a right to question their cause? The irony of the 'rant' comment does not escape me. I have browsed through a few feminist titles, and that very same word has sprung to mind on a number of occasions.
Double-standards? I do have to admit that I was rather disappointed with the mark, but not unsurprised considering how the world of social science works. I thought the whole idea of coming to university was to be able to debate, argue, offer opposing view-points, respect other perspectives, and be rewarded for hard work. Obviously I have missed the point somewhere, forgetting to win points according to the rules of the system. Would it be possible for my essay to be reviewed in light of some of these misgivings. I fully respect your position of authority and am happy in any circumstance. Look forward to a reply. Patrik "Learning without thought is labour lost; thought without learning is perilous" (Confucius) Harper 
