This is the area where Daniel and Melissa will be desicussing the introductory chapter of the book. We will share our thoughts on the goals and procedures of this "search for answers".
I like the fact that the editors of this book are approaching their task from a variety of angles and perspectives. They are bringing in thoughts from all affected parties: high school teachers, college professors, students, and administrators. It just goes to show from the very beginning that this question, what is college-level writing, is a complex one.
The goal of this project is not to necessarily find one answer but to initiate a much needed dialogue on the topic of college-level writing. While some common standards and a definition for the term "College-level" writing is desired, it is made clear that this might not be possible for many reasons. I think Sullivan provides a good overall summary of this debate and its factors. While he presents some theories as to why evaluating language and writing is difficult, he does emphasize that it is necessary because of the number of underprepared college students enrolled in colleges across the nation. I find it interesting that in trying to establish a bridge to connect all factors and contributors, the fact that this is truly a divided issue seems to come up again and again. There are opposing sides to every aspect of this issue (Those for and against assessment. Those for and against remedial courses.)and it is easy to see why a clear cut definition adn set of standards has yet to be devloped. Despite all these challenges, however, Sullivan thinks this can be done and even provides his own definition for college-level writing. I found it a little humorous that in this essay discussing all the reasons why we have yet to come up with universal or global standards for college-level writing, the definition he gives is very similar to those I've seen in the readings from class and even hold myself.
there was one quote Sullivan cited that interested me: the right to an education for which one is hopelessly underprepared is not much of a right at all.
the reason this quotes piqued my interest is because there is a strong ring of truth to the fact that it's pointless to have access to a postsecondary education that one is not prepared for. Following this quote is the debate as to whether or not money should be invested in remedial programs that soley serve to "reward incompetence".
I'm not sure which side i fall on. as a secondary teacher, remedial programs are essentially testaments to how i and my colleagues in high school failed our students - which is infuriating when we known we've done our best. Add to that that public education isn't free (the public pays for it) and then that the tuition of remedial programs are sometimes paid with financial aid, we then end up with a situation where the public is "paying twice" for the same education - which any taxpayer would complain about.
on the other hand, there is something to be said for second chances, right?
I agree with you here, Daniel. I'm wary to pick a side on this particular issue. While I do believe in second chances, we all at one time or another need them, what about third, fourth and fifth chances? What about teachers that are tired of being the ones in charge of these extra chances and in turn just pass on the student?
If a student needs remedial courses they are lacking essential skills necessary to be successful in college. I have known students that have taken these courses not once or twice, but several times. I don't think this is right, especially when I have also personally seen cases where students are passed on just because of how long they have been trying. This is an inservice to the student and society. Remedial courses in and of themselves aren't evil or wrong, it's how they are implemented and their "success" that I call into question.
I like the fact that the editors of this book are approaching their task from a variety of angles and perspectives. They are bringing in thoughts from all affected parties: high school teachers, college professors, students, and administrators. It just goes to show from the very beginning that this question, what is college-level writing, is a complex one.
ReplyDeleteThe goal of this project is not to necessarily find one answer but to initiate a much needed dialogue on the topic of college-level writing. While some common standards and a definition for the term "College-level" writing is desired, it is made clear that this might not be possible for many reasons. I think Sullivan provides a good overall summary of this debate and its factors. While he presents some theories as to why evaluating language and writing is difficult, he does emphasize that it is necessary because of the number of underprepared college students enrolled in colleges across the nation.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that in trying to establish a bridge to connect all factors and contributors, the fact that this is truly a divided issue seems to come up again and again. There are opposing sides to every aspect of this issue (Those for and against assessment. Those for and against remedial courses.)and it is easy to see why a clear cut definition adn set of standards has yet to be devloped. Despite all these challenges, however, Sullivan thinks this can be done and even provides his own definition for college-level writing. I found it a little humorous that in this essay discussing all the reasons why we have yet to come up with universal or global standards for college-level writing, the definition he gives is very similar to those I've seen in the readings from class and even hold myself.
there was one quote Sullivan cited that interested me: the right to an education for which one is hopelessly underprepared is not much of a right at all.
ReplyDeletethe reason this quotes piqued my interest is because there is a strong ring of truth to the fact that it's pointless to have access to a postsecondary education that one is not prepared for. Following this quote is the debate as to whether or not money should be invested in remedial programs that soley serve to "reward incompetence".
I'm not sure which side i fall on. as a secondary teacher, remedial programs are essentially testaments to how i and my colleagues in high school failed our students - which is infuriating when we known we've done our best. Add to that that public education isn't free (the public pays for it) and then that the tuition of remedial programs are sometimes paid with financial aid, we then end up with a situation where the public is "paying twice" for the same education - which any taxpayer would complain about.
on the other hand, there is something to be said for second chances, right?
I agree with you here, Daniel. I'm wary to pick a side on this particular issue. While I do believe in second chances, we all at one time or another need them, what about third, fourth and fifth chances? What about teachers that are tired of being the ones in charge of these extra chances and in turn just pass on the student?
ReplyDeleteIf a student needs remedial courses they are lacking essential skills necessary to be successful in college. I have known students that have taken these courses not once or twice, but several times. I don't think this is right, especially when I have also personally seen cases where students are passed on just because of how long they have been trying. This is an inservice to the student and society. Remedial courses in and of themselves aren't evil or wrong, it's how they are implemented and their "success" that I call into question.