Which paper is better and WHY?

Personally, I think "long" is better written. It seems to give more examples as to the theories that the writer sees in action in their daily lives, as opposed to "short", which only gives how the writer feels. That isn't to say that both papers don't have their merits; short is still very personal (a positive trait in my eyes), and it may only be a means of leading into a fully developed paper that would give examples as to the theories at work.

No less important in my judgement is the fact that long is much more grammatically correct, which I feel is at least a little bit important.

The long paper was clearly far better. Everything was wrong with the short paper. Aside from lack of sentence structure and embarrassing grammatical errors involving simple words, inappropriate use of semicolons and commas, the short paper made no sense in terms of content and was just a bunch of jumbled thoughts the author obviously wrote late the night before it was due. I am not even sure this author speaks English as their primary language. "I come from family of eleven children myself being the oldest. While growing up I was usually busy taking care of my 5 younger siblings.” The author just said he/she had 10 younger siblings… where did the other 5 go? It appears as though this person possibly made that up. This person should be shamed for turning in a paper that has so many errors that could easily have been fixed on ONE proofread. The title of this person’s section of the paper was, “My thoughts on attachment and past experiences.” No where in his or her paragraph was there mention of attachment, nor did it look like it was getting close. This person went from 10 siblings to 5 siblings to her ex boyfriend in a matter of sentences. I could go on about many more mistakes, but I will refrain and hope this person failed the paper.

The long paper was perfectly organized and stayed on topic throughout. The person accurately addressed the meaning of the Filter Theory of Attraction and successfully applied it to his/her life. This person used quotations and we were able to easily follow along with their personal story. If a person who had never heard of the Filter Theory of Attraction read this, they would have an excellent understanding of it afterward. Spelling and grammar errors were virtually nonexistent. It was an excellent section of their paper, and it seemed like this person was definitely helping himself understand his relationship better by applying the theories used in class to his own life.

I believe the long paper is written better than the short one. In the long paper the man is talking about a theory he learned and is then applying it to his life and telling us if it worked or not. The short one does tell a story well but so far does not relate it to topics we have talked about it class.

The "Long" paper was better written. I believe this because he took facts from the course and applied them to his real life, in a well-organized manner.
The "short" paper was all over the place. It was very poorly written in its grammar, chronological order, and relevance to the course.

I think the "Long" paper is better. It seems more informative on the actual textbook information and also goes more into depth with examples. I think its more reflective about things over time. I just thought that it seemed more formal and not just like a personal reflection you might find in a journal or a rough draft.

Between the two papers, I thought that the longer one was better. The reason being that it had more factual evidence, and included the concepts from class. However, there was no reference to where he got the information on the first paragraph, which makes it seem as if he is trying to take credit. I do not know if there was a footnote to cite this source or not though. I liked that he then incorperated his own life story and that of those around him. Not only was he using himself, but his friend as well. I would say try to cut back on the amount of facts though, and stick to one conept.

The short paper included more of a personal view, but nothing to back it up. It seemed like a self-complaint rather than a self-help. This is the reaction I had at least. I would have liked to get stories instead of a list of feelings. I don't think there was enough information there to judge the whole paper though.

I think the "long" paper is definitely better. Although the "short" paper is more personal, I think the "long" paper explains the concepts first and applies them to real life experiences. The "short" paper does justice in self-disclosure, but doesn't view the life issues in light of concepts learned in class.

I feel that the long paper is better. It seems to have more examples which is good and stays on topic. While the other one strays away from the subject.

Umm....

Not to be too overcritical here but I thought both of the papers were lacking in quality. However, the author that to me was clearly female (the eldest of 11 siblings) included less typos. Also the writing style was slightly more sophisticated and less like a frat boy on a messy tangent of verbal diarrhea..

I believe that the long paper is better written. The long paper presents a theory that was covered in class, and then goes on to discuss how this theory applied to their life. The short paper just puts out an experience in their life without backing it out or relating it to the material that was covered in class. Based on the title of the short paper I would want to know what their attachment style is based on the information the class has received through lectures, discussions, and text.

I thought "short" was written in a way thats more realistic and "long" was more right our of the text and based a lot on the classroom material. From what I understand, this paper is suppose to be about ourselves in relation to the class and using what we have been learning in the class, rather than giving definitions and such.I noticed a lot of grammatical and spelling errors in both the papers. I just think that "short" has a more personal connections with the class and it was easier to read and understand.

the paper that explains both the context of a textbook answer and personal information is better because its like stating a fact and then giving an example off of that fact which is personal and someone can probably relate to

The "Long" paper is better written because he chose a subject from the course and related it to his life. It was well organized in a chronological order and was pretty well done grammatically.

The "short" paper is all over the place. It was very poorly written; we can tell that they did not proof read.

I have problems with both of them, I think there are simple grammatical issues in both. The LONG one has more organization, yet it seems to be a bit too simple minded with comments like "'That so-and-so girl is really fun, and pretty cute to.' I see him slowly decide whether he likes the girl or not based on these filters." The SHORT one explains a good amount about her past, yet she doesn't connect that with the theories that we've learned in the class. Overall I think the LONG one is better, but I think he could spice it up a bit and make it more creative and more interesting to read.

I have problems with both of them, they have simple grammatical errors which threw me off as I read them. I think the LONG one is a bit too simple minded with comments such as "'That so-and-so girl is really fun, and pretty cute to.' I see him slowly decide whether he likes the girl or not based on these filters." The SHORT one does a good job at explaining her past, but she forgets to connect her past events with the theories that we learn in class. Overall the LONG one is better because he mentions the theory and describes it through personal events. I just think he could have used a bit more creativity in his writing.

The "long" paper had more things in it, but it was longer... I'd like to see the direction the "short" one would have taken after the first paragraph. The "short" one had more emotional content, and the "long" one had more textbook content. Mix them together, give them a good editor, and you've got a good paper. Otherwise they're equally lacking.

I think that both 'papers' had good characteristics. The longer of the two obviously was more of a thorough viewing on some of the concepts in the book and other stuff we've learned about. However, it was a little obnoxious in it's content. It just kept going on and on about this term and that term and defining things left and right. The shorter of the two was an example of what the longer one needed. It needed a little more personal application I think; more stories on how this relates to yourself and how this class has changed you.

I think that the longer one is more through and it explains the concepts in a better way. Even though the shorter one was not bad it seem to lack a sense of the concepts. However it was more emotional while the longer one had more concepts and lacked more of the feel for the person and their experience. Overall I think that each one of them has good and bad things about them but there must be a happy medium that can fix them.