Primrose Road

I suspect that the dumbening (the "b" is pronounced) is beginning.

This afternoon I typed up the day-by-day breakdowns for my fall semester Freshman Comp and Intro to Fiction courses. The Intro to Fiction is still just an outline, but the Freshman Comp is, for the most part, finished. I figured that with this out of the way, I could spend some notdissertating time the summer outlining lectures for the two (50 student!!!) Into to Fictions.

My day-by-day breakdowns incorporated Thanksgiving Break, Columbus Day, the extra day I'm taking off so that I can visit a friend in the Netherlands Thanksgiving week, the extra day I've added to the syllabus for make-up week, etc. Then, I logged in to the faculty website to check on final exam dates. Apparently, the three Monday/Wednesday classes I thought I was teaching actually meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Let this be a lesson, kiddies: never do anything ten weeks in advance.

Students today and their view of how grading works amaze me. I turned in grades two weeks ago and so far have received five emails from students with grades ranging from A- to B, asking me if there was anything they could do at this point (after the end of the semester) to raise their grade half a letter so that they wouldn't lose scholarship money. First of all, if they are at risk of losing scholarship money and got an A-, B+, or B in my class, it likely means that *my* class isn't what's causing the major problem with their GPA, which suggests to me that they assume that 5-foot-2 in-her-late-twenties not-yet-Dr. L. is more likely to say, "aww, I'll raise your grade so you can get your scholarship money" than is, say, the 60-year-old math prof who gave them a C. Which makes me laugh a bit, because, really, grades are earned based on work done during the term.

I also like it when students assume I'm the *nicest teacher ever* when they earn an A or A-, even though they actually earned the grade because I give challenging assignments that force my students to work hard.

There needs to be an essay collection entitled " 'You Are So Nice, Can I Please Have an A?' : On Being Young, Short, and Female in the University System."

Bear with me while I set up an allusion: Way back in the day (like, seven years ago), Chris Isaak starred in a Showtime comedy as (sort of) himself. In one episode, a stalker keeps leaving gifts, including a loaf of banana bread, on his doorstep. Chris later sees one of his bandmates eating the bread, and says something like, "Are you eating the stalker bread? You can't eat the stalker bread!"

Late last week, in what I'm going to assume was a cultural misunderstanding, a student gave me a gift-wrapped bottle of wine along with his final portfolio. I told him I couldn't accept it, but he insisted, so I went to give the wine to the department administrative assistants, who said that since I obviously understood the ethical wackiness of the situation and wouldn't let the wine affect the student's grade, I should take it home with me.

So now I wonder: is drinking student-bribe-wine the equivalent of eating stalker bread?

My Comp I course for the fall, which I hope doesn't sound too crackpot:

Course Objectives
This course introduces students to the fundamentals of expository and academic writing. Students will develop the critical thinking skills fundamental to successful academic writing, along with the understanding of context, purpose, and tone necessary to develop coherent arguments. Additionally, students will explore issues of audience and credibility, as well as the ways in which arguments may be mediated via images, hypertext, satire, and humor.

Course Description
In our course, we will think about, critique, and research common scams (i.e. Print-On-Demand services, Multi-Level Marketing, diploma mills, real-estate infomercials, etc.) circulating in present-day American culture as a means of working towards the objectives described above. Each student will select an individual scam to work with in writing a persuasive essay, definitional argument, and a final in-depth exploration that incorporates credible secondary research.

Course Text: Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz, Everything's An Argument. Additional readings will be distributed in class (or links will be supplied).

Assignments

Selecting Your Scam:
Early in the term, we’ll be discussing a range of scams through the lens of the rhetorical triangle (ethos, pathos, and logos). By the start of the third week of class, you’ll select one specific scam that especially interests – or angers! – you enough that you’d be willing to work with it for the remainder of the term. Possible choices include but are not limited to:

• Multi-Level Marketing (Amway, Nutrilife, Mary Kay, Herbalife)


• Diploma Mills


• Homeowner Scams (real-estate infomercials, Direct Buy)


• Writing Services and Contests (PublishAmerica, poetry.com)


• Self-Help (The Secret, The Law of Attraction, “work 3 hours a week and succeed” books)

Response Papers:
Choose two or three ideas from the assigned readings that you reacted to strongly. You’ll be analyzing these ideas in relation to ethical appeals, the Toulmin analysis, and causal arguments.

Persuasive Essay (3-5 pages):
For this essay, you will attempt to convince a broadly conceived audience that the scam you are writing about warrants further consideration/discussion. Though this assignment does not require outside sources, you must consider issues of audience and how you will (1) establish credibility with that audience and (2) convince them of the validity of your argument.

Definitional Argument (2-3 pages):
Choose one word or phrase that your scam equivocates to and write an essay that discusses (1) different possible meanings for the word or phrase, (2) why the word or phrase’s meaning shifts depending upon the context in which it is used, and (3) your view on the ethics of the scam’s use of the word or phrase.

Source Writeup/Lit Review (5 pages):
You will summarize the arguments of several primary and secondary sources, including but not limited to: 3 credible print sources (or 2 print sources and a relevant interview), the scam’s website, and the critique(s) offered by a “watchdog” site.
A handout that explains this assignment in (excruciating?) detail will be distributed well before the due date.

Final Paper (8-10 pages):
For your final paper, you will write a multi-source argument that engages the sources you discussed in your Source Writeup. You should discuss your scam’s history, business practices, how and why it seems to be able to deceive others, and your recommendations for shutting it down. A detailed handout is forthcoming.
Though the final version of this paper is due with your portfolio, you will need to have a complete draft ready for revision exercises on and a second draft for conferences later that week.

Portfolio:
Your portfolio is to include all previous assignments (response papers, persuasive essay, definitional argument, source writeup, the final version of your final paper, and a project narrative. Once again, a detailed handout on the project narrative is forthcoming.

Naturally, classes will also include a discussion of diploma mill ethics and the Crap vs. Not-Crap classroom exercise.

We have finally reached the point at which every article about drama that could possibly be written has been written. The proof: one of my students showed me an article entitled "Did Oedipus Have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder?". I jokingly suggested he write his term paper about staging a production which opens with a very pregnant Jocasta taking swigs from a jug of wine.

I developed an assignment for my College Writing students that will (I hope) teach them to start separating the crap from the non-crap on the Internet. Internet sources are, in my view, just fine if you're writing about a current issue, as long as you've got some lit review skills in your utility belt and are armed with several peer-reviewed journal articles as well.

Sorting out the Hyper-Crappy from the Slightly-Less-Crappy on the Internet:

Students will work in groups (3-5 students each) and present their findings during class.

Go to the Learning Annex (http://www.learningannex.com) page and select “Online Classes.” (You may need to select a city, and then go back to the “Online Classes” link a second time.) Choose an instructor with the title “Dr” before his or her name or the letters “Ph.D.” after his or her name (i.e. the teacher of the Past Life Regression course). Be prepared to present your answers to and discuss your thoughts on the questions that follow. Also, please tell us to what degree you believe the instructor you chose can be considered a reliable source of information.

1. Use Dissertation Abstracts Online to search for the instructor you’ve chosen. Is (s)he listed there? If so, on what did (s)he write his or her dissertation? If not, what are some possible reasons why (s)he is not listed there?

2. Check Lexis-Nexis and other relevant databases for articles by the instructor published in peer-reviewed journals. Were you able to find any articles? If so, what did the instructor research/write about?

3. Find the instructor’s personal homepage (most of them have one). Is the instructor forthcoming about where (s)he got his or her degree? (How) does the instructor describe his or her educational background?

4. If the instructor does not tell visitors to his or her website where (s)he got his or her degree, search the web to see if you can discover where the degree is from. Then visit the school's website: is the school legitimate or a "diploma mill"? How can you tell?

5. Search for web pages that reference the instructor. Is there a shared theme to these pages? How reliable do pages that reference the instructor tend to be?

A comment from one of my students: "So it's legal to put the letters 'Ph.D.' after your name even though you don't have a legitimate degree? That's incredibly unfair to people who've worked hard to earn a real doctorate."

Well said.

Back in April, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) published a report called The Vanishing Shakespeare, which expresses concern with the fact that fewer English departments are requiring their undergraduate majors to take Shakespeare (and Chaucer and Milton) courses. This is certainly a valid concern, because students should be exposed to a variety of literary works from a variety of cultural periods. ACTA's report, however, seems to be an underhanded attempt to express a conservative view of teaching and learning in the university system, not a genuine argument in favor of exposing students to Shakespeare.

Perhaps in some ways it's understandable that trustees and parents are upset by what they perceive as some English departments' transformation into cultural studies departments: I'm not sure that I would fork over $3000 so that my humanities-major kid could take a course on the history/cultural significance of vegetables. Yet, "The Vanishing Shakespeare" also expresses shock ("These are classes in the English department!") at courses like Disability Studies, AIDS Literature, Queer Studies, and Transnational Literature. These courses, when offered in English departments, do engage works of fiction, poetry, and drama extensively. The report even goes so far as to critique the fact that "Modern English departments are increasingly home to courses on movies" (9). The idea that one can only appreciate literature by eliminating theory, media (i.e. film and television), and people from its study is quite a throwback.

While some of the courses that ACTA lists do indeed ring ridiculous in my ears, it seems that the ultimate goal of the report is not to critique a "vanishing Shakespeare," but instead to critique students' exposure to multiculturalism, homosexuality, disability, and non-conservative values in the classroom. Surely, ACTA has appropriated Shakespeare's name in vain.

Next week, I'm giving my Writing from Lit students their first "Library Assignment." In this class, they're supposed to learn how to (1) write about literature and (2) write research papers, so I want them actually in the li-berry from time to time instead of on teh intarwebs, picking-and-citing from not-always-up-to-snuff literature databases that are often merely encyclopedias rather than collections of critical articles. For this Library Assignment, students will work in groups of four or five and find TEN reliable print sources on the semi-ridiculous topic that their group has been assigned.

This week (Wednesday, actually), I am taking my final comp exam, which is a capstone oral exam via conference call (very convenient when you live 1200 miles away from your university). So while I prepare to answer questions posed by the disembodied voices of my advisor and dissertation committee, I leave the "semi-ridiculous" topics to you, kind reader(s?).

Post in the comments a semi-ridiculous topic (hilarity preferred) -- or more than one -- on which students could find ten print sources (books or journal articles). Those selected will receive (1) a million dollars, payable in chips from the Atlantic City casino of your choice, (2) my enduring love and affection, (3) my students' eternal wrath, and (4) meaning, at last.

Yesterday, I directed my Business Writing students to several known diploma mill websites and gave them the following "ethical dilemma" to attempt to resolve:

You are an employer, and you learn that an employee's master's degree came from an unaccredited diploma mill. After speaking with the employee and several colleagues, you determine that the employee genuinely didn't know that what (s)he earned/purchased was not a valid master's degree (i.e. (s)he believed that one could earn a master's degree with three month-long online courses and a 15-page book report). What do you do?

After looking over the websites, several students responded that they would fire the employee, not so much because (s)he had a diploma mill "degree," but because (s)he fell for the diploma mill scam.

"Just look at the 'faculty' pages," one student said (and others echoed her sentiments). "Some of them look like mugshots, and none of them has an accredited degree! How could anyone not know that something's not right?"

And they appreciated my "if it teaches 'Angelology,' it's a diploma mill" rule. Lots of cries of "Angelology? What the hell?" and "What does it mean for my B.S. in Engineering if somebody else can get a bachelor's in Angelology?" My faith in Generation Y has momentarily been restored.

According to its own press releases, the NEA's Shakespeare for a New Generation program, part of the Shakespeare in American Communities initiative, serves to "introduce more students to the magic of live theater." Certainly (in my very humble opinion) more students should be introduced to this very real "magic." I'd like to pose a question to the readers of this blog (even those who show up here because of searches for "saturn in the eighth house" and "breast moles"): In your opinion, is "Shakespeare" an effective tool for sparking students' interest in live theater in general?