<p>I mean, props to the staff for publishing material daily, but why are Crimson articles (for example) so much more solidly written than Sun articles? </p>
<p>Is there a lack of interest in the paper on-campus, or what?</p>
<p>¿ ? ¿ ?</p>
<p><em>edit</em></p>
<p>Here, compare:</p>
<p>to</p>
<p><a href="http://cornellsun.com/node/22359%5B/url%5D">http://cornellsun.com/node/22359</a></p>
<p>Neither are perfect, but one pretty clearly tops the other.</p>
<p>Alright, so "purveyors of still more odious dross" - along with much of the rest of the article - was phrased pretty pretentiously, but I still prefer it over the "haha, lol<3" approach.</p>
<p>I think that the problem is that you are looking at two different kinds of topics and forms of writing. One is a friendly story about a girl's deferral, while the other is a heated article about the controversial Don Imus and others such as him. Very different topics!</p>
<p>Not only that, after hours upon hours of reading scholarly journals and textbooks, it's nice to read something free of pretense and thesaurus-rape once in a while.</p>
<p>I tried to pick two articles that illustrated my point.</p>
<p>I'm just saying I cringe at the Daily Spectator less often than I do at the Sun.</p>
<p><em>edit</em></p>
<p>it's nice to read something free of pretense and thesaurus-rape once in a while.</p>
<p>Hey, I can dig it, but this isn't the something you were looking for:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Applications were due in a few weeks, we still needed funding for the literary magazine, apparently I was supposed to take the SATs … my sleep deprived, stressful future loomed in front of me with no escape plan. Suddenly, I had an epiphany and stopped, almost causing a five-car pileup. “Mom,” I said on my cell phone, ignoring the honking cars, “I can’t go to school next year. I don’t care what I do, but I have to take the year off.”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I mean, jeez.</p>
<p>Sun article was more fun to read</p>
<p>Crimson was more intellectually stimulating. </p>
<p>I'm sure I can find Sun articles that are just as intellectuall stimulating...not sure bout fun Crimson ones tho lol. But ya, you know wat I mean. If u have a problem with the Sun then why don't you be part of it and write how you want? That girl just has a unique way to write and I think it's rather fun to read.</p>
<p>If u have a problem with the Sun then why don't you be part of it and write how you want?</p>
<p>I've planned on it since the day I decided to apply =D</p>
<p>That girl just has a unique way to write and I think it's rather fun to read.</p>
<p>I can't say I agree.</p>
<p>Ya maybe it's more of a blog writing...but then also maybe that's why it was posted online and not on print (if thats how it works)</p>
<p>That's good to hear that you will be a part of it!</p>
<p>I can find things that are annoying about both articles, but the Harvard one is almost a pain to read. To me, it's completely boring. The above description -- "thesaurus-rape"? Yeah, completely accurate, I'd say. I find the Cornell article a little more enjoyable, and I think its levity is appreciable.</p>
<p>I agree. That article in the Crimson was so pretentious it made me sick. Good writing doesn't need to "[rape the thesaurus]." In fact, some of the best writing can be understood by the common Joe. I perfer to read the style in the Daily Sun because I get enough of Crimson-styled writing from books.</p>
<p>The Sun is pretty atrocious. Its the only paper students really read here (even though the NYT is free to students), but nearly every time I read it cover to cover, I find some glaring mistake, usually a stupid or inaccurate headline. Today was really bad - there was an article covering Bob Novak's speech, which I attended, and parts of the article were just absent - you'd go from one column to another and they'd be totally different sentences (in the print edition of course). They must've been cut off somehow. Another egregious example ( <a href="http://cornellsun.com/node/22831%5B/url%5D">http://cornellsun.com/node/22831</a> ) - the headline is "Oil Executive Predicts Future Energy Crisis" when the actual article says nothing of the sort. The executive basically says, energy is important and will affect people's lives. That doesn't amount to a crisis.</p>
<p>To be sure, most people aren't bothered by most mistakes. But if you read the WSJ, NYT, Economist, or another national publication with any regularity, you will be sorely disappointed by the Sun. I hear no one reads the Arts section either. And the U-Wire news bits, written by students from around the country, are equally inane, usually.</p>
<p>That Harvard piece was terribly turgid. One can be quite the pompous ass while keeping the reader awake. (Though I'm not sure if my writing is much better.)</p>
<p>Well, to paraphrase Joseph de Maistre, every university has the newspaper it deserves - the most popular newspaper feature (besides the weather, anyways) is 'Overheard,' hardly a paragon of well, anything. But it is funny.</p>
<p>wow. the guy who wrote the crimson article would have to be one pompous blowhard. by the way for all of his fancy, schmancy vocab words, his article really didnt say much of anything.</p>
<p>on the other hand, the cornell article wasnt meticulously perfect, but it was an enjoyable read....and it actually said something worth reading.</p>
<p>so if given a choice between these two articles....id go with the cornell article hands down.</p>
<p>Harvard guy acted like he was being graded by a mean professor and not being read by students. Cornell girl made hers fun and entertaining. I wish she talked about Israel a bit, but it was still entertaining! Different tastes I guess.</p>
<p>And you'll find, from semester to semester, great variation in all the Ivies' papers (and all student-edited newspapers) A great deal depends on that semester's editor and the legacy from the two or three most recent. I was the EIC of an Ivy newspaper and have to say it's not the easiest post to do <em>perfectly</em> with everything else required of you. No excuse for misreporting or poor editing or orthographic/grammatical mistakes, but cut a little slack as long as article is accurate and readable.</p>
<p>A good thing about the Sun is that there are opportunities for freshman to become involved with the paper (not sure about the Crimson). And those who have issues with the paper should e-mail the Sun, post comments on the on-line edition or write complaint letters.</p>
<p>The first dude may have purposely fancified his piece, but his sentences were at least solidly structured. </p>
<p>I don't see anything good in the second article. You don't have to write badly to pull off "casual."</p>
<p>Why are so many other Ivy newspapers better than the Daily Sun?</p>
<p>Because so many other Ivy schools are better than Cornell <em>zing</em></p>
<p>I keed, I keed. Princeton's just got mocked in IvyGate</p>
<p>I'll be honest, I think the Cornell Daily Sun is a piece of worthless trash. </p>
<p>I read it every day hoping for some life, but alas none. I find that most important news has been published on average of 2 weeks before hand in the Cornell Chronicle. In fact, I remember the CC publishing how the dining halls use something like 25% of their food from the local farms and then the Sun printed a very obviously copied version about 13 days later. Two weeks after the elections last semester, they had an article about how Michigan voted to ban affirmative action in schools. These past few days have been slightly better, though. </p>
<p>Besides this, the articles are genuinely pointless. I honestly thing they put articles in there from other schools that just have catchy titles: anything along the lines of "Teens have more sex post exams" or "Study finds most students unhappy with dining hall food" ... you get the picture. None are written by Cornell staff and none grab the interst of the student body. </p>
<p>Also, I love the work of Vonnegut, but does the sun really have to dedicate 3-4 full pages of re-printed stuff from him every single day? Waste of space. </p>
<p>Another, why are there often 2 articles on big athletics games. Normally I wouldn't mind, but they often are just mirror images of each other. The worst was coverage of a LAX game where identical quotes from the teams were used in the same context in 2 different articles. Neither had anything the other didn't. Waste of space and, more importantly, my time. </p>
<p>I do enjoy the "overheard" section though, always worth a laugh. "<strong>Lots of fast chinese talk, lots of fast chinese talk</strong> ... oh yes, the devil most definately wears Prada."</p>
<p>gomestar, thanks for reminding me - the Cornell Chronicle has been rather good the few times I've read it. It just looks much more professional. I fondly recall a decent article on tuition inflation and Cornell, and explained the issue quite well, citing a top expert in the field at Cornell (Ehrenberg I believe) and others in relevant departments. The CC is nowhere near as well distributed.</p>
<p>The Sun regularly devotes a good portion of its front page to someone literally just sitting down at a bus stop or some such thing. Its font and spacing are bloated too. </p>
<p>It's indicative (and depressing) that the worse paper is more popular. Cornell students are not dumb per se, but they aren't very discerning (in taste) either. I guess they're looking more for lighter, less serious fare. Oh, and making such criticisms would mark you as 'elitist' in the minds of most at Cornell.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, and making such criticisms would mark you as 'elitist' in the minds of most at Cornell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They were well-founded. </p>
<p>P.S.</p>
<p>"Mark me as 'elitist?'" What do you mean, exactly?</p>