I found Where’s the Action by Professor R. Lanham more than a little idealistic. I accept that academic writing standards are seriously flawed; however, the question we need to consider is not whether there is a problem, but rather how we can fix this problem.
I understand that teachers need to assign essays. Personally, as a student, I will admit I still need some outside motivation. However, I was very cynical of high school writing – volume was the key – there was a set range for the page limit, and diligent students attempted to match it. I was not asked to think when I wrote –the page limit said very clearly that I was being judged on quantity rather than quality.
Professor Lanham makes the point that “government, military, social, scientific, lab scientific, [and] MBA flapdoodle” all exhibit the same “central imbalance,” that they all worship “stasis over action” (307). He clarifies his argument by stating that “[we] all sometimes feel, whatever setting we write in, that we will be penalized for writing in plain English,” that we will feel it “sounds too flip,” or “[even] satirical” (307). I completely agree, but I still fail to see the other option, writing to be easily understood, as realistic. The norms of our world are founded on relative perception; when the majority of an academic populace accepts a certain mindset, the collective mental inertia works effectively to stifle the efforts of an idealistic maverick.
Notice that last sentence? Couldn’t I just have said “everyone else believes complexity sounds smart, so Lanham’s ideas are utterly inapplicable”? I guess I could have, but I’m indoctrinated already, so unfortunately clarity lost out.
The little idealism left in my cynical soul hopes for a world where teachers assign essays with NO boundaries. College writing is getting there – there are no cookie-cutter topics anymore, but I’m still a little disappointed that the worth of my ideas is even partially judged by the number of pages I turn in. Really speaking, if a student forces in the extra words when he or she really has nothing more to say, is it worth the teacher’s time to read fluff? Students should have the option of turning in what they consider truly worth reading, not just what they feel the teacher expects to read.
As students, we have to take the academic world as it is, but it is worth considering that while the status quo might be the easiest option, it is not necessarily the best one. When one man stands up in a crowd, his voice is lost in the wind. When the crowd stands up together, they make their voices heard. It is up to the writers of tomorrow, and their teachers, to set precedents together so that, one day, we can cut the crippling literary red tape of today.
3 comments:
I totally agree with the quantity instead of quality suggestion you made about what we as students are expected to submit. But from the other side I also completely understand the need for page limits and quotas.Here is why I think it is important.
There are those students that need a quota or a set amount they must reach to submit their papers. If there wasn't these few students (who hasn't wanted to be a slacker for once) will submit barely anything worth noting whether it was good work or not.
I have seen it myself, on a rough draft senior year, the teacher did not set a quota for the 1st draft and the student behind me literally typing it before class submitted, two sentences (as separate paragraphs) and a three sentence paragraph. Okay so really... even if those five sentences were amazing... that is not a paper.
Quotas can also be a goal to reach, an opportunity to expand your thoughts.
And on the other side we need limits as well. First off, many teachers don't want to or don't have the time to read 10-20 page papers let alone 30 of them. And secondly there are times when we have such a huge and broad prompt, that is it good to have a limit, in order to become better organized and to start thinking in a more condensed way.
I think personally it is always easier to expand your thoughts rather than condense them. Expanding doesn't always equal fluff, many times it draw important insights from the students because they are forced to think "what else can I say about this topic".
But I still do agree that it can be a bother especially when you truly feel that you have said all you can with out sounding corny.
While you make some great points, I will point out that one of the main purposes of setting a page limit is to force the writer to express something or argue for/against something in a concise, well thought out and organized manner. This, of course, doesn't apply to all types of papers, but for research papers, for instance, a page limit is essential. Otherwise, the majority of research papers have the potential to be egregiously long.
No one wants to read an overly prolix paper. Put in another way, page limits can indirectly help you write better. By having a limit, you are forced to choose the most important aspects of the topic to include, to organize and prioritize to fit the limit, etc.
Similar to the other two comments, I would also like to note that the purpose of the class is to educate about writing as well as literary analysis and critical thinking. Like what silence said, different papers have different purposes. To teach new forms of writing means setting general standards to establish the basis.
Limitations also encompass the professional field. Newspaper columnist, scientific journalist, and Sports writers, they are all confined to a limited amount of space to convey their thoughts. The only things that are free from such restrictions are novels, blogs, and theses.
However, I would have to agree with you. It would definitely be ideal without and restriction. But, life is cruel.
Post a Comment