Guest Columnist | Writing for Writers

Can a crusade consist primarily of gentle suggestions? Something along the lines of, "Hey all you heretics, how about maybe converting? Just think about it, OK? Please?" As an English major, I care a lot about usage and about not getting tangled in bad analogies. So it would definitely be incorrect to say that I'm on a personal crusade against the writing requirement. Let's say that I take issue with certain aspects of the logic with which this well-intentioned measure is currently implemented.

There's ample reason to step lightly around the writing requirement. The Critical Writing Program (CWP) is one of Penn's babies, "dedicated to teaching writing and to creating a community of writers," as their Web site states. It provides great services like free tutoring but is also responsible for coordinating the "uniquely discipline-based writing curriculum" (again, the Web site's words) that comprises the mandatory writing requirement. I believe that many writing seminars just don't do what the CWP wants them to, and that the program needs serious reevaluation.

Admittedly, my original beef with the requirement was that I didn't want to take a writing seminar. I even submitted a petition along these lines to the Committee on Undergraduate Academic Standing. Believe it or not, they didn't reject my petition because it was snide; they rejected it because there are no exceptions to the requirement, ever. I am now one of those second-semester seniors doing time in a writing seminar.

It's not that I never tried: As a freshman I enrolled in a writing seminar which shall remain anonymous and quickly discovered that the textbook was redundant, the assignments vacuous and the whole arrangement rather infantilizing, I dropped said writing seminar and signed up for medieval romance.

To temper my obvious bias, I spoke with Valerie Ross, the director of the Critical Writing Program. Ross seemed unsurprised that the first weeks of my freshman seminar were "underwhelming." In fact, her description made the first eight weeks of the course sound perfunctory and the following weeks nonstandardized and genre-specific - exactly like the writing experience you could get in a creative writing course or a major seminar.

What particularly interested me was how Ross framed student feedback: She emphasized that many greatly enjoy the seminar, while the negative responses are still "written using strategies learned in the course." This made me wonder: Is there any way that a student can validly criticize this program? I understand that the CWP deals with a lot of groundless complaining, but one way to reduce dissatisfaction on the part of serious and engaged writers is to respect their position by offering courses that focus on more advanced or research-based writing.

An ideal "advanced" or "research-based" writing seminar would be one that enabled students to improve their writing in a specific domain while producing meaningful and complex work. This option even seems to exist on the CPW's Web site - they list College Writing and Research seminars based in other departments, which are "organized around a research topic" and "focus on developing scholarly writing and research skills." But these courses are rarely offered. The framework for the changes that I'm proposing is already in place; actually offering such courses would make the requirement worthwhile for motivated students.

In defending the program, Ross hinted at a larger problem in higher education: A widespread feeling of entitlement among students has created pressure on universities to inflate grades and eliminate requirements. It's easy to see how, to administrators, attacking the writing requirement could play into this dumbing down of college - some students regard writing simply as a chore. But Penn also attracts people for whom writing is the priority, and when they feel let down by the writing curriculum, administrators should be concerned.

This is tricky territory: Are some people "too good" for a class that everyone else has to take? We have no problem accepting that some people are too good for Spanish 110. Writing ability isn't as easily quantifiable, but self-selection could place motivated students in Research Writing seminars that would help them improve rather than maintain their abilities.

So there it is - gentle suggestions are probably more useful than a crusade, however much of you may have loathed writing straw man essays. Authority in setting graduation standards belongs with administrators, but students have a responsibility to provide the feedback that administrators need to craft better requirements. I've merely voiced my own opinion here, but I hope that students who felt similarly uninspired by the writing curriculum will speak up. This will allow the Critical Writing Program to design an option that caters to sustained and directed academic inquiry. I agree with Ross that we have "one of the best writing programs in the country." We also have excellent writers, and they should be able to enjoy the benefits of this program, too.

Alicia Puglionesi is a College senior and a Daily Pennsylvanian opinion cartoonist.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.