quote:

---

Originally posted by: The Algorithm
"Your post is very good.  I am reminded of the response of some when a boycott of Einstein's or Starbucks is proposed by someone --- "let's not do that, our students work there and that would hurt them too..." Well, if we are truly concerned for our students, maybe we should direct them to other institutions."

---

I think that depends. I believe that our program in Theatre and Dance is operating a continuing high level of quality in teaching and in performance. We are tired, yes. Discouraged with the administration . . . yes. Distracted somewhat, yes. But we continue to be committed to our students and providing them the best we can give them. I'm sure other programs are continuing as well.

I would hate to see someone interested in theatre and dance not come to USM because someone advised them not to. An education is a lot more than just classes and it is difficult to say in any given student's case what set of conditions might or might not work to the benifit of a studnt.

I DO think it is fair to offer students a caution and to advise them to lok closely at everything USM offers inside and outside of their propsepctive major area of study. But the university is not dead, it is going through difficult times.

 

 

 

 

I think the problem is that there are still some pockets of quality at USM, though quality was sliding before SFT took over (see grade inflation problems). The idea that faculty should be accountable to students is correct in that faculty should provide students with the best possible educational opportunities. However, faculty should not be susceptible to the whims of poorly prepared students who want only to "get their tickets punched." I can only assume that t is easier to give better grades to students who demand them than to tell such students that they are, in fact, below average (which, by the way, should describe half of the USM students by definition).

The problem is that those theatre majors will have to take courses outside the CoAL. In those courses, they may be exposed to faculty members who are not able to provide the high quality of the education they would like to provide BECAUSE they are so busy with increased accreditation duties, committee work, and other service responsibilities due to the loss of faculty (the work is great but the workers are fewer than before). Also, without regard for the quality of any one program, the students' degrees will be from a university whose reputation has been sullied by the evil actions of a few.

To those who can, I would say "Go elsewhere." To those who cannot, I would say, "Go to junior college. Get a job. Work a lot. Save money. Research other colleges. Then go elsewhere."

Yesterday I attended the QEP brown bag in the union. The QEP leadership team is now apparently committed to addressing writing and oral communication skills. One of thelearning outcomes that currently exists in the QEP (it is still evolving, though) is using this to help students write coherent and grammatically correct sentences! Many faculty feel that they have students in upper division classes who cannot spell or write at all. If this is true, then we are truly failing.

The elephant in the room is that what we REALLY need is the ability to attract fine faculty like compositionists in English who can catch these sorts of fundamental writing problems EARLY and then direct them to remedial courses also taught by fine faculty. Same for math. The list can be expanded.

As long as programs like English and Math are punished by denying they need additional faculty, then here we are. While faculty in their respective programs are committed to providing quality education, it won't be long before under-educated students who appear in our majors will be summarily weeded out, even though some remedial work at 100 and 200 levels would have made it possible for them to succeed.

Of course, some of the problem lies with K-12 educations that our students receive. I am not blaming the teachers. After all, they, like us, have too many students and too few resources.

Amy Young

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Amy Young
"Yesterday I attended the QEP brown bag in the union. The QEP leadership team is now apparently committed to addressing writing and oral communication skills. One of thelearning outcomes that currently exists in the QEP (it is still evolving, though) is using this to help students write coherent and grammatically correct sentences! Many faculty feel that they have students in upper division classes who cannot spell or write at all. If this is true, then we are truly failing.

The elephant in the room is that what we REALLY need is the ability to attract fine faculty like compositionists in English who can catch these sorts of fundamental writing problems EARLY and then direct them to remedial courses also taught by fine faculty. Same for math. The list can be expanded.

As long as programs like English and Math are punished by denying they need additional faculty, then here we are. While faculty in their respective programs are committed to providing quality education, it won't be long before under-educated students who appear in our majors will be summarily weeded out, even though some remedial work at 100 and 200 levels would have made it possible for them to succeed.

Of course, some of the problem lies with K-12 educations that our students receive. I am not blaming the teachers. After all, they, like us, have too many students and too few resources.

Amy Young"

---

Yes, Amy, it is interesting how the Rhet/Comp program at USM was wiped out not too long ago (both professors who taught Rhet/Comp left for higher tier universities). Also, Susan Malone left to go to Mercer--she is a wonderful Eng professor who taught English Ed courses and got lots of grants. I don't know what the English Dept. plans to do to replace these professors, but I would also hope that they would get support to do so post haste.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Amy Young
"...One of the learning outcomes that currently exists in the QEP (it is still evolving, though) is using this to help students write coherent and grammatically correct sentences! Many faculty feel that they have students in upper division classes who cannot spell or write at all. If this is true, then we are truly failing. ..."

---

Just think, if we really work hard, students may be able to graduate from USM with an excellent High School education. 

Unfortunately, the English Department at USM takes the stance that "it's not our job to teach students how to write." I have heard that directly from an English faculty member.

And we used to say that not everyone should go to college - after all, the world needs widget makers.  Unfortunately, the widget making jobs have all relocated elsewhere.  So, what do we do with the 83.5% of traditionally non-college bound Mississippians?  The various answers to that question are what I think lie at the heart of the legitimate (politics, personal agendas, conspiracy theories, money trail, powerplays, etc. aside) source of academic dysfunction in this state.

I had the experience this past fall of teaching freshman English for the first time in some years. I too felt that freshman year was too late to teach some skills. However, it seemed that the problem had more to do with thinking skills than with writing. My three international students got A's, not because they were so wonderful in English, but to a large extent because they knew how to think an idea through and how to organize a paper. Thus the papers they presented, while having some grammar hiccuphs, presented well-developed ideas.
I always preach "you can't write if you don't read" -- and there is little room in the freshman model for reading. The last time I taught freshmen, they read a novel, they read poetry, they did other things besides the four essays, which were hell to teach, hell to write and hell to grade. And I don't think there was much improvement in the writing in one semester.

While I was a good writer in high school and early college years, I actually learned the most about writing when I was a government employee and had to write reports. That's when I learned the most about organization and writing to an audience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: CoST Prof
"Unfortunately, the English Department at USM takes the stance that "it's not our job to teach students how to write." I have heard that directly from an English faculty member. "

---

Well, you didn't hear it from me, nor from the lion's share of my colleagues.  I served on the department personnel committee last year, and noticed how very many colleagues made writing instruction a priority in all their classes, on the revision model that's been mentioned above.  I know that I do.  I spend hours and hours marking up papers, and revisions, and revisions of revisions, and I often make brief presentations in class about a besetting writing problem, what causes it, and how it can be avoided.  And I tell students how important clear and graceful communication is in any workplace.  And I do see results.  One of the most constant remarks I get in semester-end evaluations is how much I've helped the students with their writing.  And the gains appear to last.

The mere marking up of a student paper will NOT result in improved writing, especially if the marks are cryptic letters and numbers that require a decoding sheet.  Students simply won't take the trouble to read squiggles, or grammatical corrections that are supplied without underlying rules, but they will read more extensive comments written by an engaged professor who wants to help them write better.   (Note: I try to mark heavily but also to summarize my suggestions at the end under just three general areas that need improvement.  I also try to always tell the students what they are doing RIGHT, which is at least as important as telling them what they're doing wrong.)  They also cannot be taught to write by telling them what's wrong without giving them a chance to change it--that pedagogy only results in students practicing the same error over and over again.

I'd really have to know the context in which my colleague made that comment, which may have been protesting that we are not at USM to do high school remediation or to teach only technical writing.  That role is sadly the only role that some people in CoST seem to envision for us.  (Or perhaps you talked to the one exception among my colleagues?  As you know, it is illogical to generalize from one instance.)  Harrumph!

Jameela 

Theater and dance is for people who like to think they are "artistic." You want a real major, try music education. They have as many hours as a master's degree just for the undergraduate. I am neither, was just a lowly Liberal Arts degree person.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
"
I'm not aware that the number of "hours" translates into a "real major". Actually, we have just been forced to cut back our hours because of the IHL. Dance majors put in anywhere from 143-147 hours (they also have a Dance Ed degree). Theatre and Dance majors, like all arts majors, put in a considerable number of hours in rehearsal and performance for which they are essentially uncompensated. And your notion of "artistic" is quaint. Theatre students are anything from actors to business managers to carpenters, painters, designers and engineers. Our TD, for instance, has had courses in hydraulics, specialized welding methods and techniques, structural engineering and engineering via CAD, among others. LIke all majors, theatre and dance both have complicated sub specialities. "

---

Dude, you are so a nerd.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Nerd herder
"

Dude, you are so a nerd."

---

And you, sir or madam, are not fit to stay in my kingdom.

Now, BEGONE!

"...my feeling is simple--if after 12+ years of english (and math) in K-12, and college entrance requirements that..."

The real problems lay in K12, not because of the students, not because of the teachers but rather because the emphasis is now on teaching to pass a standardized test. We should all look to the ACT, the SAT and the No-Child-Right-Behind Act tests. These have taken inspiration and motivation out of the class room. We are expecting too much of our students if we want them to do more than fill in little circles and actually remember something after the test. The aforemention religious groups have found a way to get rid of future liberal professors by having a public K12 curriculum that only generates unimaginative drones.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Historian
"
Its true, it isn't only the English department's responsibility to foster good writing. In history, blue book, essay  examinations are de rigur--even in the needlessly massive history 101 & 102 sections taught in Stout Hall. The history department believes firmly in fostering good writing, and good writing, like everything else, only comes about with practice. It takes a great deal of time to grade those papers. Sure, a mechanically-readable multiple choice would be easier, but we have pride in our craft, and a strong sense of responsibility towards our students."

---

If a student can't take what they have learned about writing in an English class, and apply it to the major or field of their choice, then the writing instructors have failed. That's why I was heartened to see Invictus' post about learning more in his field than from English instructors. That's the way it should be! And glad to know that History is doing its part, too.

When will folks understand that writing is essential to EVERY discipline, and therefore should be reinforced at EVERY opportunity? This is not just about what happens in English classes, folks.