Frustrated. I suppose that is the only word to describe the way I feel about the freshman writing system here at Tech. As a student in 5060 where we are trying to learn how to teach writing and discover what writing actually is so that we are prepared for the infamous 1301/02 courses, I feel somewhat cheated. First of all, I am (well appalled is too strong of a word...how about discouraged) discouraged by the fact that all the freshman writing courses are being taught by MA/Ph.D students. STUDENTS! People who have not received their full degrees yet! Does that seem strange to anyone else? Knowing this it is no wonder that there have been questions as to how well the freshman learn writing on through their senior year. I understand that teaching in a classroom is the only way to gain experience. But why have an inexperienced student teach freshman writing techniques when the graduate student themselves are attempting to perfect that very process? When a student is obtaining their credentials for secondary education they are required to student teach. They are assigned a master teacher and are slowly acclimated to the classroom and to teaching by themselves. Why not do it this way in a college setting? You not only get the experience but you also have the guidance of a master teacher, well in this case professor, who can help sharpen your skills and your presentation. This leads me to another point...why aren't any tenured professors teaching freshman writing? At the university where I received my BA, ALL the freshman writing courses were taught by tenured and associate professors. This gives the freshman almost guaranteed success. (Yes, I did say almost because not every professor will produce a class of student who write flawlessly...I understand that). Another aspect of the freshman writing course at my undergraduate university was that the professor would teach on a specific subject; a subject that they had profound knowledge in and had a passion for. They would then provide writing assignments for the students situated around the subject or field of study. If it is done this way at Tech, there would be no need for it to be so structured and closed off. The students could still learn about paraphrasing and summary but in a less tedious way. The professor could then encompass multiple learning styles and schools of writing throughout the semester. Is it really cost efficient, not only financially but also in regards to the student learning capabilities, to operate a system in such a way that Tech does?
Thoughts?
Questions?
Concerns?
Bashings?
1 comment:
Great questions and insights, Rachel. Some of the readings we have done on the history of freshman comp have explored these issues a bit. Let me add my own understanding.
It all comes down to a cycle of money, sadly, as most things do.
Essentially, the reason all of these 1301/1302 courses are taught by graduate students is that graudate students need assistanceships in order to partially fund their time in school. So they need jobs.
Now, one might ask why an English department needs all those graduate students to begin with--more than 100 here at TTU?
Well, the state reimburses our department for every credit hour of student enrollment. The reimbursement is set according to the level of the student. Our department gets more money for graduate students than for undergraduates. Each year the dollar amount can vary, and it is a decision at the legislative level, not a result of economic supply and demand. The state in part bases its reimbursement (known as "formula funding") to departments on how much money their graduates are likely to receive in the work world. Thus, engineering courses receive much more formula funding than English courses because typically an engineer will command a much higher salary.
Because graduate teaching assistants are paid low wages compared to full faculty, a department can cover more first year composition classes at a cheaper cost using the student teachers.
No doubt you were at a private school where all of this convoluted economics did not apply. But, the downside, I would guess, is that because there was no state formula funding, the cost of tuition was much higher. So yes, you would have probably had a better experience in first year composition, but at a higher cost.
Again, it comes down to money. Sadly, you get what you pay for. Given those constraints, we try to do the best we can for our composition students here--which is why the course is so standardized. The idea is that such top-down control ensures a mimimum standard of instruction even with new graduate assistants doing the teaching.
I am not an expert on the ins and outs of this, but what I've given you here is more or less how it works.
Post a Comment