Hmmm, interesting. I recently took the new SAT, and found that quite a lot of emphasis was placed on integrating appropriate examples and support. All opinions are accepted, but less coherent opinions are marked down. and that's only according to one criterion out of five. The other four criteria focus on the organization and writing skills demonstrated in the essay.

The time limits are ridiculous - they always have been for the SATs - but the breadth and relevance of the questions are ideal for worming out some writing out of a student in 25 minutes.

As for the allowance of false information, that's odd. Of course, the correctors can't be expected to know whether or not the student really did feel strange delivering a speech to strangers at some point in their life, but if things like studies or historical information are blatantly misused, I always thought that it would affect the marking. I do know that it's difficult to recall the precise name of a scientist in a highly pressured 25 minutes, though, and it is easy to make up real-life examples.

In the criteria, the evidence and examples must be "appropriate". I guess that's a judgement call on part of the corrector.

It's still a new thing anyway, and I expect it'll be refined as more tests are made.

That's really interesting! You're quite right that the 25-minute limit is a structural frame that almost requires that you pull stuff out of your ass. It'd almost be better if they gave people Google to do quickie, insto-research. But it's true that good research takes time -- accuracy takes time -- and that's quite at odds with a 25-minute limit.

Hmmm, I'm payed by the Japanese government, supposedly for teaching English. One of the things we try to do is teach debate, but to be honest, I'm not sure how effective we are… Of course, it would be easier if the students were allowed to make up their own language, since they'd come up with logical, easy to apply rules, unlike English's crazy, mixed up ones, but still, I have a deep fear that I'm really just helping create Sophists with ridiculous accents and poor grammar. :/

Ahahaha! But really, aren't those the best kind of Sophists?

But remember what the classical orators said:

The rhetorician cannot move without being moved in some way.

Rhetorical figures are employed to make people do things. I think that closer attention to rhetoric would produce better writers that Fish's approach, but it sounds like an amazing class for first years.

If you look at Prof. Fish's article closely, it turns out he does not make the claim that his students learn how to argue effectively, only that they learn how to write coherent sentences (by which I assume he means grammatically correct sentences). He never addresses the idea that learning composition should involve learning how to persuade, or even learning how to write well, just learning to write correctly. The article gives the impression that his students become good writers, but the only examples he gives are of students making him happy personally, not showing any grasp of rhetoric at all.

In fact, Prof. Fish never gives any evidence either that, as he claims, most graduating seniors can't write a clear and coherent sentence, or that, as he implies, his own students can in greater percentage than others'. I actually like the idea of teaching intro linguistics to first-years (which is what his class is), but he certainly didn't make a good argument for it. I'd be curious to see how it would do on the SAT.

Thanks,
-V.

Hmmm -- when he talked about the importance of learning how to recognize when language "breaks down", I thought that pretty clearly addressed some of the problems that afflict modern political discourse: i.e. non sequiturs posed as argument, etc.

Possibly, although within the context of talking about "tense, number, manner, mood, agency and the like", I read "formal breakdown" as referring to a breakdown of what he calls "a clear and coherent English sentence". I think Prof. Fish believes that it's impossible to make a good argument using bad (or informal) English; I occasionally think he believes that it's impossible to make a bad argument using good English.

I agree with you about the problems that affect our current political rhetoric. It may well be the case that careful study of grammar helps people avoid some rhetorical traps, but Prof. Fish certainly doesn't provide any evidence for that in his essay. He doesn't, for instance, show any of his students actually finding instances of breakdown in their own or anybody else's writing (or speech), just examples of students playing to his happy place.

Boy, I've come off a total crank about this, haven't I?

Thanks,
-V.

Ahahaha! Well, virtually everyone is a crank when it comes to grammar -- be they for or against the rigid teaching thereof -- so you're in good company, heh.

And that's a very good point about Fish's piece ... he seems most concerned about his own pleasure in the student's education, and he doesn't offer any actual evidence that his experiment made them better at rhetoric, debate, or argument.

I give the SAT authors a D in question writing. What kind of wishy-washy bullshit is "Is it more important to follow the rules exactly or to base your actions on how other people may be affected"? More important *for what*? Most of answering this question is making up what you conveniently think the question should have been, and answering that. This is a perfectly reasonable skill for people who talk to journalists regularly, but has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with good writing.

The rhetorical essay, with a thesis sentence and all, has unfortunately long been the staple of high school writing. I always hated the damn things, mostly because I've never read one which I could imagine someone voluntarily reading in any context other than grading it, which makes them, by definition, bad writing.

The truly logical conclusion is the mess which debate team has turned into, where the entire debate is about the semantics of the question, and all the grading has to do with the completely mechanical act of tracing arguments to rebuttals and making sure you dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Arguments alaong the lines of 'that's complete nonsense/obvious horseshit/a total fabrication/something you read in science fiction book X' are considered verboten as they don't follow the rules of rhetoric. The result is debate champions who can't convince anybody of anything and political speeches which sound like they were written by used car salesmen.

I really liked reading this article. I remember back in 4th grade I once was given an assignment to write a persuasive essay over night. I went home and worked and worked, way later than I should have, without writing anything down. I was just trying to figure out which side to go with. When I turned the paper in the next day, I used my opening line to declare a truce between the two sides. My teacher glanced and it and handed it back to me, "Peter, you have to take a position!"

I remember re-doing it and not believing anything of what I was writing. I needed more information, more sources. I needed to dig deeper, but I wasn't allowed to. I don't see how good writing can ever come of having to put words on a page that you don't believe.

Producing good writing doesn't seem to be the goal, however. The goal (along the lines of No Child Left Behind) seems to be to make everyone equal. Equally good and equally bad. It's a shame, because English can be so powerful when it is well crafted and coupled with a good, honest argument. I hope the talented students just rebel.

Heh -- Bram, I couldn't agree with you more about the hollowness of the rhetorical essay: "I've never read one which I could imagine someone voluntarily reading in any context other than grading it, which makes them, by definition, bad writing." Precisely.

I think the Aristotelean school had it right -- the way to learn to write, speak and think is to spend a few years writing emulations and parodies of major thinkers/writers, in various genres. That way you really have to inhabit the fashion in which good (and bad) arguments are made. It's precisely the opposite of the "just write what's inside you" crap that dominates so much teaching of writing today.

Actually, as a side note, I think it's worthwhile having high-school students take at least one journalism class, in which they learn and execute some pieces in the major media -- print, radio, TV, etc. It's a great way to learn how to learn the inherent structural limitations of the various info-spigots that will be hosing them down with news and opinions for the rest of their lives.

Peter, I confess I don't know much about how the No Child Left Behind Act is affecting the teaching of writing. What's its effect?