Top Secret: English professors hate to teach writing
Everybody, inside and outside the academy, seems to acknowledge the fact that college students and graduates cannot write very well. The problem here is not just that they’ve spent anywhere between $50,000 and $200,000 to learn how to do it, among other things. The other problem is that almost all of us have to write in our work, and when our writing is bad, we look like idiots. We have to write emails, we write presentations, we write memos and handouts for meetings, we write résumés, we write cover letters, we write proposals, we write letters to colleagues. A few spelling or grammatical errors can be forgiven – its for it’s, for example – but the truth is, and I always tell my writing students this: when you make a spelling or grammar mistake that your reader usually doesn’t make, your reader will consider himself more intelligent than you. This doesn’t help your reputation at work. And when you make a style or composition mistake – e.g., incomprehensible transitions, an abrupt conclusion, forgetting to state your point as early as possible – your reader just walks away thinking you don’t make sense, or don’t make it very well. So, as a group, students and graduates can’t write, but they need to. William Major, an English professor, says much of the blame really does fall with English professors. Because as a group, they idolize the teaching of literary theory and laugh at the teaching of writing. They make all the graduate students and part-timers do it.
The English professor rarely teaches freshman writing courses because it is beneath her to have to worry over catchy introductions, pithy thesis statements, and thoughtful conclusions. Certainly she cannot be bothered by grammar and form, except briefly and in passing. There is a workman-like quality to the teaching of writing; it is as close to blue-collar as you can get in the liberal arts classroom. In my first tenure-track job at a community college I taught a five and five load, four of which were composition classes (far too many, to be sure). I felt like Lucy in the candy factory. We’re English professors; why work up a sweat?
Richard Weaver, author of Ideas Have Consequences and English professor at the University of Chicago, insisted on teaching freshman writing courses. Would that all lauded professors would stoop so low. Maybe America’s college students would appreciate writing if they could tell that their most talented professors did, too.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top29 Comments to “Top Secret: English professors hate to teach writing”
I’m curious how many times Harrison reviewed this post to be CERTAIN there were no grammatical or spelling errors.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a blog; he doesn’t have to self-edit.
Learning to write is the prerequisite to learning to think.
Report comment to moderator
“but the truth is, and I always tell my writing students this: when you make a spelling or grammar mistake that your reader usually doesn’t make, your reader will consider himself more intelligent than you.”
This is such a good point, but one I don’t think I would have thought to make to students–probably because I’m a little ashamed of the fact that I have to fight the temptation to think that way.
Report comment to moderator
The best way to learn how to write well is to read, read, read.
Unfortunately most of the books I read in school used British spelling and grammar. So my spelling suffered and my sentences tended to be extremely long. My sentence to paragraph ratio was often 1:1.
The most hated teacher in high school was an old hunched over man with spectacles perched on the end of a gigantic nose whose passion was teaching grammar. He was the driest most painfully boring human being I have ever met. Class consisted of nonstop drills and sentence dissection. But I loved grammar and never learned so much from any other teacher.
Report comment to moderator
2-
“Learning to write is the prerequisite to learning to think.”
How exactly does this work itself in reality that children learn to write before they learn to think? I home educated my foud children and they were all thinking and reading before they learned to write or compose. Are you just referring to adults or what? Could you be more clear?
Report comment to moderator
My English professor certainly didn’t teach writing. Though I could hardly accuse her of teaching literary theory either.
Report comment to moderator
While it would be nice, I guess, if more college professors would “stoop to” teaching writing, doesn’t the real trouble go back much farther than the freshman year of college in English composition? If our high school graduates can’t write, I don’t think we can blame that on their college professors.
Our culture doesn’t place much value on learning proper grammar and good writing, which makes it difficult for elementary and middle school teachers to emphasize those things. If grammar and writing skills could be taught more at the younger grade levels, students would have a better foundation for good writing in high school, college, and the rest of life, and the teaching of writing at the college level would be more interesting and more challenging for professors.
Report comment to moderator
Amen, Xion. Every year I speak to groups of students at a school in Platteville, where I talk to them about my journalism profession. Every year either a student or the teacher asks me, “What’s the best advise for learning to become a writer?” And I tell them to read as much as possible.
I never took a journalism course or writing class in college, but within three years of graduating I had a full-time career as a journalist. And it’s because I read a ton of stuff as a child.
Report comment to moderator
Reg:
More precisely, learning to write well is a prerequisite to learning to think well. Good writing requires rewriting. Rewriting follows careful analysis of the expressed thoughts. Is this the best, clearest, way to elucidate the thinking? Is there enough variety in style and is it consistent with the mood and purpose of the thinking I am trying to express?
Words are the bricks, grammar the architecture. Mastery of both make grand edifices of thinking. Most modern people are content to dwell in miserable hovels, never realizing the possibilities that could be theirs.
Report comment to moderator
Teaching comprehension is easier and easier for the gov’t to test hence its taught more often. Writing on the other hand requires a lot of one on one to be done properly. Hire more teachers or rely on the students to read more independently as some have suggested.
Report comment to moderator
I after e accept after c and now I spell more korecktli.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Xion and Outkast.
My main problem with writing is that I don’t take any subject very seriously, so writing about nuclear reactors isn’t easy. But I love to write stories.
Report comment to moderator
Around 15 years ago Joel Belz wrote an article about writing. He said that in order to be a writer you first had to do a lot of observing of life. That would require a curious, open mind that asks questions. Joel may also have said that you should do another occupation before attempting writing as a profession. Anyone remember?
Report comment to moderator
rofl @ Jon Rowe
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
I remember it, but was it really that long ago? I didn’t realize I’d been reading WORLD that long.
I got similar advice when I applied to Wheaton to study journalism as a grad student (I had just graduated from college, at age 20). The admissions officer didn’t tell me I wouldn’t be accepted, but he strongly recommended I get a job somewhere and have more experience of life first. I took his advice – and never ended up going into journalism. When I read Joel’s column I felt some slight regret in that regard. (But I have enjoyed the years I’ve spend in programming and computer support.)
Report comment to moderator
Harrison should acknowledge the fact that many college students and graduates can write very well. Not only that, students don’t have to spend $50-200K to learn how, and can use their money to learn other things and do academic work. Harrison should also acknowledge the fact that people who write badly don’t look like idiots — provided they’re not — except to writing teachers. Certainly bad writing can be annoying and problematic, but severe defects will be forgiven for the sake of content and invention.
I helped three friends revise their theses at a big PhD factory, and boy was their writing terrible. One analyzed a Brahms intermezzo, the others were in economics and botany. Unfortunately, high school, college, and graduate school had left these guys functionally illiterate. Each was afflicted with the pitiful handicap of impenetrable density. Readers who are familiar with my posts know better than to expect a morality tale from me. So I’m going to defy the lesson that vice shall be punished and merit rewarded. The fact is, each of these clowns got a great job — at U. Texas, Jerusalem University, and the Federal Reserve, NY district, European division. So much for writing skill.
Harrison is a fine teacher, I’m sure, but some of his students don’t learn to write. They may do good work anyway, devising formulas, discovering patterns, refuting assumptions, and so forth. The reason they can’t write isn’t that Harrison didn’t teach, but they couldn’t learn. Conversely, some of Harrison’s most elegant writers bore him to tears, and might be the worst idiots.
Also, errors in spelling and grammar can be markers of a big dog in some communications and environments, and fastidiousness can come across worse than sloppiness.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking as a professional literary critic (I’m an ENG prof), I wish that more lit crit folks HAD to teach freshman comp. There’s nothing wrong with Derrida that about 4 sections of freshman comp per semester wouldn’t have nipped in the bud. Teaching composition would ground theory in the real world. When lit critics get detached, they forget how writing really works. It’s messy and hard work. And it depends on a clear connection between the writer and the audience. It’s part of why I like Alan Jacobs’ underappreciated book Theology of Reading: The Hermeneutics of Love, which demands a trusting relationship between the two.
Report comment to moderator
A lot of reading is important to learning towrite – but it is critical that one reads a lot of well written things.
If all one reads is poorly written, it will not produce the desired benefit.
Report comment to moderator
I guess I only read the good stuff, because I turned out okay.
Report comment to moderator
I worked for a while on the business side of a sign shop. I kept the books, but once the owners found out I was adept at grammar and spelling, I also proofed every sign before we delivered the product.
These wonderfully creative people had invested lots of materials in signs without ever noticing misspellings–expensive, and bad business!
They never asked me to design any logos, though…
Report comment to moderator
My English teacher in college taught us how to write…longhand…in cursive…proper papers…within a class period. I flunked my first paper, and rightly so. It took a lot of work to finally earn an A, but is was well worth it.
Of course, I’ve always been writing on a word processor, and never have any problems here, so….
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with the idea that writing well is a prerequisite to good thinking. Cut it down to things that require writing and it would be much more correct.
The need for writing skills is very low for many things. Examples?
Jobs that depend on Home Depot or Lowes. “Practical arts.”
This idea is certainly not new. I saw a rough draft for California Reading Standards in the very early 1990s. It measured reading ability by how well students were able to write. By this standard I would have been considered a poor reader. When I was 9 my favorite book was Men of Iron” by Howard Pyle. It was listed at a Grade 9.6 reading level. I couldn’t write to save my life!
MDs certainly would fail this test. By and large they can’t write!
Report comment to moderator
Writing is so yesterday, but not yesterday enough.
The Egyptians had hieroglyphs. The modern world has icons.
When I buy a product and take it home and look at the so called “instruction manual” I find a few icons.
Pretty soon we will figure out how to operate the pyramids again and we will fly home to the mother planet.
Somewhere in the glyphs is a warning though.
WARNING! DANGER! DO NOT OPERATE THIS DEVICE WITHOUT OXYGEN. LACK OF OXYGEN AND EXPOSURE TO VACUUM CAN CAUSE YOUR HEAD TO EXPLODE OR CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY.
What goes around …
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with the idea that writing well is a prerequisite to good thinking.
Me too, come to think of it. Some of the best teachers, professors and pastors I’ve known over the years haven’t been able to write worth a lick. However, someone who is an excellent writer is likely to be an excellent thinker.
Report comment to moderator
Who needs to learn to write with texting and emails.
Report comment to moderator
Texting? What’s that?
Emails, not so much.
Report comment to moderator
Why is writing the prerequisite to thinking?
Here’s what I was thinking:
When we talk, when we think to ourself, so to speak, it is easy to skip steps. Of course, everybody knows that, we think. But they don’t.
That’s what makes writing so tough. This idea goes off in your head, and you begin to put it on paper, but all those connections start to run out. What seemed solid a minute ago in your imagination now becomes rather bland, or worse, holey.
To put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) we need first to organize our thoughts. The act of writing disciplines our mind as we clarify the tacit assumptions, back up our thoughts, and learn to appeal to the intellect and the emotions of the reader.
Of course, it is not the writing, per se, which disciplines us. It is the feedback of correction. By making our thoughts tangible or public, we can then go back and refine them. Whether it is the multiple drafts we do for ourselves, or submission-correction process of a class, the act of writing and revising trains us in what works.
In my wasted youth I did not especially see the value of this process. I learned it the hard way, writing story after story. Now everything comes with multiple drafts. Ah well, better late than never when it comes to thinking!
Report comment to moderator
#27 Harris
You are right, about writing that is. But what about planning to build something? Designing a new tool? Planning a trip?
There is a certain conceit that college grads sometimes have. Many things don’t depend on writing, or even a college education. Too many educators see college as the only way to get ahead. If you can’t get a college degree, you are doomed!
Report comment to moderator
GEN-O . . . a clear connection between the writer and the audience . . . demands a trusting relationship between the two.
Between a mortal author and readers who aren’t being guided into truth by the Holy Spirit such a relationship strikes me as silly and infatuated. Plato wouldn’t fall for it.
Writers who matter to us betray doubts about what they write and retreat behind the material force of language. Milton himself concedes his authority in tough passages.
One of the tasks in good writing must be mistrusting your own composition, if for no other reason than to signal to your reader that you can handle it. I’m all in favor of irresistible inspiration, but if you don’t deconstruct what you write, you can’t construct the effects the reader wants. I suppose that “trust” can be part of the relationship, though not nearly as believable or as fun as collusion, competition, co-dependency, and excitation.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!