Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce
Special orders, don't upset us
All we ask is that you let us
Serve it your way
The New York Times’ Stanley Fish is at it again. (See What Should Colleges Teach?) Peevitudinal hectoring. You know.
He's worried about writing ability. Even grad students, he carps, can’t write “a clean English sentence.” What’s up with that?
According to Fish, it seems, the problem is that composition classes teach “everything under the sun,” but they don't teach composition.
Years ago, her writes, he secured the lesson plans of 104 composition classes and he found that
instruction in composition was not their focus. Instead, the students spent much of their time discussing novels, movies, TV shows and essays on a variety of hot-button issues — racism, sexism, immigration, globalization.
Yep, that’s what they do. Is that a bad thing? Students have to write about something, don't they?
Fish, being Fish, adopted a bold and unpopular position and then commenced bulldozing: “unless writing courses focus exclusively on writing they are a sham, and I advised administrators to insist that all courses listed as courses in composition teach grammar and rhetoric and nothing else.”
“Nothing else,” eh? Is that even possible? Perhaps, our readers who teach composition can weigh in.
Oddly (or no?), Fish says he now has “support” from a right-wing organization:
Now I have received (indirect) support from a source that makes me slightly uncomfortable, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni …, [f]ounded by Lynne Cheney and Jerry Martin in 1995….
Yep, that Lynne Cheney, the wife of you-know-who and the author of the notorious novel Sisters. (Gosh, it’s got lesbian action. OK, but surely this is surprising coming from Cheney, that right-wing culture warrior.)
He’s only “slightly” uncomfortable?
Fish does criticize the ACTA’s willingness to “monitor academic work from the outside.” The “cure for the politicization of the classroom by some professors is not the counter-politicization urged by ACTA,” he says.
Still, he finds much in ACTA’s recent report (“What Will They Learn?”) to agree with:
With respect to science, composition, foreign language instruction and mathematics, ACTA is simply saying, Don’t slight the core of the discipline.
In essence, Fish adopts the mantra: “teach the subject matter and don’t adulterate it with substitutes.”
Got that, comp instructors?
Students are offered too many choices, too many options, says Fish (and Cheney, et al.). Instead, college instruction should focus on a coherent “core curriculum.” Fish quotes Cheney and Co.:
An “important benefit of a coherent core curriculum is its ability to foster a ‘common conversation’ among students, connecting them more closely with faculty and with each other.”
Yeah, that’s been E.D. Hirsch’s big point. Communitarians sometimes harp on this. Makes sense to me. Up to a point.
From there, Fish does part ways with the restrictive right-wingers:
The nice thing about this benefit is that it can be had no matter what the content of the core curriculum is. It could be the classics of western literature and philosophy. It could be science fiction. It could be globalization. It could be anything so long as every student took it. But whatever it is, please let it include a writing course that teaches writing and not everything under the sun….
OK, comp instructors. What do you think? Are your comp classes a “sham”?
39 comments:
I'd like to see Stanley Fish teach a WR 201 class...
I wodner what Mr. Fish and Co. would think about the trend toward student self-placement into composition classes...I hear it saves money and time.
This is not exactly on-topic, but I've been frustrated for a while at the gradual disappearance of derived adverbs from spoken American English.
Has anyone else noticed this?
ES
This will reveal my hideous grammatical ignorance; but give an example, please, ES!
--MAH
"The boat capsized quick" rather than "quickly"; "I eat healthy" instead of "healthily".
You probably have already guessed by now that they are derived adverbs because they are derived from the words "quick" and "healthy", respectively.
ES
Well, yes, now that you've explained it, I do recognize the phenomenon. The culture is drifting, it seems, more and more in the direction of the semi-literate or inarticulate speech of pop culture and TV. And colleges no longer transmit the old standards effectively. What amazes me is the lameness with which people who should know better let this all pass without a fight. Maybe it's just wisdom: no use shovelling sh*t against the tide. But what will be the fate and standing of those well-trained in writing and speech? Will they be dinosaurs? Or rare representatives of a better time, like old jazz musicians and MB 300SL gull wings?
Just like you usually do, you've just expressed this really well. It's the "lameness with which people...let it all pass without a fight". Ugh! It's NORMAL now! And I don't mean just with kids. I can't watch the news because the reporters are doing it too, and not just the youngster-reporters. I've wondered the same thing about the idea of some people becoming "representatives of a better time", or maybe just "dinosaurs". Heck, I feel old now, just because I still say "wove" instead of "weaved". Now I can't remember what those are called, they are our version of an irregular verb, I guess (we have nothing on the French when it comes to those stupid irregular verbs!. But apparently those are going away, too. Other ones that seem to be out of favor are dove (replaced with dived), shone (shined). Ugh. My ears hurt just thinking about it. But our language, and language in general, has always evolved...
ES
Sorry to be more ointment on Mr. Fish's fly, but the larger problem is, of course, the ghetto-ization of writing in the academy. Have you seen papers written in other courses? Have you spoken to the appropriately embarrassed teachers of, say, those social science courses which still require written essays? If instructors and administrators stopped blaming Comp teachers, and insisted on more writing everywhere, and better writing, we wouldn't perhaps be experiencing this fetishization of writing, as if the Comp classroom were some singular pathway to civic literacy and competence and critical thinking, all alone. This is, in short, the corporate model. The worst-kept secret in colleges and universities is that students don't learn how to write until they have to, which means as seniors or grad students who are writing because they want to be part of an academic or professional community. Because it matters to them, they learn the language of discourse. Required Comp classes, mostly seen as punitive, and largely REMEDIAL (by definition) taught by TAs and Lecturers --- in other words exploited adjunct faculty --- focus on trying to do everything, Mr. Fish, because often the specialization and (important) focus of teaching in other disciplines assumes, incorrectly, lamely, that students can put what they are learning in some kind of context. They can't. If you cannot read and write, well, no, you have no context. Composition teaches, or tries to teach, context for the intellectual work, also remedial, of making sense of the world and of the whole dreadful corporate university model. Clark Kerr called it "the multiversity," a system which he said had "uses" -- for whom? Corporations and the military, mostly. Yikes. The underacknowledged role of Composition teachers is, importantly, to teach "intellectual self-defense" (Chomsky) while also teaching, god help us, subject-verb agreement, citation, how to read and think critically. It is just silly to pick on Composition --- but essential to Fish and his rightist new best friends. Should Biology teachers "focus exclusively" on Biology? What would that even mean, I wonder? (It means working as a scientist for Dow Chemical, brothers and sisters!) Thus concludes my rant. Sorry.
That's one excellent rant, 7:55. Thank you for it.
Our U. tries to teach writing "across the curriculum," but I sometimes despair of actual improvement in students' writing. I try to teach decent writing in Philosophy courses, which is painful and surprising to the students. They do knuckle under and try harder, and often do better in later work. But then, sometimes, a couple of semesters later someone from the prior class turns up in another course of mine. Guess what?--They seem to have forgotten everything they painfully learned the first time around about clear writing, developing an argument, and so on. MOST disheartening. (They do knuckle under again, then, and often improve all over again.)
I'm probably too quick to blame my colleagues; apparently, though, students have gotten away with shoddy, imprecise, slack writing they land in difficult, writing-intensive courses.
A never-ending battle!
Your points about having students CARE about the outcome of their writing, and about needing a context for ideas and writing, are really good.
--MAH
Sorry: there's a missing "until" in my third paragraph above. Bad proof-reading!
--MAH
I see, ES, about derived adverbs. They are so much lovelier at a strictly aesthetic level, as well as being correct. I'm sorry to see them disappear, too.
I have been horrified to hear or read people say something like this: "He strolled leisurely away." What?! Seems as if it needs to be "leisurely-ly," but I suppose that won't do. One has to say, I guess, that he strolled away in a leisurely manner.
At any rate, I hate it that many people don't even realize that there are other, (once) proper, disappearing ways of saying these things. True: language does evolve, and one doesn't want to be rigid in a way that denies that; but I'd prefer people to REALIZE the history of the terms they use, at least--and to have a sense of the incredible richness and versatility of our language.
--MAH
That does sound disheartening. How can it be that so few instructors insist on decent writing? I know you're not asking for much, MAH--just clear, intelligible sentences and coherent paragraphs. The problem seems to afflict the entire system. Indeed, increasingly I encounter instructors who seem incapable of (or to lazy to produce) clear writing.
When "party" became a verb, the decline took on speed.
1:42, that's funny!!
ES
Or, "He strolled away leisurely".
I'm not sure if "He strolled leisurely away" is actually incorrect. It does seem more awkward.
ES
Strollwise, he leisured.
He strolled, leisurely, away.
When I read Chunk's version, I thought:
Stool size, he seizured.
Then I laughed like first grader.
Silly Roy, I know that one is wrong!
ES
But can "leisurely" be both an adjective and an adverb? I understand "her students studied at a leisurely pace." There's a nice, clear adjective to modify "pace." So how can it be that one can also say "he strolled away leisurely," with "leisurely being a flat-out verb???! It don't seem right, somehow. ;)
Lazy thing that I am, I haven't checked a dictionary yet. I'm off to do so now. But do you see why I'm driven into confusion by this word?
MAH
Oh, hell; I meant "adverb." How can it be both an adjective and an adverb? Is it???
I may be losing it.
MAH
Okay, okay: "leisurely": adj.: acting or done at leisure; unhurried or relaxed: "a leisurely breakfast...."
adv.: without hurry: "couples strolled leisurely along."
This according to my New Oxford American Dictionary, 2001, which I finally consulted.
I still don't have to like it!
Maybe this is one of those uses that evolved from error--? If so, its illogic is easier for me to take.
MAH
On Grammar
I reasoned my way through all the rules of grammar and the vast plains of the internet to bring you this sweet grammatical nectar.
Simple Note: Adjectives describe nouns. Adverbs describe verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs.
Our example to undergo scrutiny (and put to rest MAH's head):
"Her students studied at a leisurely pace."
Subject: "Her students"
Predicate: "studied at a leisurely pace"
In the predicate, studied is the main verb, "at a leisurely pace" is an adverbial phrase (I think a preposition + noun) modifying the verb.
Preposition: at
Described Noun: a (article) leisurely (adjective) pace (noun).
Leisurely in this sentence would be an adjective modifying the noun, pace. But it is a part of an adverbial modifying the verb. So yeah, it is confusing (I.e. it is sort of an adjective AND an adverb).
I am going to go ahead and assume that there is an explanation for all of these rules and that I quite simply lack the sophistication to completely and totally understand it. "Does Reb know?" I have to wonder.
Off the Cuff Rant Inspired by Thoughts Posted Above
I figure that any thoughtful individuals of any major will suffer the great defeat of the "totally uninformed majority." That is, a mathematician bemoans the mathematically incompetent public, the philosopher will bemoan the loss of reason, and the english major will bemoan the lack of proper language, the art major the lack of art appreciation, the scientist the lack of scientific understanding, the historian the ignorant youth of today, and finally the physical education teacher will bemoan the lack of physical aptitude. Not that I intend to act in defense of ignorance but its sort of a fact that people are uninformed, including (most likely, oh not-so-likely-omniscient reader) yourself and myself.
So, in the words of my father: "Worry about your own ass."
And, in other words, "Do not concern yourself with what they are doing." They, in this case, being the uninformed majority.
grew weary of writing about grammar, and apologizes for the lack of fluency BS
Your efforts to put MAH's head to rest are much appreciated, BS. And your perceptions of how each of us bemoans the ignorance of the masses (which tend to be omni-ignorant, I fear) are right on target. I think I know what your Dad means, though I can't completely condone his conclusion. After all, the uninformed majority VOTES! That's what keeps me up at night.
MAH
Sorry, but this is going to take a while.
First, there are two kinds of adverbs in English, adverbs of manner and sentential adverbs. The first (which ES calls "dervied adverbs--a term I've never heard of until now) comes from phrases like "in an X manner." For example, "Roy proofread his work in a careful manner"--> "Roy proofread his work carefully."
Sentential adverbs indicate the writer's (or speaker's) attitude or opinion: "Clearly, the Chunkster has an ax to grind" means something like "I, the writer (or speaker), think that it is clear that the Chunkster has an ax to grind."
Next, the problem with teaching traditional English grammar is that the first English grammars, wrtten in the 16th and 17th centuries, assumed that because Latin has eight parts of speech and twelve tenses, English must also have eight parts of speech and twelve tenses.
But English is a Germanic language, and its structure is much different than Latinate languages. That's why we often hear students say things like "I never understood English grammar until I studied Spanish/French."
We tell students things that the verb in a sentence like "John leaves" is present tense even though sentences like "John leaves tommorrow" or "John leaves for work every day at 8:00" are clearly (there's a sentential adverb for you) something other than present tense.
Finally, complaints about students' lack of literacy are nothing new. In 1870, the dean of the Harvard medical school elimiinated written examinations "because most of the students could not write will enough." The President of Harvard University wrote (in 1873) that "Bad spelling, incorrectness as well as inelegance of expression in writing, ignorance of the simplest rules of punctuation . . . are far from rare among young men of eighteen otherwise well-prepared to pursue thier college education." At a time (1963) when SAT scores were near their all-time high, Admiral Hyman Rickover, in "American Education: A National Failure" cited a University of Pittsburgh study which concluded that only one American high school student in 100 was able to write a five-minute composition without numerous mechanical mistakes in English.
The point is that we old farts have ALWAYS complained that kids today can't write. But this claim presupposes that at some previous time, students were able to write clear, effective, grammatical English. That has never been true.
Finally (and this time I really mean it), the earliest extant piece--it dates from c. 2000 BCE-- of human writing is a shard of Sumerian pottery inscribed in cuneiform. Miraculously (another sentential adverb), we can decode it. And guess what it says?
Kids today can't write.
--100 miles down the road
Funny as hell! Yet CLEARLY (!), the problem has worsened with time.
Thanks for the interesting historical perspective, though, 100 miles.
MAH
Thanks, MAH, but "CLEARLY, the problem has worsened with time" means that it is clear to you that things are worse. It is not clear to me.
My question: Is there any objective, empirical evidence that shows students' writing ability is declining? Data is not the plural of anecdote.
And I need to say that I've been a community college writing teacher since 1973, and while I've read literally billions of words of bad student writing, I'm not convinced that students today are any less competent than they were back in the day.
Back then, students needed lots and lots of experience (in both reading and writing) and lots and lots of help with both.
And back then, I had many more middle-class students who came from relatively privileged backgrounds, and many more students who were native speakers of English.
So it's difficult for me to say that students today are worse because it's comparing apples and oranges. They were pretty bad back then, and they are much different today.
--100 miles
I found the following relevant to our discussion, hot off the RSS feed.
From Slashdot:
... "[Lunsford] has organized a mammoth project called the Stanford Study of Writing to scrutinize college students' prose. From 2001 to 2006, she collected 14,672 student writing samples — everything from in-class assignments, formal essays, and journal entries to emails, blog posts, and chat sessions. Her conclusions are stirring. 'I think we're in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since Greek civilization,' she says. For Lunsford, technology isn't killing our ability to write. It's reviving it — and pushing our literacy in bold new direction
We're In The Midst of a Literacy Revolution
Am I gonna have to dig up the writing samples I just got from my new crop of students and reveal reality to the world? If there's a revolution, it ain't happening in Irvine.
I knew it would be controversial to say so, 100 miles; but I am confident that things have worsened since, say, 1873. Why the confidence?--Well, just reading letters from that era (and prior eras--for example, accounts of the Vesuvius eruption by Pliny the Younger) convinces me that even dunderheads of the past (I mean past centuries, not decades) were still a lot better off in the writing area than the dunderheads of today.
I could be wrong--but I don't think so!
MAH
Roy, I believe you. But could you anyways? Just for some laughs? Is it bad that I want to laugh at that?
Oh geez.
I want to see the samples too!
ES
Aw, c'mon, Roy, anyone can find tens, hundreds, thousands of examples of horrible student writing. Here's a good one from one of my students: "its a doggy dog world out their." So what?
The question is whether college students today write more poorly than college students did sometime in the past.
I don't know if the question is even answerable because college students today are different than they were in the past.
When I graduated from my working-class high school in the 60s (okay, Chula Vista High School in 1965), maybe a few dozen kids in a graduating class of 300+ went on to college.
Chula Vista has changed, and today students at CVHS are much poorer, and 95% of the student body is Chicano/Latino. A big chunk of students are recent immigrants, and an even bigger chunk are learning English as a second language.
But CVHS sends about half of each year's graduating class off to college. That's a GOOD thing in my opinion, but I don't understand how can anyone make a fair comparison--one which accounts for variables like parental education and socio-economic class--between CVHS students in 1965 and 2009.
And I need to point out that while some working-class kids like me went to college in the 60s, a generation earlier--my parents' generation--only the sons and daughters of the well-off went to college. A generation before that, only the sons and daughters of the elite went to college. And a generation before that, college was for males only.
Folks out there who are really interested in this question should take a look at "American English Grammar" (sorry, but my computer doesn't do italics) published in 1940 by the linguist C.C. Fries and commissioned by the National Council of Teachers of English. Fries examined letters written by ordinary Americans of diverse background. His book is an invaluable source of unedited writings produced by people seventy years ago and should be required reading for anyone who complains about the decline of today's students writing skills.
--100 miles down the road
Oh, it wouldn't be proper or right for Roy to show recent samples; 'twouldn't be at all nice for the students (one never knows if some of them may read this blog). We should all save old samples of awful writing for this very purpose....
MAH
Well, 100 miles, I think Roy's post about recent samples was a reply to BS's finding of some who think that technology is actually enhancing student literacy right now. His samples *would* be relevant to that question.
I have to add, too, that whether or not tough social conditions contribute to bad writing (of COURSE they do), one can still claim that the typical person today is a worse writer than yesterday.... Isn't that to some degree a quite objective matter of how many errors there are in the typical person's writing?
Errors like "doggy dog world" are disturbing for a reason; the student who writes that has no idea what the expression actually means--or only a defective idea. "Dog EAT dog" conveys a brutal, competitive, zero-sum situation. "Doggy dog" could mean -- what? All sorts of other things--even a fuzzy, loving world--or nothing at all in particular.
Fun discussion.
MAH
I wrote up a huge post, and it was virtually identical to 100 miles. I should read posts carefully before I write.
MAH
one can still claim that the typical person today is a worse writer than yesterday.... Isn't that to some degree a quite objective matter of how many errors there are in the typical person's writing?
You mean the actual yesterday? Today is 8/29, yesterday was 8/28? I would say that it is unlikely that you become a worse writer, and more likely that an individual becomes a better writer over the span of a day.
If you mean yesterday in the period of say 200 years, no matter what your criteria for scanning a paper, what is important is what the data from that paper represents. "Who does it represent?" is a good question. Does it represent the social elite? Or the normal populace? I argued in my post that Chunk Peabody could take his time machine back in time and sample students writings. He would see that in his first few classes (say a thousand years ago) he would have a handful of individuals representative of a very narrow class of individuals, naturally they will be better because they represent the best of the time. As time moves forward, the sample size expands until present day, where our sample size is representative of practically everyone (and everyone's terrible living conditions). So I am with 100 miles, in this regard, the question is not answerable because what we mean by writers is this amorphous glob of a definition that changes over time.
- needs food BS
Please see my new post that presents a summary of the government's data regarding long-term changes in student writing ability.
"As the school year begins, be ready to hear pundits fretting once again about how kids today can't write—..."
Clive Thompson on the New Literacy
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-09/st_thompson
Interesting article.
ES
ES, that is the same article I posted!
I guess we both need to read more before posting! I bought this mag in paper form at the airport a few days ago, but had not opened it until today - this was the first article I saw and it was so relevant to the discussion...
ES
Post a Comment