Silly Americans

Didn’t get finished looking at Brereton’s intro last time. The excerpts from student papers (100) seem to reflect the perception of knowledge as external, knowable, static. I don’t mean to say that the students themselves assumed that, although I can’t say they didn’t, either. But what came through to me is the possible presupposition on the part of those students’ former teachers—or maybe on the part of the administrators, curriculum designers, whoever. While composition probably was being stringently controlled, still the idea comes through that teachers “own” the knowledge, and spending time listening to lectures—only listening, not analyzing through composition, etc—had greater value than thoughts the students themselves could generate through composition.

I can’t imagine how the research emphasis in universities didn’t naturally lead to appreciation for effective communication. What good does discovering new information do without a way to convey the information? It seems sensible that universities would stress rhetoric and composition study if only because they tie in with the emphasis on research.

I end up asking as many questions as I found answers for. My response to much of the history represented was akin to the author’s about paper load for teachers (Why did they pile writing on? Why did they grade every single piece of writing? etc.). I thought: Why did the move from college to the university system essentially go from one ditch to the other? Was it necessary to throw out things that seemed to have been working in order to incorporate a new method or methods? I suppose it’s somewhat simplistic, but I thought it bold and presumptuous to relegate rhetoric to the back burner after its profound history in the intellectual world. Trust Americans to thumb our noses at convention, even respectable, worthwhile convention.