Let us teach you to write so we can learn to read

Given the prompt, which we are all aware and need no rehashing of, I am of several minds on the issue and am glad I waited this long to reply.

If such requirements were part of my syllabus and my demands of the students were as such and made clear, I personally would follow the same path Eric did by simply working with the students and stressing, with the possibility of sticker punishments as the problem persists.

But this all rides on me putting these requirements in my syllabus which I don’t. I really am not sure why this is even an issue. I see the value in the additional materials in assessing the student’s progress, but let’s not fluff the idea of process as the academic setting may be one of the few times that someone will be required to submit a process over a product. The inherent problems I have with holding back their grade or potentially failing them for not turning in required materials is that it does not show their understanding or comprehension of the material or ability to write. An outstanding process does not necessitate an outstanding writer and vice versa and we must decide what we want our students to be and we will swarm to them being good writers. We teach process in order to make them better writers, but even then the idea of the process being best is still in debate as many of us have been instructed in a product view. I simply can’t justify basing a student grade on turning in something besides the final product.

But I feel Jacob brings up a really great point in his blog which I will summarize and not reiterate. Go read his if you want a better concept of it. He essentially wrote that we are encouraged to be more lenient in our grading of students. We have personal heartfelt strings pulling us in multiple directions but we are pulled institutionally towards the lenient side. I thoroughly agree with this.

I have actually had a conversation dealing with this issue with several friends. MSU does not wish to cater towards the privileged, or “elite”. MSU seeks to cater to a wider and not as selective audience, giving more individuals a chance of a college education and thus opportunity to further their lives. Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant, but in catering to the under-privileged, we have, as Jacob stated, lowered our desire to enforce harsher penalties and have become lenient. The assumption is that the masses are not as responsible as the “elite” and deserve special leniency. If we wish to be truly cynical, if the harsher penalties are enforced, the student drops out and someone does not receive the tuition check which would be coming in. Wonder where that line of thinking came from.

But I am still mixed. I am naturally lenient, taking to heart what Dr. Weaver asked, “Would you rather have a good paper later or a bad paper on time?” The whole concept of looking at 110 as a job is flawed I feel as the setting and perception is entirely different and incomparable except on the vague concept of projects. The pay-checks don’t even float the right way. I handle this on a case-by-case basis of who the student is and their attempts at progress. But also I recognize this really isn’t holding them to the standard of an educated person as society will want to hold them to for having a college degree. I am still having personal wars with this and have more to say, but this a long entry and I may be rambling. So I am going to shut up.