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/