The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2005/09/16/overhaul_of_exam

September 16, 2005 > Opinion > Time for overhaul of writing exam, curriculum

Time for overhaul of writing exam, curriculum

From start to finish, the 2005 English Composition exam was a disaster. (See Story, Page 1.) The English Department warned in August 2004 that it would no longer grade the O-Week exams. But the committee tasked with revamping the exam, the University Standing Committee on Undergraduate Curriculum, left the issue to fester until five administrators scrambled for a solution in June 2005 — much too late.

The ensuing events — the outsourcing of grading to MIT, the setting of exam periods so late that grading could not be completed in time for freshmen to choose courses, and the subsequent sheepish request that freshmen assess their own writing abilities while registering for the fall semester — fell right into place. The Class of 2009 was gravely under-served. And MIT is not going to bend over backward for us again. Rice has no plan for grading the 2006 exam — in fact, the English Department is even considering suspending the exam, which we strongly oppose — and needs a plan before the Class of 2010 experiences a similar disservice.

This state of limbo is unfortunate, but it gives the university a prime opportunity to examine the state of writing at Rice in general and discuss whether the entire approach to writing instruction on campus needs to change.

We think it does. Here, writing instruction is a debilitating weakness in an otherwise world-class undergraduate education. Every undergraduate, in majors from physics to history to mechanical engineering to architecture, will spend most of his or her professional career writing. Yet only about one-fifth of students are ever required to take a course designed primarily to improve writing skills. These are the students who fail the English Composition exam and who must take ENGL 103: Introduction to Argumentation and Academic Writing.

We think a small number of students come to Rice already able to write on a collegiate level. So that leaves more than half of students matriculating with a deficiency in the most important professional skill. And Rice’s current setup does not address this widely held deficiency.

We wish students would take it upon themselves to hone their writing abilities. But we’re realistic. We know of students who have successfully avoided writing papers for semesters or years at a time. Improvement must be spurred by an expansive, mandatory program, and we have an idea of how that program should look.

The English Composition exam should move back to a pen-and-paper, timed and proctored O-Week exam. Since freshmen have not yet been oriented to the honor system, this is the only option that does not carry an unacceptable risk of compromised integrity — and obviously the online format tried this year didn’t save much time or trouble anyway.

Grading could be done by any number of on-campus groups: English department graduate students, undergraduate writing consultants or undergraduates who demonstrate the ability to evaluate writing through an application process. MIT graded our tests for $76 per essay; even half that rate would surely attract quality graders from any number of these groups.

Since we think the vast majority of students come to Rice unprepared to write on a collegiate level, we think the vast majority should fail this exam. To graduate, these students should then have to complete one of a variety of writing-focused freshman seminars, offered on interesting topics by professors from departments across the university. The students who do pass should have the option to enroll in such a seminar, which they might find enriching.

The English Department and the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee should study whether to include the students who would also fail the current writing exam in this seminar system, or whether to keep ENGL 103 as-is. We think students taking ENGL 103 are unfairly stigmatized, since far more students need help writing, but we do not want to do away with a class of its kind if there is a legitimate educational need for it.

Simultaneously, optional writing instruction should also expand. All departments should increase and strengthen writing-intensive classes. Technical writing classes in science and engineering departments should be added and publicized.

Under our suggested system, writing would be a weekly demand for the vast majority of first-semester freshmen. Practice would make perfect and the current gap in writing education would be filled. Graduates would be better educated and would not have to face the painful post-graduation wake-up calls awaiting many current students.

The Faculty Senate has plenty of work to do on the English Composition exam, thanks to the protracted inactivity of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. Despite this burden, the Faculty Senate needs to find time to investigate solutions — such as the one we have proposed — to a related, major, long-term flaw in the undergraduate curriculum.

End of article

Back to top