"Why do you think we try so hard to teach writing?"
In order to properly address such an open-ended question, a brief rhetorical analysis must be performed and a few simple definitions cast. For the purpose of this exercise, we will designate "we" to mean modern academics, graduate students, and English departments in general, as opposed to the antiquated historical examples in our recent readings. Additionally, we must take notice that "we" as a nation are also ranked last among the most industrialized countries of the world in the discipline of secondary adolescent education (i.e. high school). Lastly, we must concede that at this level, as well as within the undergraduate college system as a whole, the definition, requirements, and expectations of a "writing" course have not yet been uniformly accepted.
We, as a national "English" department consortium; complete with literature, composition, rhetoric, communication, english, and writing sub-units; try so hard to teach writing at the undergraduate level because the preparatory programs and course at the preceding level have underperformed and left America's youth without a essential life skill. Of course, such a statement may not be applied grossly and without exception; but few would argue that such communication skills have not been developed in many young adults. The multitude of reasons, which blend social, political, financial, educational, and psychological reasoning, are beyond the scope of this simple blog posting. However, some clues may lye in our recent readings. I will advance the primary argument that an unsteady foundation can not support a growing, overly burdened structure.
In Colonial America, and shortly thereafter, English departments within universities and colleges were ill-defined, politically-driven, and overly polymorphic. This sloppy methodology did not allow for curriculum development or standardized testing. Across the pond, the Queen's Englishmen were also enticed to manipulate" English" and "writing" education in attempts to advance their standing. While the former tried to promote themselves and their social agendas, the latter were busy trying to elevate their individual positions within their society's preconceived hierarchy. One author, noted that in Britain certain nobles earned degrees while only being required to attend 13 days at college in a given year.
The aforementioned disorganization was further compounded by the fact that college was attended by people of means and prior schooling. Reading, and "writing", were advanced to college new comers as a matter of practice in their privileged lives, unlike the sub-optimal preparation some college applicants receive today. Because the goal was social placement before academic stature, one author noted that writing was taught in some universities and not prioritized in others. The sum of these actions led to a de facto devaluation of writing skills and English departments and curriculum in general. In some departments, only literature was taught.
Lastly, and beyond personal social climbing, departments as a whole in American schools were also trying to advance their standing within the larger university structure. As such, departments wrangled to absorb uncharted fields of study and scrambled to increase their budget share and status within the larger education framework. The result meant less educational curricular development.
In conclusion, we try so hard to teach writing to college newcomers today because our current English and Communications departments have still not overcome the shortcomings set forth by their predecessors. This non standardized and poorly focused methodology, coupled with the less-parepared applicants of today, have forced current faculty to bear the burden of making up for lost education time and proficiency, and do so within a not-so-improved framework.
P.S. I thought there was a question about the final testing apparatus? My vote is to leave it open to individual student creativity!
RB
Good summary. Obviously there have been many shortcomings in the development of the modern English department. However, I'm not sure that all the current problems can be attributed to past development issues, at least not solely at the college level. There are significant problems that colleges inheret from high school instruction that has forced college instruction to become almost remedial. What are college professors supposed to do with students who come from a wide variety of educational backgrounds, some excellent and some totally inadequate? The lack of parity in high school instruction does not necessarily mean that a student will not be able to get into college, but does ensure that, at least in a freshman composition course, instructors will likely get students who are excellent writers along with the barely literate. It seems that this problem must be resolved before English departments are able to pursue their lofty goals instead of engaging in remedial education.
ReplyDeleteOf course I agree that may FYC students are poor writers (and poor readers), and I too attribute much of this to high school. First, though, I think it's necessary to remember that complaints about the quality of students "these days" have been around for as long as teaching has been around (note Brereton's discussion of English departments at the start of the 20th century).
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that one major change is that we've decided failure is unacceptable at any level. High schools have been transformed into purely college-focused environments (though they admittedly do a terrible job at this, they don't prepare students for anything else at all-aka, no trades), and any high school dropout is seen as a failure on the part of the school. Likewise, colleges too face this urge toward retention. Texas, for example, is slowly moving toward funding colleges based on course completion rather than course registration, which will surely accelerate the implicit push to increase pass rates. Witness also the NCLB act, which gradually ramps up the minimum success rate on standardized tests until it reaches 100%. Yes, 100%. (That, I believe, is a backdoor attempt to corporatize education, as well as pure greed and idiocy, but I'll save that discussion.) And what happens to high school grads who aren't prepared for college? Enter the community college, in which developmental courses offer high school material at a charge.
Underlying all of this is the belief that every person is both willing and able to succeed in college, and at the risk of accusations of elitism, I don't believe this to be true. I'm willing to accept the "able" part (generally), but I've taught for too long to believe that all students are actually willing to succeed. Certainly better teaching (how and what we teach, per Schank) will help, but 100%? In any case, I strongly believe one of the messages new college students most need to learn (the one they haven't learned in high school) is that failure IS possible. We will fail them if they don't meet standards. High schools have stopped doing this. Colleges can't give in to similar pressure.