Meaningless assignments
Beyond the problems innate to universities and to any course structure, the assignments in writing courses are at best sub-optimal. They do not reflect or develop the natural writing process.
Normally, writing students write a piece, submit it, get a grade, then never again think of the assignment or what they were supposed to learn from it. This is consistent with the way most students traditionally approach all subjects.
The problem is the grading-motivation. That’s the fundamental flaw in traditional education.
Teachers typically have to mark a class-load of assignments in a short time. Such periods often torment teachers, who, therefore, spend as little time as possible on each paper. If an assignment meets a passing standard, teachers seldom give any feedback at all. If they did, many students wouldn’t read it anyway.
In that case, the only way students might learn anything is if they fail, and only if they are given an opportunity to repeat the assignment or subject. However, both situations are uncommon. These days, universities intentionally minimise the possibility of anyone failing.
So the normal result of any traditional grading focus is that the vast majority of students receive passing grades without having learned much or having pushed themselves hard. This focus rewards mediocrity and conceals a failure to teach.
In recognition of this fact, some schools or courses set high pass standards. Lecturers think they are doing the world a favour by dismissing the undeserving. Self-serving elitist snobbery is central to everything wrong with academia. Little real teaching occurs; students in greatest need of it are eliminated, while those remaining teach themselves via mimicry. Lecturers bask in their own sanctimoniousness despite giving students virtually nothing. Even when failing students can resubmit, most only get one attempt. If that fails too, the student will be discarded. Begone unworthy filth!
Of course we want students to acquire advanced skills, but unless failing students may keep trying, with guidance, to reach the standard, an elitist approach is counter-productive. These students still leave without having learned much of what they came to learn, although they do gain a permanent sense of inadequacy. That’s the worst possible outcome, even worse than a failure to teach, since it discourages all future learning.
I like a phrase borrowed from Australian vocational training: “not yet competent”. If we combine the repetition that implies with a high standard of competence, it’s very helpful.
Actually, sub-optimal would be a huge improvement over the assignments in some writing-courses. I taught in several. Teachers couldn’t modify or replace the set assignments, even when they were clearly worthless busywork lacking educational value. The students knew they were.
Articulate Writing 