Ron: Thanks for the excerpt. If academics want to know why they are held in low esteem, Pirsig provides the answer.
Regards, Platt On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:27 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > RMP's 1961 paper > > an exerpt: > "The answer presented here is in the disguise of an old answer, so > that at first it doesn't appear very new. The problem being fought is > the old problem that is renewed each time a student brings in a > rewritten paper saying, "Is this what you want?" The question seems > ordinary enough to the student but every time one tries to answer it > honestly it becomes a frustrating and subtly maddening question. An > instructor often gets the feeling that he could spend the rest of his > life telling the student what he wanted and never get anywhere > precisely because the student is trying to produce what the instructor > wants rather than what is good. > One also notices that on many of these occasions the particular > student is as frustrated and angered as the instructor. The student > keeps trying to figure out how to please the instructor and to his way > of thinking, the instructor doesn't seem to know himself. The student > turns in a rambling paper. He is told he needs better organization > and should make an outline. He goes to work, makes an outline and > writes a new story that follows the outline but is told the story is > too dull. He goes to work, tries to brighten it with choice bits of > liveliness and brings it in. He is then told the story sounds too > artificial. He begins to look at the instructor with a deep feeling > of estrangement. He decides in his own mind that from the evidence > available it is clear that he is talking to an incompetent instructor. > He goes his separate way with little accomplished and the cause of > English composition has fallen another tiny step backward. > I suspect that the particular problem involved in this situation > is a deep one, a fundamental problem that pervades all teaching of > English composition and perhaps all teaching. Because instructors are > compelled to say what they want they do say what they want, and when > they do, they force the students to conform to artificial molds that > destroy ideas that students have on their own. Students who go along > with their instructors are then condemned for their inability to be > creative and take a stand of their own or produce a piece or writing > that reflects a student's own personal standards of what is good. > At this point an instructor's disciplinarian hackles can rise and > he can say that in the final analysis he is teaching conformity and > that the students had better learn to like it. He can argue that > students should learn to be creative only after they have learned the > discipline, presumably when they are all through school. When he says > this it is unlikely that he is thinking much about the fact that when > they get through school they will enter another form of > work-discipline which will carry them through until they are ready for > retirement and death. The disciplinarian argument, carried through, > seems to lead logically to the conclusion that the purpose of a > college or university is to train willing and obedient servants, not > to encourage the growth of free individuals capable of thinking for > themselves. But this conclusion is in such obvious violation of the > whole American way it is absurd. We are, in fact, dedicated to the > ideal of free thought, and when we insist upon conformity to what we > say or feel is good in English composition we are not following that > ideal. I am not interested at this point in whether this is necessary > or not, I am simply pointing out that it is wrong and will continue to > be wrong until solutions are found. I suspect that this fundamental > wrongness is the basis for much hatred and apathy that English has > earned in the past and will continue to accrue justifiable hatred in > the future. > The classroom dilemma of saying what you want without producing > conformity is a dilemma that, I believe, has a solution. The solution > lies in a common word which on first analysis seems as simple as the > word, "time," and which, on further inspection, turns out to be fully > as complex as that word, "time." The word is quality. When a student > asks what is wanted in English composition he should be told that what > is wanted is quality. This seems ridiculously simple at first but it > is an often overlooked primitive concept that is absolutely necessary > to put across before a student can learn to write." > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
