What Should Colleges Teach?

Stanley Fish writes so brilliantly clear in his analysis about what colleges should teach that I almost want to agree with him, but I can't because of my own personal college experience. Though I agree with everything he says to defend his position (and love the way he says it), I can't comfortably state that all instructors/teachers should only teach grammar form in college writing composition courses. To me, that would not be a college composition writing course-it would be a grammar course. I sincerely believe that the different subject reading materials are crucial for a student who comes from a certain disadvantaged background but also for a student who has a fertile imagination-- both need food for thought to write about, even if for different reasons. I could see an unadulterated grammar course being good for students who are mathematically-minded and have no interest in discussing or writing about other fields or genres. However, Fish's idea would make it very difficult for many students who are already having trouble writing in standard English or a newly immigrant student who doesn't yet know the language. Learning grammar in such a stringent formulaic manner could turn off enough students to make the current writing problem situation worse than it already is.

That said, I agree with Fish's point that teaching grammar form, function, and meaning are badly needed in colleges, especially since we have many students who are first generation and have never mastered speaking and writing the standard form of the language enough to be successful in colleges or in society as a whole. Not speaking or writing well will limit these students when they go out into the world. In addition, we have native-born English-speaking students who are more interested in communicating through the Internet, e-mail, and texting, and have not cared to develop or improve in academic writing or about learning the finer points of the language. Nonetheless, I see reading and writing about other genres just as important as learning grammar for overall  success in college and future life. Furthermore, I believe that grammar can be taught in context of the selected reading material from multiple genres.

The problem, in part, may be that instructors who are bad at teaching formal grammar-- or get frustrated with students not responding in class when they do teach it-- decide to limit or delete it from the study course altogether.  As we all know, teachers teach in what they are interested, which is good because they'll be more engaged and engaging.  Therefore, it may just take a teacher like Fish, or his clone, to be able to pull off teaching a class that focuses only or mostly on formal grammar.  However, I believe all four (grammar, reading topics and discussion of and writing about the topics) are vital for the development of writing in all its aspects. In short, students need to know how to read, think, and discuss in order to better write about multiple genres. This is important for students who are paying, in time and money, to get a solid university degree.

Regarding the students who are not accustomed to reading and having discussions on current topics, or on any intellectual matters, at home, are at a great disadvantage when they enter a classroom, because content has never been provided for them. They come into the colleges with minds that are like blank slates needing to be informed and awakened in order to learn and think. How can these students begin to write a critical essay without having awareness and knowledge of the world surrounding them. It's true that "young people who can't write can't think analytically or critically," but people who don't know how and why to read, and discuss topics interpretively/analytically, can't think or write well either. It works both ways.

Although I know some professors see it beneath them to teach students grammar, it's time they come out of their ivory towers and deal with it instead of sending the students to tutors who don't know how to explain grammar, or even worse,  sending the students to the learning-disabled office, which I have witnessed more than once.

 I know some teachers do this out of frustration; however, that doesn't make it right. It can be very demoralizing for a young student to be sent to the school learning-disabled office. In fact, I've heard often times that these students are not learning disabled in the traditional sense; instead, they need someone who will help them work through the difficulties they're having. That requires a tutor or teacher's time and effort.  Of course, this is easy for me to say, since I'm not a college teacher. Who knows- when I teach full time I may find myself doing exactly what I am criticizing. However, I hope I never resort to these quick and misinformed measures out of frustration, especially since I'd be colluding with those who are interested in keeping the status quo, which isn't in my interest either.

Fish and others seem to be devaluing the reading and discussion aspects of writing. Students learn grammar to improve their writing, but writing goes beyond grammar (though I admit, it is needed in order for the student to go beyond).  Nonetheless, students should not be expected to pull ideas out of a magical hat. It's too frustrating. They have enough to deal with. I state again that I agree with Fish in that grammar form ought to be taught, but I believe it should be taught in tandem with discussion, reading,  and writing in multiple genres.  Moreover, the course title should emphasize that grammar form and compositional writing, will be taught. This way, the students know what to expect and the teachers know that it is expected of them by their superiors. (Of course, an alternative could be to teach a separate formal grammar course and a separate writing composition course.)

Final thoughts-It's interesting to note that Lynn Cheney is the co-founder of ACTA. The fact that this right-wing organization supports Fish's argument in that grammar form should be the main focus in a writing composition course makes me suspicious of ACTA's motives, as it does Fish. It's very possible that ACTA and its founders are more interested in thwarting information and critical thinking; however, the ACTA people say that most college professors are discouraging critical thinking by indoctrinating students with their own liberal-leaning perspective, which inhibits broader independent thinking.

However, this hasn't been my experience at the City College of New York. I have always been presented with a balance of both sides, and never felt pressured or like I was being prodded one way or the other. But I cannot say what the situation is at other colleges, even though I've read, for example, that Harvard and Yale lean left and Stanford and Chicago lean right. But that's another discussion.