Dartmouth, FYC, etc
Kitzhaber based his studies of first year writing on Dartmouth, and it seems we are returning to Dartmouth these days. The importance of the development of the Institute for Writing and Rhetoric still is not evident to me, but a key component seems to be the “elimination of the exemption” that many Dartmouth freshpeople previously enjoyed. I disagree with Steve that exemption is necessarily a bad thing. For whatever reason, there is a circulating belief that “we” (the rhetoric and composition faculty or we the WPAs) hurt when a student opts out of fyc. I don’t feel that way at all. As someone who never took fyc, but who has taught it and directed it, I’m not sure there is any punishment on me or other faculty if students move on with their lives without this course. Indeed, the only one who hurts is the university who loses money when the student does not take the course. Les exemptions, and the WPA hurts; who will staff these courses; who will educate yet additional instructors regarding the teaching of writing; who will manage the ever growing staff that is responsible for those instructors, and so on. We will make you take our course until we hurt.
And the pay off? In some of the information theory I am working with for Chapter Five of Digital Detroit, the question of pay off is important. Herbert Simon proposes the “good enough” outcome many decision making moments rely on. Composition, at the first year level, often is the settling for “good enough.” More students. More courses. We feel “good enough” that we have met some responsibility. When I feel responsible, I feel good enough. But am I good enough?
Not really. I am more interested in the pleasure of work. The interesting discussions regarding pedagogy, the interesting writings done by students, the interesting ideas regarding mentoring, program building, curriculum that we come up with. At the first year level, exemption is less of a concern for me.
All pretty good points. I guess I’d just add/respond with three quick thoughts:
* Part of the bug-a-boo I had in mind is that no exemptions would help solve one of the other problems we have at a place like EMU, which is placement in the first place. Instead of going through all that, we could just say “this is it, and this is the way it shall be.”
* Really, the arguments you are making here could be applied to the whole enterprise that is fycomp, the Crowley et al school of thought that we ought to shut it down as a mandatory requirement. There is a part of me that agrees with this sentiment. But at the end of the day, I guess I side more with the “better to teach it the way we do than not teach it at all” camp.
* I think there are a lot of people in the fycomp biz who managed to not take the course. I wonder what that says about us, and about the course?
Comment by Steve Krause — February 6, 2008 @ 11:41 am
You’re right. If I’m in a camp, then I am in the Crowley one. But that is a larger issue. And in many ways, it is moot. Economics and graduate study will never allow it to shut down. The issue is too complicated once we see how fyc sits within a larger network.
Regarding the last point, it says a lot. Generalizations probably don’t work here, but overall, it is possible to go on, live a good life, write, do good work, and never have taken fyc.
Comment by jrice — February 6, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
right on. Steve, too. interesting discussion.
Comment by bonnie kyburz — February 12, 2008 @ 2:28 pm