Rethinking the college essay

Rebecca Schuman, Slates’ educational columnist, just published a piece titled, The end of the college essay. It’s an indictment against required essays and those who write them. It is a surprising view, coming from someone who most likely acquired and sharpen her writing skills thanks to college essays.

She sets the blame squarely on the students in her opening paragraph:

Everybody in college hates papers. Students hate writing them so much that they buy, borrow, or steal them instead. Plagiarism is now so commonplace that if we flunked every kid who did it, we’d have a worse attrition rate than a MOOC. And on those rare occasions undergrads do deign to compose their own essays, said exegetic masterpieces usually take them all of half an hour at 4 a.m. to write, and consist accordingly of “arguments” that are at best tangentially related to the coursework, font-manipulated to meet the minimum required page-count.

I don’t know about you, but I know burnout when I see it. Schuman may want to reconsider her chosen profession. Did she really mean to make such a generalized statement or is she just loath to read one more of her student’s papers? Can you imagine the pressure her students must feel after reading these words? I graduated summa cum laude, and yet, I’d be shaking and sweating, knowing my work would be judged this harshly. I’d pick up a bottle of merlot for her and tape the paper to it. It couldn’t hurt, right?

She goes on to rant, say:

Most students enter college barely able to string three sentences together—and they leave it that way, too. With protracted effort and a rhapsodically engaged instructor, some may learn to craft a clunky but competent essay somewhere along the way.

Here I have to agree with Schuman. Most students enter college barely able to string three sentences together, never mind a well thought out essay. It was a nightmare when we students were asked to read and then “grade” our fellow classmate’s work. I remember one student, a senior in college, changed tense mid-sentence. Sadly, many of these same skill sets can be found in first time writers. As an editor I have on many occasion, found myself banging my head against the wall, once again being asked by a publishing house to “clean up a novel”. Burn it maybe, but clean it up? Impossible.

I’ll never forget this passage:

Wilson offered Smith a cup of water. Smith refused it………………. Wilson gave Smith his second cup of water. Wait, what? Whose second cup? Wilson’s or Smith’s? How could Smith have a second cup of water if he refused the first? Obviously (?) the writer meant Wilson offered Smith a second cup, but to this day I have to wonder if Wilson drank the first cup and then offered another to Wilson.

But yet, unlike Schuman, I don’t blame students as much as I blame the college professors who allow poor sentence structure and grammar skills to go unchecked. I don’t know many professors who take the time to articulate and impress upon their students the importance of the well-written word. I have an idea Professor Schuman, how about making Writing 101 a required course? Make it the first course.

When I went back to school, I was one of those students the good professor seems to detest. I was well aware of my lack of writing skills and assumed my first course, “How to do research,” would help improve them. Sadly, this was not to be. It was incumbent upon me to learn how to write something worth reading. This I did by reading articles not unlike Schuaman’s. Starting a blog was a good way for me to strengthen my skills. I look back at some of those first posts with horror and embarrassment. Yet, I can count on one hand, how many professors corrected my work.

Schuman argues that college essay writing should be replaced with tests and oral exams, for this would be the only way to ensure students do not cheat for pay for essays. Maybe this will ensure the first class doesn’t cheat, but I guarantee you, the next class will know what’s on the test and what they will be expected to say. I know, because high school students engage in type of cheating. I remember my high school economics teacher was amazed by our ability to pick out which stocks were doing well that morning. He didn’t know, but as we went in, the exiting class passed on this valuable information.

Schuman suggests that good writing skills are no longer important for today’s job seekers. This may be true for those who aspire to work full time in low paying jobs, but for everyone else writing matters. My day job involves writing contracts and e-mails to those who don’t understand legal jargon. If I couldn’t express myself in legal and layman’s terms, I’d be out of a job.

Yes, students hate writing essays, but this has more to do with the type of essays they are asked to churn out. Maybe, instead of asking for a 10-page paper on the history of Christianity, (yes, this happened and by page six I knew I was in trouble, since I was still on the 3rd century) how about focusing on one aspect of the history? I would’ve given anything to write a 10 paper on the Medieval Christian world. At the time that was my passion and why I enrolled in the course. I had no idea I would be asked to condense a 4-inch book into 10 pages. How is that even possible? What professor would do that to themselves? No wonder Schuman appears to be on a ledge.

I was once instructed to write a 1600 word essay including 5 scholarly quotes. The subject was Faust. I enjoyed the subject, but found myself writing an essay based on the scholarly quotes I found on JSTOR. I had a lot to say about Goethe and mental illness, but yet felt most of what ended up on the essay was more about what scholars thought of his state of mind. I tried to balance my thoughts with theirs but my hard work didn’t pay off. I ended up with a B because I wrote 1605 words and used the same source twice. Never mind that this source was relevant to the topic.

Students are asked to write in the style of scholars. For the average student this is an exercise in futility as no one bothers to teach them how. Not all students aspire to be scholars, so why demand this of them?

In one of my earliest science classes we were told to write in our own voice. Our professor offered us the chance to write in the style we found most comfortable. He too complained about reading essays (but in a more jovial manner) and wanted us to focus on the subject, rather than the writing. I took a chance with one of my Power Point presentations. I knew Marc was a big fan of Monty Python. He would quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail whenever he could. We had talked about the opening credits so I knew this was something he liked. As part of my Power Point narrative, I used the pythonesque gag of inserting something silly, and then apologizing for it. I knew I was taking an academic risk, but seriously, how many Power Point presentations about the Amazon River can one professor read without wanting to drown himself?

My jokes paid off. Not only did Marc like it, he called me at home to tell me so. He laughed so hard he had to stop grading for a while. Looking back, I feel a little bad for the remaining presentations. Sorry guys, I’m the reason why you probably disappointed him.

After that he insisted I include at least one gag in each of my papers. Our running joke was that I would place at least one outrages “fact” in my paper (including cite, it was college after all) and he would have to spot it.

It may make some of my professor friends cringe, but this paid of. I enjoyed writing science papers and in turn, fell in love with science. Not that the jokes got me off the hook mind you. I was judged by how well I communicated what I had learned. Marc had no problem kicking back poor writing and offering opinions on how I could do better.

Instead of bitching about students and their essays, how about finding a way to make the job more enjoyable for both? We should do away with 1600 word essays that do little but illustrate the ability to organize research. May I suggest, shorter, focused essays? Essays that allow students to write in their own voice, and explore what a given subject means to them. Trust me, the students who want to learn how to write well crafted essays will find a way. But this doesn’t mean professors should allow poor writing to go unchecked. Writing matters, whether it is in joke form or a well-crafted scholarly argument. Students and editors alike will thank you for it.

Is it Shakespeare or based on Shakespeare?

The Thinker, Shakespeare style

As I mentioned a couple of days ago, I am participating in Coursera’s “Shakespeare in Community”. It’s a course that allows students to express their thoughts and feelings about the Bard. A better title might be, “What Shakespeare Means To You”

We found ourselves discussing Carlo Carlei’s 2013, adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. I freely admit I haven’t seen the movie, and from what others have said, I don’t think I will.

Some argued that Carlei had every right to change the script; Juliet awakens right before Romeo kills himself. This was supposed to add to the drama and tragic ending. Carlei’s R&J is set in the modern world so naturally guns are the weapon of choice. Yet another change can be found in the dialog. Carlei uses Shakespeare’s most iconic lines while taking liberty with most of the lines. We have to ask, is this Shakespeare or is this based on Shakespeare?

Here are my thoughts, and please. Feel free to tell me yours.

West Side Story, Kiss Me Kate, The Lion King. These are movies based on Shakespeare. The directors unabashedly admit to adapting the plays and re-imagining them. Yet they stop short of calling their work, Shakespeare. Why? Because this allows them the ability to play loose and fast with his work. It allows them to explore ideas found in Shakespeare’s work without constraint. These directors want us to judge the work on their own merit, even if their work is not quite original. Then again, neither was Shakespeare’s.

We all know Shakespeare adapted earlier work to fit the needs of his audience. While the players could have just as easily been known as the group who performed classic works, they re-imagined them instead, and offered them in a way that their audience would accept and understand. Carlei may have felt he was doing the same. But there is a difference: Shakespeare re-wrote older literary works by changing the words, sometimes names and settings, and on several occasions re-wrote the ending. By doing this he took ownership of his work and called them his own. Like the directors mentioned above, Shakespeare did this so that his work would be judged on its merit.

Carlei’s movie is not Shakespeare, no matter what he wants us to think. His work is based on a play, just like Robert Wise’s West Side Story is not exactly Shakespeare. Carlei has been heavily criticized for his work and largely ignored by movie audiences. It is obvious Carlei is being judged, not on his merit, but on his use of someone else’s work. He doesn’t seem to understand the difference between adapting and basing.

Adapting someone else’s work usually involves a change of setting, or a re-ordering of scenes. Sometimes director remove or blend characters in order to save time and money. Yet these same directors will keep to the original dialog and endings. They want to be judged on how well they’ve used someone else’s work. Fair enough. I rather enjoyed Morgan Freeman’s Wild West version of The Taming of the Shrew. BBC did a remarkable job of placing an adaptation of Hamlet is the present day, so there video surveillance cameras in every room. This gave the play a dark, creepy feel as everyone, including the audience, felt spied upon. These two examples might not fit your definition of Shakespeare, but at least they didn’t omit the language and change the endings.

One of my classmates argued “tragedies can and should be altered”. “We don’t always require a sad ending”. Another classmate responded by asking if we always need comedies?  His point was that by tweeking the content we no longer have the same play that we started with. John came up with a brilliant illustration to make his point. I give him full credit for coming up with the following idea. What if we to re-title some of Shakespeare’s comedies? Would they still be Shakespeare? You decide.

All’s Well that end’s Poorly

As you hate it

The grumpy wives of Windsor

Midsummer’s night’s nightmare

The unemployed of Venice

Twelve Long Nights

Much ado about nothing, nothing at all

The Shaming of the Shrew

Amazing Waste

Repurposing Food and Reducing Waste

measurestillformeasure

Shakespeare, Classics, Theatre, Thoughts

Nerd Cactus

Quirky Intellect for the Discerning Nerd

Sillyverse

Stories of magic and mystery

Commonplace Fun Facts

Mind-Blowing Facts You Didn’t Know

Fictionophile

Fiction reviews, Bookblogger, Fiction book reviews, books, crime fiction, author interviews, mystery series, cover, love, bookish thoughts...

Patrick W. Marsh

monsters, monsters, everywhere

Shakespeare for Kids Books

Opening the door for kids to love Shakespeare and the classics

desperatelyseekingcymbeline

The 10-year Shakespeare New Year Resolution

Katzenworld

Welcome to the world of cats!

booksandopinions.com

The Book Reviews You Can Trust!

The Book Review Directory

For Readers and Writers

thelitcritguy

screams from the void

Author Adrienne Morris

Step Into the Past—Lose Yourself in the Story.

crafty theatre

ideas inspired by crafty characters

Critical Dispatches

Reports from my somewhat unusual life

The Nerd Nebula

The Nucleus of the Universe for all Nerd Hacks!