Hi Christy-

I am wondering how to list Norton Anthology selections on the annotated part of our transcript- Four Years ago when I did my oldest's transcripts we read the books, so I listed it like this:
The Odyssey (Homer, Trans. Fitzgerald) and selections from Greek Drama: Agamemnon, Antigone, Oedipus the King, Medea, Trojan Women, Frogs (ed. Moses Hadas).

Am I being too picky? Maybe I don't need to list the translator? Just trying to finish up this school year -yahoo!! If this should be posted elsewhere please move it

The Norton Anthology is a standard text in college, you might consider just listing the selection from it as from it. Most college folk will instantly recognize it (and as I think of it, any college bound student may find another TOG savings in that they don't have to buy this book for their classes).

Hi Sharie. :-) I'd go ahead and list the separate works, with the author and (where necessary) translator. Your format looks good to me! Listing each separate work is honest (obviously he hasn't read ALL of a Norton volume), and it's good to demonstrate how many world classic titles he has encountered. I'd be sure, however, to indicate which works he has read entire and which he has read in part (i.e. "selections").

Does that help?
Christy

P.S. Sorry for not answering this sooner---I was away at a wedding.

quote:

Originally posted by Pat not Pattie:
you might consider just listing the selection from it as from it.

quote:

Originally posted by cjsomerville:
Listing each separate work is honest (obviously he hasn't read ALL of a Norton volume),

Now, C.J. I didn't suggest listing the Norton Anthology flat out, but as the selection coming from it. It clarifies that the student didn't read the whole work which not having the Norton part might also be misleading.

Thanks Christy!
And thanks too Pat

You weren't late in answering- I am actually ahead of the game this time, so not in a rush yeah!! Hope you had a great time at the wedding.

Oh my goodness, I'm sorry Pat! I misread your suggestion and thought you were saying "just cite yourself as having read Norton." OOOPS! Thanks for clarifying your point for the slow student in the class (that would be me!). ;-) I guess this should teach me not to try to answer posts at 1 AM after being on a plane all day. :-/ I do apologize!

Also, just to nuance my own phrasing, I did not at all mean to imply that what I thought was your suggestion would be "dishonest"---just that it's good to demonstrate how much of Norton the student has read (even though the transcript review people will probably assume that he hasn't read it all).

For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessarily say that it helps much to list the selections as "from Norton." First, pretty much all of the translations and selections available in Norton are available as separate and independent books also. Second, Norton adjusts its selections pretty frequently (every five to ten years, I think), so unless the people reviewing your transcript are familiar with the exact edition you used, it may not add an awful lot to their understanding of WHICH selections you read to say "from Norton" (help me here, Pat---is this what you were saying or am I misreading you again?).

So, personally, I'd just indicate "whole work" or "selections" and leave it there, unless your review board requires you to cite publishing information for each book. On the other hand, if you have time to cite all the Norton information, it certainly has name recognition (as Pat said) and couldn't hurt. It might even be a help if your review board does require publication information, because them you could list just the information for the Norton anthology and not have to list all the different publishing information for separate works. :-)

CJ, I wish some how to convey voice tone but can't always. I figured you'd missed that word "from" and I certainly know I don't always write in a transparent manner. If you didn't catch my humor in my second post, I am sorry.

I imagine that you are not so much slow as rushed just now.

quote:

Originally posted by cjsomerville:
Oh my goodness, I'm sorry Pat! I misread your suggestion and thought you were saying "just cite yourself as having read Norton." OOOPS! Thanks for clarifying your point for the slow student in the class (that would be me!). ;-) I guess this should teach me not to try to answer posts at 1 AM after being on a plane all day. :-/ I do apologize!

Also, just to nuance my own phrasing, I did not at all mean to imply that what I thought was your suggestion would be "dishonest"---just that it's good to demonstrate how much of Norton the student has read (even though the transcript review people will probably assume that he hasn't read it all).

For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessarily say that it helps much to list the selections as "from Norton." First, pretty much all of the translations and selections available in Norton are available as separate and independent books also. Second, Norton adjusts its selections pretty frequently (every five to ten years, I think), so unless the people reviewing your transcript are familiar with the exact edition you used, it may not add an awful lot to their understanding of WHICH selections you read to say "from Norton" (help me here, Pat---is this what you were saying or am I misreading you again?).

So, personally, I'd just indicate "whole work" or "selections" and leave it there, unless your review board requires you to cite publishing information for each book. On the other hand, if you have time to cite all the Norton information, it certainly has name recognition (as Pat said) and couldn't hurt. It might even be a help if your review board does require publication information, because them you could list just the information for the Norton anthology and not have to list all the different publishing information for separate works. :-)

I'm not thinking so much for a review board but more for a college transcript where there could be a longer addendum of what was read. (I will admit without pain or torture of any sort, that I don't much believe in a standard transcript for a home schooler. The only real person I know (as opposed to an online person I hear about or "know") who recently got into a top 30 university had the student write a transcript himself and they just attached a list of read works.)

I'm thinking that you'd cite each work as you would for a scholarly paper. I know that when I see cites for things like Shakespeare, I'll often see a cite of the editor and publisher because things like line notations and textual variants will vary slightly from edition to edition.

Citing Norton has an advantage: you don't have to note the student only read X, Y, and Z or annotated because everyone knows that Norton annotates. Further, everyone will accept those annotations over say "Mom annotation" as being the "correct ones" (even if they aren't really). I'd probably cite the Norton Anthology Edition "", read the following works and then list them, as a shortcut. The positive thing about TOG is that you almost always read the whole Norton selection (at least in Year One).

Also, I'm guessing that some moms didn't read all the selections so they don't know exactly which works Norton shortened and which they left whole (but maybe this information exists someplace and I just haven't noticed it because I haven't looked). For that matter, although I could tell both Homer and Virgil were shortened (both in sections read and in the sections themselves) I must say I am less sure if there were cuts made in the Greek dramas and I read those, too. So again, justing citing Norton gives that detail if anyone really wants to know.

From what I know about college admissions what you are looking for is a high score on their evaluation of the course work your student took. This score is independent of the score for how the student did in their course work. You want them to believe it comparable to a top notch public or good private school. They'll have a scale to evaluate that. With most schools they'll just go by what is listed in the transcript and sometimes cut a student at a "poor" public school a break if they are unable to take the highest level of classes because their school doesn't offer them (obviously the level probably varies some from college to college depending on the college's admission standard.)

Does this all make sense or have I just muddied things up?

Wow ladies- I just read this today AFTER I had typed it all up-- phew!
So let me show you what I did- and others can perhaps benefit. I also decided to not just make a Literature Credit but combined it with writing and grammar- being a 9th grader she didn't do all the questions etc.- I was just thrilled she read the classics and found them very interesting
I do a more traditional transcript and then detail the classes and reading list on a second page. You won't be able to see the italicized stuff but it'll give you the idea.
English I
Reading and discussion of: selections from Norton Anthology: Gilgamesh (translated Foster), Aneid (Virgil, trans. Fitzgerald), Illiad (Homer, trans. Lombardo) The Odyssey (Homer, Trans. Fagles), Oedipus the King and Antigone (Sophocles, trans. Fagles) Old Testament books: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Lamentations, Esther; selections of Ancient Egyptian Literature (transl. Foster): Tale of a Shipwrecked Soldier, The Greatness of the King, The Tale of Sinuhe, The Instructions for Merikare; selections from Distant Days (transl. Foster); Words of Delight (Leithart; selections of Bhagavad-Gita (trans. Prabhavananda and Isherwood).

Hi Sharie,

I'm planning to use your format for my 9th grader's transcript, and I noticed that you have Words of Delight as Leithart -- shouldn't that be Ryken?

Thanks for sharing your efforts!

OOOPS- thanks for the proofreading eyes!!