Craig, you continue to misunderstand my point. I love and live for
metaphor. Metaphors delight me more than all the thesis statements
in the world could. However, when I teach students how to write an
essay (i.e. not a journal entry), I teach them they must have a
thesis. I do not teach them that they must use metaphors. That's my
point.
Craig, you sound like you no longer want to discuss this with me.
That's fine, but I would like to know how the rest of you on this
listerv feel about students coming to college understanding the value
of a thesis. Do you really think high school teachers are over-
valuing thesis statements? I must say of all the complaints we high
school English teachers hear about college readiness, this is a new
and very unexpected one.
Susan
On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> Susan,
> You should read "Metaphors We Live By" (there are other follow up
> books)if you haven't already. They are a core aspect of language and
> cognition, well documented, well researched.
> If you find my views pointless, it might be better not to respond.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>> It's a huge, huge stretch to think of Once More to the Lake as an
>>> argument.
>>
>> I never said it was an argument. I said it had a thesis.
>>
>>> You seem to be equating "thesis" with unity.
>>
>> Yes, I do. Writers who have and follow a thesis will have unity. No
>> big secret there.
>>
>>> Your comments about metaphor seem to have no connection to what I
>>> have
>>> said. They are more like architecture, essential to language and
>>> cognition, not just decorative.
>>
>> My point about metaphor is that I don't agree with your functional
>> view of writing v. taste. I think it is rather pointless to value
>> one over the other (as you claimed to in the email that started
>> this). One could write a good essay without using a single metaphor,
>> but a carpenter could not build a stable building without squares and
>> plumbs. So by your own analogy the metaphor is in the category you
>> label as decorative. I don't think you should put it in that
>> category, but you made up the categories. I don't think it makes
>> sense to say I have a functional view of writing therefore I dispense
>> with taste. There's a reason we call writing an art. But then what
>> was your point about taste?
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>> Craig, is a thesis statement in an essay a high school training
>>> wheel
>>>> to you? It is hard enough to get students to write coherently
>>>> using
>>>> a thesis as their guide, so for you to then expect high school
>>>> teachers to also teach students to know how to write without one
>>>> seems particularly ungrateful of you. But from your latest post I
>>>> gather you don't even want them coming to you with any thesis--
>>>> explicit or implied.
>>>>
>>>> I think E.B. White has a controlling, implicit idea; therefore
>>>> he has
>>>> a thesis: our mortality can sometimes take us by surprise. Sounds
>>>> like your friend has a thesis about how to be a successful woman in
>>>> the music industry. If you write random incoherent thoughts about
>>>> your father then, yes, you will have no controlling idea. Maybe
>>>> you
>>>> shouldn't publish it.
>>>>
>>>> Do you equate metaphor with architecture or interior design? From
>>>> your definition it must be interior design, and since it is a mater
>>>> of taste to you, you do not value it, right? I believe you
>>>> said, "My
>>>> taste is not to value taste?"
>>>>
>>>> I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Susan,
>>>>> I'm not sure where "ingrate" comes from. I hope I can express a
>>>>> perspective without offending people who see it differently. I
>>>>> don't remember being critical of other teachers. My views are not
>>>>> mainstream.
>>>>> As I said in my post to Bill, I require a reader when I teach
>>>>> expository writing. For this past semester, it was "the Best
>>>>> American Essays", 5th edition, edited by Robert Atwan. Most of the
>>>>> essays in that collection are not thesis centered. I have no
>>>>> problem with students getting experience in writing arguments, and
>>>>> having a clear articulation of a central position is certainly
>>>>> helpful to that. I hope, as I stated in earlier posts, that they
>>>>> can do so graciously and with sensitivity to opposing sides. It
>>>>> doesn't follow from that that all good writing requires a
>>>>> thesis or
>>>>> even that ideal writing requires a thesis. If I write about my
>>>>> father, am I expected to have a thesis? I have a good friend who
>>>>> has an article coming out in a major magazine which will be, as
>>>>> she
>>>>> describes it, a profile of a very successful woman in the music
>>>>> industry. No thesis. That doesn't mean that it is not highly
>>>>> organized, thoughtful, interesting, engaging, clear--just that it
>>>>> doesn't have the defense of a central argument as its core
>>>>> purpose.
>>>>> In Once More to the Lake, White gives a very thoughtful
>>>>> perspective about the experience of returning with his son to a
>>>>> lake he once visited as a child with his father. Being male, old
>>>>> enough to have children, and having visited the Maine woods as a
>>>>> child probably all go into making me an ideal reader for the
>>>>> essay.
>>>>> But the essay never tries to be an argument. He tells us what he
>>>>> felt and observed and thought--does a good job, I think, of
>>>>> evoking
>>>>> the experience-- but never argues for it as the right way to
>>>>> understand the human situation he finds himself in.
>>>>> Any essay, argument or not, will read differently to different
>>>>> audiences. My son's conversations with his friends about mountain
>>>>> bikes go right over my head, as they ought to, but that has to do
>>>>> with background experience, not taste. If you want to expand
>>>>> "taste' to include the whole range of what we bring to an essay,
>>>>> then I agree. I thought Bill was using it to denote a kind of
>>>>> surface packaging, a distraction from substance.
>>>>> I certainly don't expect you to agree with me, but I hope to
>>>>> make my point clear. Architecture is a more functional image. A
>>>>> carpenter squares and plumbs, not just for aesthetic reasons, but
>>>>> because what he/she is constructing is then stable, strong,
>>>>> durable, done right. It is not a matter of taste, though I find
>>>>> great beauty in the harmony of meaning and form.
>>>>> Metaphor is a core part of our understanding of the world, a
>>>>> point made very well by Lakoff and Johnson. It's not just a
>>>>> literary element.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan van Druten wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig, I don't get your point about staying away from taste. I
>>>>>> don't even get Hemingway's point. Lots of architecture is not
>>>>>> tasteful to me. And the bland interior design from Martha
>>>>>> Stewart
>>>>>> is so devoid of personality and statement that while it does not
>>>>>> lack taste, it is not (to me) very interesting to look at or
>>>>>> comfortable to live in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you pride yourself in not valuing taste, are you human? Or are
>>>>>> you Vulcan?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The literature you give is literature that requires taste as well
>>>>>> as intellect to appreciate. For example, White's cold swimming
>>>>>> suit experience is not understood universally. Many of my
>>>>>> students (male and female) do not get the mortality of it. As a
>>>>>> woman, I didn't immediately get the mortality of it. It's not
>>>>>> strictly intellectually true; it's a metaphorical, requiring
>>>>>> aesthetic understanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why the separation of intellect and taste?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also worry that so many students come to college believing
>>>>>>> writing is supposed to have a single, explicit thesis when so
>>>>>>> much (I would venture most) good writing doesn't fit that model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This statement is false. Most professional writers (other than
>>>>>> poets and fiction writers) do have an explicit thesis. Give
>>>>>> many,
>>>>>> many examples if this is true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> High school teachers work very hard to help students understand
>>>>>> what a thesis is--nevermind whether one can be implicit. If they
>>>>>> come to college really knowing what a thesis is, how hard is it
>>>>>> for you to say, "Go ahead, make your thesis implicit." And if
>>>>>> they can do it, you have high school teachers to thank. If they
>>>>>> can't do it, do you really think it would have helped had high
>>>>>> school teachers not demanded an explicit thesis? Why not turn
>>>>>> this into a beautiful bonding moment with your students? Tell
>>>>>> them, "Your high school teacher didn't think you could handle the
>>>>>> truth. Well, I think you can. Here's the truth..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig, you're a bit of an ingrate. Be glad. Be very, very glad
>>>>>> that you have students who know what a thesis is. 'Cause you
>>>>>> give
>>>>>> me any more guff and I swear I will stop teaching explicit
>>>>>> theses. I will. I'll do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>> Since I have a largely functional view of writing, I would
>>>>>>> stray away
>>>>>>> from "taste" as a core analogy. (My taste is not to value
>>>>>>> taste?) I
>>>>>>> would think more in terms of "architecture, not interior
>>>>>>> decoration" as
>>>>>>> Hemingway phrased it. Same thing with language--what strikes me
>>>>>>> most,
>>>>>>> what I admire most, is the author's facility with finding the
>>>>>>> exact,
>>>>>>> appropriate word, the exact, appropriate phrasing for the
>>>>>>> meaning or
>>>>>>> purpose at hand. Even the "entertaining" function of literature,
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> much a part of it, can be understood as "engagement." So Orwell
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> only discusses the folly of empire, but helps us somewhat
>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>> the death of the elephant. And E. B. White not only comments on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> passing of generations and the contemplation of mortality, but
>>>>>>> brings
>>>>>>> us once more to the lake in the woods in Maine to experience it
>>>>>>> somewhat for ourselves. Coleridge called word play "fancy" and
>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>> of it as superficial in comparison to the primary and secondary
>>>>>>> imagination, which find solid relations and essential unity
>>>>>>> in all
>>>>>>> things. Metaphor is not just a literary device, but an essential
>>>>>>> aspect
>>>>>>> of cognition.
>>>>>>> We can also say, in teaching, that students tend to think of
>>>>>>> revision
>>>>>>> as a matter of improving the wording (and sentences), whereas
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> successful writers see it as improving the meanings. In other
>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>> there is ample evidence that successful writers have that
>>>>>>> functional
>>>>>>> (language in service of meaning) view. That's basically what
>>>>>>> Sommers
>>>>>>> research has shown.
>>>>>>> I also worry that so many students come to college believing
>>>>>>> writing is
>>>>>>> supposed to have a single, explicit thesis when so much (I would
>>>>>>> venture most) good writing doesn't fit that model. Rather than
>>>>>>> being an
>>>>>>> aid toward good writing, it can narrow the possibilities.
>>>>>>> What we admire Dylan for is the superb songwriting and
>>>>>>> occassionally
>>>>>>> excellent phrasing. I admit to frustration with Chomsky. In
>>>>>>> comparison,
>>>>>>> I think Halliday is a much easier read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Craig,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Good writing" is a bit like "good food"; it can't really be
>>>>>>>> defined as
>>>>>>>> separate from the audience that consumes it (I happen to
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>> mustard greens cooked with a decently-smoked ham hock as being
>>>>>>>> solidly
>>>>>>>> in the good food category -- but I don't take it to vegetarian
>>>>>>>> potlucks). We can say it's good food if the audience appears to
>>>>>>>> enjoy
>>>>>>>> it, but not if it's just sitting there in bowls. When we do,
>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>> implicitly saying '"*I* would like it," or "I think I *should*
>>>>>>>> like it,"
>>>>>>>> or "My appraisal of my own tastes will present me as a better
>>>>>>>> person if
>>>>>>>> I believe I like it."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chomsky's _Aspects_ is a good case in point. I think linguists
>>>>>>>> emulate
>>>>>>>> Chomsky's style only to the extent that they signal solidarity
>>>>>>>> with his
>>>>>>>> position, and some of his more quirky (or very arguably,
>>>>>>>> annoying)
>>>>>>>> strategies aren't included in more general definitions of good
>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>> (e.g., taking major, crucial points and burying them in
>>>>>>>> endnotes, or
>>>>>>>> [to insert a blatant opinion statement] using a kind of
>>>>>>>> faux-mathematical presentation whose benefit is pretty much
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> cosmetic). Many linguists are willing to cut Chomsky a lot of
>>>>>>>> slack in
>>>>>>>> terms of writing style because he's Chomsky, just as Bob Dylan
>>>>>>>> fans
>>>>>>>> don't complain much if Dylan keeps missing notes. An audience
>>>>>>>> focused on
>>>>>>>> one subset of elements may not find relevant problems with
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> subset.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another example (since I know by now I sound like I'm in full
>>>>>>>> Chomsky-bashing mode, and I want to give myself some plausible
>>>>>>>> deniability) would be Peirce's works on semiotics. They're of
>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>> importance, but no one accuses them of being good writing. Or
>>>>>>>> some of
>>>>>>>> Bakhtin's most famous works -- they were put together from his
>>>>>>>> notes, so
>>>>>>>> they're in a kind of conceptual shorthand. They're
>>>>>>>> influential, and
>>>>>>>> probably should be even more so, but I don't think anyone would
>>>>>>>> argue
>>>>>>>> that what they are is better than what they probably would have
>>>>>>>> been if
>>>>>>>> he had composed them with a general audience in mind. And I'd
>>>>>>>> have to
>>>>>>>> include Halliday in some cases, since his tendency to create a
>>>>>>>> consistent terminology system that is, nevertheless, quite
>>>>>>>> opaque to
>>>>>>>> those outside his framework creates some barriers (I work with
>>>>>>>> SFL, but
>>>>>>>> I still can't bring myself to say that the grammar "construes"
>>>>>>>> something, since I think it sounds like I believe the
>>>>>>>> grammar is
>>>>>>>> sentient). To go back to the food analogy, we sometimes eat
>>>>>>>> things we
>>>>>>>> don't think are particularly good food because they fulfill
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> pressing need at the time -- we're very hungry, or we're
>>>>>>>> worried
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> what the food we do want will do to our cholesterol level. I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> really like fish, but I'll dutifully eat it for health reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In all of these cases, readers in the audience that most use
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> text
>>>>>>>> are willing to put extra effort into dealing with it because
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> importance attached to the author. A "difficult" text can, of
>>>>>>>> course,
>>>>>>>> *cause* the author to gain this position of importance, but
>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>> typically because for the particular point being made, there
>>>>>>>> are no
>>>>>>>> "competitor" texts. Chomsky's adaptation of Zelig Harris's
>>>>>>>> framework
>>>>>>>> added an explicit Platonic element that rendered it
>>>>>>>> distinctive,
>>>>>>>> and if
>>>>>>>> you liked that position, the marketplace of ideas could at
>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>> sell
>>>>>>>> you only Chomsky (just as those interested in a ternary, rather
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> binary, semiotic system could purchase only Peirce). Following
>>>>>>>> Chomsky,
>>>>>>>> there have been a very, very large number of books setting out
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Innatist position, but among these, most people only know
>>>>>>>> Pinker --
>>>>>>>> because Pinker *does* do a good job of tailoring his prose to a
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> general audience. Nonlinguists who read about this stuff
>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>> read
>>>>>>>> Pinker, not Chomsky. Most of us can't get away with supposing
>>>>>>>> that what
>>>>>>>> we're saying is of such obvious brilliance that our audiences
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> tolerate lots of quirkiness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the way, the idea that literary language draws attention to
>>>>>>>> itself as
>>>>>>>> language is, I *think*, a fairly standard view among modern
>>>>>>>> critics,
>>>>>>>> esp. those who assign a higher value to "writerly" prose. There
>>>>>>>> is, of
>>>>>>>> course, a distinction between "literary" and "good," since for
>>>>>>>> most of
>>>>>>>> us "literary" writing is but one kind of good writing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Spruiell
>>>>>>>> Dept. of English
>>>>>>>> Central Michigan University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 2:06 PM
>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>>> I'm glad I provoked this clarification. I would agree with
>>>>>>>> much of
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>> I'm half way through an article (have been for too long, but
>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>> another story) that started by quoting an observation by
>>>>>>>> Halliday of a
>>>>>>>> text by William Golding that it is super powerful in its
>>>>>>>> overall
>>>>>>>> effect, but doesn't have language that calls attention to
>>>>>>>> itself. To
>>>>>>>> me, that's an ideal aesthetic; if the language choices are
>>>>>>>> all in
>>>>>>>> service to the text, the language itself will seem almost
>>>>>>>> invisible. I
>>>>>>>> say that because even in literature, not everyone would agree
>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>> language itself becomes an end or ought to. Some writers are
>>>>>>>> brilliant
>>>>>>>> in their accessibility and in their clarity. I could contrast
>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>> too, with the self-importance of some social science texts,
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> sometimes cry out for translation into normal English before
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> discover that they may have very little to say.
>>>>>>>> I certainly like the idea that work in a discipline frames
>>>>>>>> itself in
>>>>>>>> relation to current conversation about the topic, finding
>>>>>>>> areas of
>>>>>>>> agreement and/or areas of disagreement. In that sense, it has a
>>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>> related to the overall work of the discipline. The abstract
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>> an overview of the article that includes its reason for being
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> scope of what it covers. But I'm not sure "thesis" is
>>>>>>>> identical to
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>> A case in point. I am just now re-reading Chomsky's "Aspects
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> Theory of Syntax", which purports in its own preface to be "an
>>>>>>>> exploratory study of various problems that have arisen in the
>>>>>>>> course of
>>>>>>>> work on transformational grammar..." He goes on to say that for
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> questions "definite answers will be proposed; but more often
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> discussion will merely raise issues and consider possible
>>>>>>>> approaches to
>>>>>>>> them without reaching any definite concdlusion." If I remember
>>>>>>>> right,
>>>>>>>> "Syntactic Structures" was a mildly polished version of his
>>>>>>>> lecture
>>>>>>>> notes for a course on syntax.
>>>>>>>> I believe that good writing has a sense of purpose, which
>>>>>>>> includes a
>>>>>>>> sense of audience, and it is organized in such a way that the
>>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>> is not only clear, but clearly realized. It will generally
>>>>>>>> present a
>>>>>>>> very clear perspective on a topic or issue. I would use the
>>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>>> "thesis" to refer to writing organized around a single
>>>>>>>> "argument." I
>>>>>>>> think we value the writing within a discipline that moves the
>>>>>>>> conversation forward in some substantial way. I'm not sure
>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>> different from engaging a public issue in a thoughtful way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Craig,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was presenting social science research format as a point of
>>>>>>>> contrast,
>>>>>>>>> rather than as an eidolon; I picked that particular sub-genre
>>>>>>>> primarily
>>>>>>>>> because I'm familiar with it. I suspect many of the same
>>>>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> supported by business writing, or hard-science writing, or
>>>>>>>>> engineering
>>>>>>>>> reports. To the degree that writing is judged "literary," it
>>>>>>>>> demands
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> readers a deep kind of active engagement not just in the
>>>>>>>>> topic,
>>>>>>>>> but in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> way the topic is discussed, and this kind of engagement isn't
>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>> "optimal" in texts whose consumers primarily want to get
>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>> kinds
>>>>>>>>> of information as quickly as possible. I happen to like
>>>>>>>>> language play
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> writing a great deal (as my penchant for making up words in
>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>> postings
>>>>>>>>> probably reveals), but if I'm trying to figure out whether a
>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>> result in a research study is "real" or (instead) a kind of
>>>>>>>>> mechanical
>>>>>>>>> artifact of the assumptions underlying the research design, my
>>>>>>>>> task is
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> lot easier if I don't have to tease out information that the
>>>>>>>>> author
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> have provided in a straightforward manner. Ambiguity in a
>>>>>>>>> literary
>>>>>>>> text
>>>>>>>>> can often be the engine driving a fuller understanding of a
>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>> point;
>>>>>>>>> ambiguity in a research article is more apt to produce
>>>>>>>>> dissension that
>>>>>>>>> doesn't go anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In short, I was trying to highlight the different attitudes
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> audiences
>>>>>>>>> for different genres of texts bring with them. Composition
>>>>>>>>> classes are
>>>>>>>>> always in danger of presenting as a model those texts which
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>> highly valued by composition faculty, rather than those which
>>>>>>>>> are most
>>>>>>>>> highly valued by whatever audience a particular student
>>>>>>>>> might be
>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>> for in his/her later life. The "everything is about
>>>>>>>>> literature"
>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>> to composition is on the far end of that problem scale. I
>>>>>>>>> worry
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> overemphasizing social science writing when I teach
>>>>>>>>> composition, for
>>>>>>>>> exactly the same reason (I formerly had an excuse: the course
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>> "Composition for Social Science"; our "themed" sections were
>>>>>>>>> done away
>>>>>>>>> with a couple of years ago, though). I probably overemphasize
>>>>>>>>> argumentation more generally, since it's what I see
>>>>>>>>> students as
>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> *least* practice with -- they've been telling each other
>>>>>>>>> narratives
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> most of their lives, albeit not always developed or highly
>>>>>>>>> coherent
>>>>>>>> ones.
>>>>>>>>> Also, though, I confess that I probably let a bit of a current
>>>>>>>> knee-jerk
>>>>>>>>> reaction I'm having leak in -- I'm reading some stuff by
>>>>>>>>> Baudrillard,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> I don't think I can blame all his preciousness on his
>>>>>>>>> translator.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A side note: Seminal texts in social science (at least, ones
>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> past eighty years or so, since the genre "jelled") usually DO
>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>> thesis statement. It's just a more general one, like "Position
>>>>>>>>> X is
>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>>>>> and the author will advance four pieces of evidence for this
>>>>>>>>> claim,"
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> "The field has been working under assumption Y, but if we
>>>>>>>>> maintain
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> assumption, we're creating internal consistencies in our
>>>>>>>>> models."
>>>>>>>> After
>>>>>>>>> all, everyone expects an abstract on these things, and it's
>>>>>>>>> required
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>> a very concrete abstract.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill Spruiell
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on
>>>>>>>>> behalf of
>>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>> Hancock
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Fri 6/5/2009 8:31 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>>>> I'm surprised at how completely you present the academic
>>>>>>>>> article in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> social sciences as an ideal text. Maybe I'm misreading.
>>>>>>>>> When I teach expository writing (as I did this past
>>>>>>>>> spring), we
>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>>> look at a number of acclaimed texts and explore the notion of
>>>>>>>>> excellence in non-fiction writing. The best of them don't
>>>>>>>>> simply dress
>>>>>>>>> up their ideas or show the author as self-important or even
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> language for the pleasure of using language.
>>>>>>>>> There are many different ways to organize a text, and
>>>>>>>>> focusing on a
>>>>>>>>> thesis is only one. Narratives have their own kind of
>>>>>>>>> structure,
>>>>>>>> highly
>>>>>>>>> related to plot and perspective. These have been described
>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>> number of places: abstract, orientation, and so on. Feature
>>>>>>>>> articles
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> a person or place may have a number of equally important
>>>>>>>>> perspectives
>>>>>>>>> to present, and a good writer will select details that fit
>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>> points. Even when they write about their own lives, good
>>>>>>>>> writers will
>>>>>>>>> avoid self-importance.
>>>>>>>>> Good writing is clear, thoughtful, interesting,
>>>>>>>>> engaging. It
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>>> us while it challenges our thinking. It certainly does not
>>>>>>>>> tell us
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> to think, but often offers or provokes alternatives to our
>>>>>>>>> thinking. A
>>>>>>>>> good writer pays huge attention to organization and certainly
>>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>>> limited to thesis-argument structure, especially for topics
>>>>>>>>> that don't
>>>>>>>>> naturally fit that form.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not an expert on this one, but I wonder if the most
>>>>>>>>> seminal
>>>>>>>> texts
>>>>>>>>> in the social sciences are thesis oriented.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I realized when I read your response that my label was
>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous. By
>>>>>>>>>> "literary essays," I wasn't referring to essays about
>>>>>>>>>> literature;
>>>>>>>>>> rather, I was referring to essays which were chosen as
>>>>>>>>>> exemplars
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> they had been judged as "literary." Some of them, in fact,
>>>>>>>>>> were about
>>>>>>>>>> social or political issues, but would arrive at an equivalent
>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>> thesis statement only at the end (in some of these, the
>>>>>>>>>> author
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>> a more European-style thesis/antithesis/synthesis pattern,
>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>> synthesis constituting what American style would call the
>>>>>>>>>> thesis, but
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> others the reader was, in a sense, carried along through a
>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>> vignettes or observations, with the thesis only emerging
>>>>>>>>>> gradually).
>>>>>>>>>> They were oriented to an audience that would be at least as
>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>> in the experience of reading the essay as in finding specific
>>>>>>>>>> claims
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> information in it. Allusion and artful indirection were
>>>>>>>>>> valued, as
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> some kinds of language play.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's a huge difference between that kind of essay and one
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> serves
>>>>>>>>>> as, for example, a research article in social science. Can
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> the article is about by reading the title? No? It's
>>>>>>>>>> rejected. Is
>>>>>>>> there a
>>>>>>>>>> clear major claim set forth in the first page or two? No?
>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>> rejected.
>>>>>>>>>> Are you taking up extra space with language whose primary
>>>>>>>>>> function is
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> highlight how fun language is, or how artistic you are? Yes?
>>>>>>>>>> Take it
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> or it's rejected. Even a political argument essay not
>>>>>>>>>> intended
>>>>>>>>>> for an
>>>>>>>>>> academic environment at all will be ineffective (or worse)
>>>>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>>>>> audience has to work too hard at it to pull a point out, or
>>>>>>>>>> gets the
>>>>>>>>>> impression that it's all there so that the author can feel
>>>>>>>>>> very, very
>>>>>>>>>> special. Most work-related writing - and that's what the
>>>>>>>>>> majority of
>>>>>>>>>> academic writing *is* -- is there to be used, and used as
>>>>>>>>>> quickly and
>>>>>>>>>> efficiently as possible. Enjoyment of its literary
>>>>>>>>>> dimensions is
>>>>>>>>>> optional.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Spruiell
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dept. of English
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Central Michigan University
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E.
>>>>>>>>>> Doniger
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 7:27 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could you explain what you meant when you wrote, "the
>>>>>>>>>> essays I
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> supposed to use as models for argumentative writing were
>>>>>>>>>> literary
>>>>>>>> essays
>>>>>>>>>> (which in this case, meant that the authors were
>>>>>>>>>> distinctively, and
>>>>>>>>>> productively, violating some of the major rules of essay-
>>>>>>>>>> writing,
>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>> as 'have a clear thesis statement')?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean that writing about literature is antithetical to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>>> of clear thesis statements, or am I misreading your point?
>>>>>>>>>> Which
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> "major rules of essay writing" are violated by writing about
>>>>>>>> literature?
>>>>>>>>>> This is an odd concept to my thinking, so I'd like some
>>>>>>>> clarification.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it
>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 5:47:10 PM
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As someone from a social-science background who teaches
>>>>>>>>>> composition
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> an English department, I've noted some similar issues. Years
>>>>>>>>>> ago, at
>>>>>>>>>> another institution, I was teaching composition in a program
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> mandated a particular textbook. It was all about literature,
>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>> essays I was supposed to use as models for argumentative
>>>>>>>>>> writing were
>>>>>>>>>> literary essays (which in this case, meant that the authors
>>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>> distinctively, and productively, violating some of the major
>>>>>>>>>> rules of
>>>>>>>>>> essay-writing, such as "have a clear thesis statement"). They
>>>>>>>>>> *were*
>>>>>>>>>> good essays from a number of perspectives, but they weren't
>>>>>>>>>> good in a
>>>>>>>>>> way that the students could emulate at that point in their
>>>>>>>>>> writing
>>>>>>>>>> development, and would not have been publishable as anything
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>> literary essays, in a venue devoted expressly to that genre.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Similarly (well, it's off-topic, but it IS similar....)
>>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>>> objectives such as "Students will demonstrate that they value
>>>>>>>>>> <insert
>>>>>>>>>> genre name here>" strike me as at best coercive and at worst
>>>>>>>>>> deeply
>>>>>>>>>> creepy. I have no way of reading their minds, and what they
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>>>> necessarily within my area of influence, although what they
>>>>>>>>>> *do* can
>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>> I like Twain, but I'd rather have a student who said
>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>> about Twain and carefully analyzed his writing but didn't
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> it at
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> than have a student who obligingly parroted the required
>>>>>>>>>> opinion of
>>>>>>>>>> Twain. I told my science fiction class last semester that
>>>>>>>>>> despite the
>>>>>>>>>> course objective that stated they had to value SF, I was more
>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>>> in whether they could discuss and analyze the arguments for
>>>>>>>>>> valuing
>>>>>>>> SF
>>>>>>>>>> than with whether they agreed with those arguments or not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In composition teaching, the problem with interpreting
>>>>>>>>>> "writing" as
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> it were equivalent to "writing about literature" isn't really
>>>>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>>>> extending the academic into the realm of the practical,
>>>>>>>>>> though. An
>>>>>>>>>> APA-style analysis of survey results is academic, but not
>>>>>>>>>> literary.
>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>> more a side-effect of the somewhat haphazard conflation of
>>>>>>>>>> literature
>>>>>>>>>> with composition in English departments, and the tendency
>>>>>>>>>> for any
>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>> to lose sight of the fact that what they value isn't
>>>>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> same as what other people do. If we replaced "academic" with
>>>>>>>>>> "careful
>>>>>>>>>> and explicit exposition and argumentation that is suited
>>>>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>>>> and audience," we might have fewer problems.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill Spruiell
>>>>>>>>>> Dept. of English
>>>>>>>>>> Central Michigan University
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of O'Sullivan,
>>>>>>>>>> Brian P
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:55 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A New York Times article,"New Push Seeks to End Need for Pre-
>>>>>>>>>> College
>>>>>>>>>> Remedial Classes" (
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/education/28remedial.html?
>>>>>>>>>> _r=1),
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> interesting in light of Susan's recent critique of the
>>>>>>>>>> focus on
>>>>>>>>>> "academic" knowledge in high school education. For me, one of
>>>>>>>>>> Susan's
>>>>>>>>>> most persuasive points was this: "Students should have to
>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>>>> write argumentatively to promote themselves or their causes,
>>>>>>>>>> but not
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> lie about why a piece of literature is meaningful because a
>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>> decides they should believe that." The Times article touches
>>>>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>>>>> similar problem; it opens with an anecdote about a high
>>>>>>>>>> school
>>>>>>>> graduate
>>>>>>>>>> taking pre-college remedial courses because, among other
>>>>>>>>>> problems,
>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>>> "senior English class...focused on literature, but little on
>>>>>>>> writing."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To me, this illustrates that some of the so-called "academic"
>>>>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>>> that Susan criticizes is just as ill-suited to the needs of
>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>> college students as it is to the the needs of future
>>>>>>>>>> plumbers.
>>>>>>>>>> Many
>>>>>>>>>> freshman at my college don't take a literature course, but
>>>>>>>>>> they all
>>>>>>>>>> write argumentatively in courses across the curriculum.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think Susan might be right that the "permanent training
>>>>>>>>>> wheels"
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> of us have been worried about are the result of high schools'
>>>>>>>>>> overemphasis version of "academic writing." It seems to be a
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> version, though, than what I recognize as academic writing in
>>>>>>>> colleges
>>>>>>>>>> and universities. For example, Susan is probably right
>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>> prohibition on "I" is intended to "prevent beginning writers
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>> redundant and from weakening the power of their arguments."
>>>>>>>>>> But,
>>>>>>>>>> although I've occasionally heard college professors complain
>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> overabundance of "I think" and "I feel" and though I have
>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> occasionally complained about it myself), I have more often
>>>>>>>>>> heard and
>>>>>>>>>> made the complaint that students don't use" I" when
>>>>>>>>>> appropriate and
>>>>>>>>>> don't put themselves into their writing in effective ways.
>>>>>>>>>> If my
>>>>>>>>>> experience is representative (which, OK, is a big if), and if
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>> school teachers are banning "I" because they're trying to
>>>>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>> academic
>>>>>>>>>> writing to "non-academic" students, then those high school
>>>>>>>>>> teachers
>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>> either mean something different from "college writing" or
>>>>>>>> misunderstand
>>>>>>>>>> what college writing teachers value. (Let me acknowledge that
>>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> not one of "those high school teachers"; she's made it clear
>>>>>>>>>> that she
>>>>>>>>>> teaches students to use "I" when relating personal
>>>>>>>>>> experiences.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, as I think Herb suggested earlier, the problem of
>>>>>>>>>> training
>>>>>>>>>> wheel
>>>>>>>>>> permanence, so to speak, may have a lot to do with lack of
>>>>>>>>>> communication between high school teachers and college
>>>>>>>>>> teachers. If
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>> groups could agree on what they mean by "academic
>>>>>>>>>> writing," or
>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> "good writing," we might be able to lay down clearer paths
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> students.
>>>>>>>>>> And I do think that conversations like this can help.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>>> _
>>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten
>>>>>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:52 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: levels of formality/training wheels, NOW value
>>>>>>>>>> of HS
>>>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter, I think we should be concerned about teachers who
>>>>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>>>>> "training wheels" as real life. However, I think it might be
>>>>>>>>>> wise to
>>>>>>>>>> consider why those teachers do this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My guess is that they are inundated with students who don't
>>>>>>>>>> ever want
>>>>>>>>>> to "ride a bike" in their entire lives, but are forced to act
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> they want to "ride a bike" because society values bike-riding
>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>> carpentry, plumbing, or whatever hands-on skill or craft they
>>>>>>>>>> excel
>>>>>>>>>> at. In other words, we all have to stop believing that
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>> can't write an academic essay shouldn't get a high school
>>>>>>>>>> diploma.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly, the "training wheel" analogy really messes with my
>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>> If anyone is confused, let me be more clear: If we force all
>>>>>>>>>> 18-year-
>>>>>>>>>> old human beings to write academically in order to pass high
>>>>>>>>>> school
>>>>>>>>>> (or any bar that equates to sentience), then we will produce
>>>>>>>>>> teachers
>>>>>>>>>> who will create stupid short-cuts to get non-academically-
>>>>>>>>>> inclined
>>>>>>>>>> teens to produce something that is tolerable. If playing
>>>>>>>>>> hockey,
>>>>>>>>>> instead of academic writing, were the goal for a high school
>>>>>>>>>> diploma,
>>>>>>>>>> you can imagine all the coaches telling the non-athletically-
>>>>>>>>>> inclined
>>>>>>>>>> teens that they are good hockey players if they just do their
>>>>>>>>>> best to
>>>>>>>>>> pass the puck to Lutska.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We should rethink what high schools should require and how
>>>>>>>>>> long a
>>>>>>>>>> student should be required to attend (I think 8th grade is a
>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>> minimum). We need to teach math so that students can balance
>>>>>>>>>> a check
>>>>>>>>>> book and know why carrying a balance on a credit card is
>>>>>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>>>>> Students should have to know how to write argumentatively to
>>>>>>>>>> promote
>>>>>>>>>> themselves or their causes, but not to lie about why a
>>>>>>>>>> piece of
>>>>>>>>>> literature is meaningful because a teacher decides they
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> believe that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We should value education. But we have to stop only equating
>>>>>>>>>> academics with education. There are plenty of non-academic
>>>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>>>> that we need. After all, most academic jobs could be shipped
>>>>>>>>>> overseas, but we need to have "in-house" plumbers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Peter Adams wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The argument Susan makes for banning the use of first person
>>>>>>>>>>> strikes
>>>>>>>>>>> me as a perfect example of training wheels. There is a
>>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>> construction involving first person that we might prefer
>>>>>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>>>>>> avoid. Rather than teach students to avoid that
>>>>>>>>>>> construction, we
>>>>>>>>>>> simply ban all uses of first person.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That bothers me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Adams
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the reasons for the ban on first person in essays
>>>>>>>>>>>> is to
>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent beginning writers from being redundant and from
>>>>>>>>>>>> weakening
>>>>>>>>>>>> the power of their arguments. "I believe," "I feel,"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and "I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think"
>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't preface every idea expressed. I tell my students
>>>>>>>>>>>> to use
>>>>>>>>>>>> first person only when relating personal experiences in
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> essays.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Susan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contractions are a routine part of all the formal writing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet to have an editor object. I edited a literary magazine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> four
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues and never took issue with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would also take issue with the idea that all our ideas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impersonal and/or expressed in impersonal ways. That may
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable goal in many of the sciences--it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who keeps a specimen at 80 degrees for three hours--but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> life of me separate my understanding of teaching writing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from my
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> schooling or the wealth of my experiences in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classroom. I
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have "logical" views about it separate from my values and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems silly for me to say "When one teaches educational
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> program students for twenty-three years" when I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterize my own background. Other people may have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, but I have a perspective. It seems to me that asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid "I" in subjects like this means we are asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>> honest about where their views are coming from. This also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortchanges
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the dialectical nature of most writing. If a student has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> grown up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a hunting rifle in his hands and another has seen someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shot by
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fellow teenager on a playground, they will be unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talk
>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>> those differing experiences can be acknowledged as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are not logical machines, and most subjects don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretending to leave our values and experiences at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> door.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> often, the "reasons" we give for our beliefs are after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've never understood some teachers' constraints on first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> person,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look forward to reading the replies to Paul's post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also wonder about contractions. I tell my students
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't use them in very formal writing or when writing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience that thinks they shouldn't be used. I also tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never written anything in my life that was so formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>> avoided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contractions. Where do others stand on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Adams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Paul E. Doniger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In requiring students to write some papers in "formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English,"
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often come across some gray areas. My tendancy is to be
>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservative about formal language. I wonder where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others draw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines regarding levels of formality. For example, some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> students use words that seem too informal to me, like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "morph" (verb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form). Also, I know we have discussed the use of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before, but I think it is sometimes valuable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge
>>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to write persuasive pieces that avoid using the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether. Where do the rest of you stand on such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condemn it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 6:45:07 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2009
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Herb,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't clear. Currently, for seventh grade English, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups of students for a total of 112 students. I meet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group five times each week. I think that I could get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by meeting with all the groups together on some days and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group separately on others. This would reduce total
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours for me, but not for them. With 28 total contact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week next year (I teach other classes as well), I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing my contact load and spending that time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lessons, and responding to writing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2009
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not join this debate because I don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> research on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strikes
>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply a different way of handling the same student-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>> ratio.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four
>>>>>>>> groups
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much less response to writing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2009
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in seeing research that shows a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>> link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between reducing class size and increasing performance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have seen strongly suggests that the most important
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improving student performance is changing what teachers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but there is little research base (that I have seen) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we reduced the size of every class in the country
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 15
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> students
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that much would change in what students know and can do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total
>>>>>>>> students,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scott Woods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BASIS Scottsdale
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agrees
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class size is a vital component in successful learning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially important to the writing classroom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul E. Doniger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condemn it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2009
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Special issue (#2009-127)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the list member who indicated that class size was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teaching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing must have been brought up by a school board
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member. My
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alma
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mater,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> praised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly, had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a secondary program in basic writing skills for those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advisor had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore,
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a non-credit English class on the same semester as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Freshman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned more in Dummy English than in regular English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class size
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excellent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, class size is more important in English
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> composition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other academic class, including mathematics and foreign
>>>>>>>> languages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Emeritus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***************************************************************
>>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *********
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>>> list's
>>>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/
>>>>>>>>>> ateg.html and
>>>>>>>> select
>>>>>>>>>> "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
>>>>>>>>> list's web
>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>>>> interface at:
>>>>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
>>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
>>>>> select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>>> interface
>>>> at:
>>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>>
>>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>>
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface
>> at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
