I like stuff that works and stuff that makes other stuff work. WD-40, for instance, is a really good sort of stuff. A high-grade steel blade on a pocket knife is good. AWD in snow is similarly useful. That's the same way I see teaching composition. We are their WD-40, their scrimshaw-handled pocket knife, their AWD in the blizzard.
Or, we're not. Maybe we're place holders until they matriculate with a shrug and get handed off to their employers, to the rest of their lives. I subscribe to the first view touched on above but have seen the second held in the private thoughts of many overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated composition faculty members.
For years, we've heard about grade inflation, barely literate college graduates, and potential employers bemoaning their young recruits' inability to think or write clearly. Those employers, reasonably enough, pass the blame back toward the colleges. In their turn, the colleges blame the high schools; the high schools point to the middle schools, which point to the grade schools; the grade schools, in their defense, then say that parents aren't involved enough. The parents, say school admins, are pawning off their responsibility to help educate their children.
All this probably has some truth to it. However, when was the last time students at the college level were called out to take up their own cause? They are, after all, not required to be in college. No one's forcing them; as adults, they've made a decision. And I believe first year composition courses, in addition to providing the opportunity to learn portable skills we're all familiar with, should challenge students to cut their teeth on the world. It is entirely possible that many of our students just aren't cut out to cut their teeth at the college level.
There's no shame in this. Somewhere along the line, the idea has perfumed our culture that a college degree is a foregone conclusion for anyone willing and able to pay the tab. What this means, though, is that previously respected and valuable careers are now deemed undesirable. This is a classist view that not only demeans any number of careers available to non-degree holding adults but pressures college systems to accommodate students who are, while deserving of the chance to receive their degrees, unable to make it work. There is nothing wrong with this fact. College ought to be hard; it ought not to be for everyone. It is important that, while we support and actively work toward providing opportunities to achieve a degree, we do not confuse the chance for with the promise of.
Take the converse of the argument. Growing up, after abandoning my hopes for a starting position as a Green Bay Packer defensive back (Bye, Brett!), I wanted little else but to raise goats in the mountains or be a stone mason. However, know-how and genetics conspired against me. I did not--still don't--know how to raise goats. As for stone masonry work, I get winded lifting bricks. No one suggested that they make stone masonry work easier in order to accommodate chicken-armed folk like myself.
The same should be true for the why and the how of teaching composition. If the skills in our classes can't be developed, can't be honed and built upon and adapted to the learning which will help our class succeed as students, employees, and humans, then it's possible they missed the point, that they just might need to find another, equally important and meaningful , goal for their lives.
In that way, in addition to FYC's set of learning goals, we are gatekeepers. And while we should keep the hinges well oiled, I am also sure to keep it shut tight when need be.
For another voice addressing some of these similar ideas, click here for an insightful article from The Atlantic about teaching adjunct night classes at the university level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Thougthful post, Adam, that would seem to skewer some of the commonly accepted wisdom that everyone can get a college degree. College should be a challange, and FYC a big part of that challenge. Of course, you go into teaching with the assumption that everyone can succeed as long as you and the student both apply hard work and, sometimes, even a little WD 40. But we all know there are lubrication challenges even WD 40 can't fix--such as those of extremely rusty metal. So we should be under no illusion that we can turn every student into a great writer. That would just build frustration for all parties.
The students’ WD-40, eh? I like the analogy. My interpretation is that the FYC instructor is a facilitator of a predetermined action: just as the WD-40 I spray on that squeaky door hinge lubricates the opening and closing of a door that will have to move as has already been determined to work, the FYC instructor teaches (more or less) what the accumulated wisdom of the university has already determined to work. I think that’s fine. It seems we should have some faith in what was working, more or less, before we arrived. I’m not saying FYC is ideal, but it does seem to be functioning well enough that it hasn’t yet been abolished in favor of the approach called Writing Across the Curriculum. I wonder what form the latter would take? Would the FYC TA’s lose their jobs?
You raise some interesting questions about whom colleges should educate. The Americans have taken the approach that at least admission to universities supported primarily by taxpayers’ money should be available to most, haven’ they? At least my understanding of the system is that although it may be easy to gain admission, it is often difficult to graduate. This lends credence to your claim that some students must be failed if they cannot meet the standards. In contrast to the American system, don’t many countries have apprentice systems operating in conjunction with the university system? Admission to university then becomes more difficult, but the attrition rates for those admitted are probably lower. I’m not sure which system is better, but it seems the American approach offers greater social mobility for those capable of capitalizing on opportunity, whereas the system which has a university track and an apprentice track offers more security for those not prepared for, or not desiring, a university education.
With globalization and the seeming inevitable advancement of free-market capitalism, both systems are probably in for some shocks as greater numbers of people enter the competition for fewer high-paying, high-status jobs. Aren’t we seeing this already?
"With globalization and the seeming inevitable advancement of free-market capitalism, both systems are probably in for some shocks as greater numbers of people enter the competition for fewer high-paying, high-status jobs."
Yes, Kevin. This is a likely trend, although so far innovation has been able to add jobs at a pretty good rate in most developed nations. The problem is the underdeveloped nations. And as they make their way into the elite club they will continue to offer educated workers, perhaps at less cost, than the developed nations are offering. Of course, they should also offer more consumers, thereby adding to overall economic growth. That's how it is supposed to work. But I'd be speaking way above my expertise and forecasing powers if I were to suggest I have any idea whether the market system will continue to work given possible outside shocks, such as global warming or nuclear weapons in the wrong hands (are there any right hands?)
Post a Comment