Rose in Review: He's right, but it shouldn't take so much writing to explain the necessity of writing

"The more I think about this language and recall the contexts in which I've heard it used, the more I realize how caught up we all are in a political-semanticweb that restricts the way we think about the place of writing in the academy."

--This is in reference to calling writing a "tool" or "skill." This is one section where I don't find a reason for such fervor. Language, use of language, reading and writing are all skills and tools we use to communicate. I agree that english classes have come to quantify 'skill' through negative attention, "This paper is a B because there are too many spelling errors though the content is good," but there has to be some structure by which we first teach mechanics. Later skills, higher level writing should build on these foundational skills, but should be marked only for missing points of interest, not spelling mechanics. 

"Because skills are fundamental tools, basic procedures,there is the strong expectation that they be mastered at various preparatory junctures in one's educational career and in the places where such tools are properly crafted. In the case of writing, the skills should be mastered before one enters college and takes on higher-order endeavors. Yes, the skill can be refined, but its fundamental development is over, completed via a series of elementary and secondary school courses.

Thus it is that so many faculty consider upper-divisionand especially graduate-level writing courses as de jure remedial...(348)."

But the meat of this essay: Being Remedial

"And the political dimension is powerful-to be remedial is to be substandard,

inadequate, and, because of the origins of the term, the inadequacy is metaphorically connected to disease and mental defect" (349). To which he answers, 

"To be literate means to be acquainted with letters or writings. But exactly how such acquaintance translates into behavior varies a good deal over time and place" (350).

There are so many factors in this modern world, and old academia is terrible at recognizing those factors. Teach them grammar, semantics, use, metaphor, but also teach them how to think for themselves. Teach them WHY things are good, not only that they ARE good.

We are making robots, bad, illiterate, lazy, ignorant robots, ...not well spoken or even interesting writers. 

One more good Rose quote:

"One could argue that though our students are literate by common definition, a significant percentage of them might not be if we shift to the cultural and belletristic definitions of literacy or to a truly functional-contextual definition:that is, given the sophisticated, specialized reading and writing demands of the university-and the general knowledge they require-then it might be appropriate to talk of a kind of cultural illiteracy among some percentage of the student body" (356).