Patricia Sullivan's article says in the clearest way I've ever seen what's wrong with the way we are using writing throughout the university curriculum. Not only are we devaluing the worth of student writing, we are devaluing also the worth of teacher input and of collaborative work.

Writing in the Graduate Curriculum: Literary Criticism as Composition by Patricia A. Sullivan, JAC

"The results of my survey and case studies suggest that under the current pedagogical model, the completed assignment is privileged over its production, the written product over the writing process. A pedagogical distinction is drawn, in other words, between course content and course assignments, between subject matter and what the student writes. Writing is separated from the study of a subject (an author or period) and relegated to the bottom tier of a tacit hierarchy of discursive practices--of reading, speaking, and writing. The most important "object" of three of the seminars I observed, both in terms of their subject matter and their raison d'etre, was the set of literary texts studied. (In none of these courses was secondary sources--scholarly or critical articles--made part of the required reading that the class discussed as a group.) The most important activity of these courses was reading. That is, students read the assigned set of literary texts to cover or to "know" the material and to critique, interpret, or otherwise analyze the texts themselves. Such "readings" were shared either through class discussion or through an oral report that was the responsibility of an individual student. Since students were expected to give formal evidence of their reading of literary texts and their awareness of critical issues, they were asked to write. But unlike the literary texts themselves and class discussion of those texts, the student's writing was not valued for what it contributed to the course and to other students' understanding of the issues. Rather, it was valued primarily for its evaluative properties as an academic exercise, as the basis for a grade."

I like the way in which Sullivan speaks of the goal being reading, not writing, especially in this age of recognition that the text is constructed as part of the reading. When the student's writing is treated as a mere barrier jumping exercise for a "grade," the motivation to interact with the text and to restructure one's own identity as interdependently comprising a part of the intertextual "meaning" is lost. The practice of making a text the focal point, without intertextual critical reading, and without recognition of the process through which meaning becomes personalized, is practically neolithic. It also avoids labor intensive interaction with the text and with each other for faculty and students.

Discussion Questions

1. What does Patricia Sullivan believe is the focal point of the literary criticism courses she studied?
   jeanne's perspective:

   Sullivan assesses the focal point of all the courses to be the reading of the actual literary text the course explicates. She further states that the term paper writing, which the students in her sample perceive as the most likely requirement in their graduate courses, is a mere device to permit non-labor intensive grading.

   Include Avatars of the Word, Steven O'Donnell, and Alfie Kohn in references.

2. How does the issue of the "subject" strengthen Sullivan's insistence that the focus of our graduate work in writing is misplace?
   jeanne's perspective:

   To focus on the text(s) chosen for the course, and to not include critical articles is to force students into criticism in which they are inexperienced and for which they were given no models. To not include the students' own thought, discussion, and writing as a part of the intertextual mix of the course is to devalue the students' work and to deprive them of meaningful learning in academic discourse.

   ---

   ---