Carnivalesque

This section of the Teaching Carnival is good. I want to tangetially comment on Collin Brooke's response to Mark Bauerlein. Let me say first that I agree with Collin. This is not a commentary on his argument. The reliance on a contingent work force is detrimental to any University in a number of ways. However, I want to speak to a trend in our department, because, while I have no proof, I suspect it is happening elsewhere. Also, I'm reading Bauerlein's piece right now and hopefully I'll have more to say about it soon.

Okay, while I agree that the reliance on contingent workers is bad, bad, bad for the University and does affect the quality of course work, the assumption that accompanies those arguments is that the contingent workers are not good teachers. No one is overtly saying that, but too often the connection between the increase in contingent workers and the decrease in "quality of instruction" is left unexamined. When left unexamined the faulty conclusion is that contingent workers are poor instructors. To get to the root of the problem - course numbers, outside pressures, job security, assessment, etc. it is necessary to look harder and longer than someone outside of composition might.

It's no secret that there are big changes afoot in my department. Some of them I don't mind, other's impinge on my ability to design and teach my course. Formerly the attitude of this department towards graduate students was to treat us like colleagues but to give us a little more protection. Since the lecturers in our department are mostly former graduate students they received the same kind of treatment. (Please note 'Formerly') In the desire to make our courses more uniform, to simplify assessment, and more 'transparent,' the desire to allow us to design our own courses and learn from our mistakes has gone by the wayside. All of this change comes from good intention and since I'm in my dissertation writing phase (I hate making dissertation a verb) I'm taking a "keep my head down and get out" approach to the situation.

In fact most of the changes being made have not come from concerns about how graduate students design/teach their courses, but about how the Lecturers design/teach their courses. For a number of reasons, unclear expectations, mushy accountability, a rotating person of authority, the department has developed an anxiety about what goes on in the Lecturer's classroom. (Insert 'contingent labor' for Lecturer and you can see how this is a product of the argument above.) Some things about our department that influence this.

• The Associate Head, who directly oversees lecturers is a position held by Literature faculty.
• It is a position that rotates every 2-3 years. (I'm not sure about the exact number.)
• While the Associate Head works closely with the Director of Composition, there is no visible accountability to the Composition Program, even though Lecturer's mostly teach Composition courses.
  
• Lecturer's are primarily former MFA students and/or Literature graduate students.

Recently, through the CP and Small Lake's efforts, the lit graduate students successfully argued that there should be an "Assistant to the Associate Head" position that mirrored the Assistant to the Director of Composition position that I used to hold. It would allow literature students have similar experience scheduling, managing a group of employees, which would possibly give the literature students an edge on the market. The problem is that both the current Associate Head and the current Director of Composition are micromanagers. They've managed to completely undermine both positions. (Yes, that is also a different post all together.)
The result of all of this is that the Associate Head is using her assistant to do things like walk around campus and make sure that all of the Lecturers are really holding their Friday class sessions. Seriously.

I'm not saying this kind of hall monitoring is happening everywhere. What I want to say is that if we are not careful to reiterate the systemic reasons why the reliance on contingent labor leads to a lower quality of classroom instructions, the misuse of that information leads to the kind of anxiety currently circulating in our department.

Great ideas and good intentions...

Today there was a meeting, a meeting I fully intended to be at and then was entirely glad that I missed. (I showed up, grabbed food, and went back to my desk.) I thought the meeting was to discuss a Cs (college composition and communication conference) panel for next year. Instead, it was a how to write a proposal session. Sure, there are people who need that, but not me. I'm not saying that every proposal I write gets accepted, but I've been down the road a few times and it is all b-a-n-a-n-a-s.

Initially I didn't intend to submit this year, I've got this little thing called a dissertation to write. But, since the stupid conference isn't until next March, I guess I've got time. The theme for next year is "The Remix: Revisit, Rethink, Revise, Renew." I'm thinking I'll submit a paper about the remix currently happening in our department.

My original idea was a panel Dr. Belle, me, Dr. Lead, and a first year grad student - someone who doesn't know the halcyon days of old. If, and I mean IF, everyone could put aside their egos and not make it a blame game, then I think it would be a great panel. As it is, I'm not going to put myself in the precarious position of suggesting, writing, and presenting such a thing. I'm just going to write my own paper proposal and leave it at that.

Shifting Philosophy

As I mentioned in my discussion of the new TA orientation, the addition of a new Director is instigating a shift in departmental philosophy. It was rightly pointed out that our departmental philosophy has never been overtly articulated, but I think it's always been pretty implicit by the few things that all TAs are expected to do in their first semester here. Perhaps philosophy is too formal of a word, what I'm discussing is more like a departmental ethos.

As I sat through another two days of orientation with a group of lecturers, I listened to Dr. Midwest talk about one of the texts she asked them to read. She pointed out a chart in it that highlighted the difference between courses that use "writing to learn" (wtl) and courses that are about "learning to write" (ltw). As false as most dichotomies are, this one comes the closes to identifying the change happening in our department. This chart doesn't address the fact that wtl can facilitate ltw, but that is a different conversation.

During my time as a TA in this department, I would say that the focus has been on making our classrooms places where wtl happens. TAs are given the freedom to bring whatever focus they like to their classroom as long as their students leave with an understanding of the basics of rhetoric and writing process. (Well, after the first semester when they have to use the same text.) The idea being that whatever the topic covered in the class the application of rhetoric and the focus on revision and process would help students develop writing skills.

From what I can tell so far, Dr. Midwest is committed to the composition class being a course about ltw. Her first concern is that students leave the course having developed as writers. That goal is the same as before, it's just that she thinks about the path to that goal very differently. Her ltw approach is very practical, which is demonstrated by the texts the new TAs are using this semester.

Over the next couple of years I think the tension between these two approaches will play itself out in the amount of freedom TAs and lecturers have to design their 101 courses. I'm sure the day to day will stay in the TAs hands, but it would not surprise me if there was a move to a common 101 text. I could be wrong about this. Right now Dr. Midwest has only been here a few weeks. She hasn't had the opportunity to really experience the department. Maybe some of her own views will change over time.

Please remember, this is just the way I've seen our department working and the way I think it may go. I'm sure there are plenty of other TAs who would characterize our department differently. Also, change is not a bad thing. I just think there will be some pendulum swings before the department settles down into its new identity with Dr. Midwest.

Getting the Ball Rolling

Although I still have to fill out the official paperwork, the final nail dropped in my committee coffin yesterday. I got up the nerve to ask the last member to work with me; and, he agreed. When I sat down last week to start putting together the my exam lists everything still felt somehow unreal. Watching Dr. Chat create a folder with my name on it and put it in another folder titled “Exams” was like feeling the puzzle pieces lock together. Although it is nerve wracking—like that moment when the rollercoaster just begins to move slowly up the track, it also brought me a sense of calm and determination. I’m done agonizing over who to work with and ready to get to work.

About the agonizing, I’ve known who I should work with since last spring. I delayed asking people to be on my committee because I worried about personality conflicts and stories I heard from other students. My friends who are taking their exams this semester all counsel me cryptically to “choose your committee carefully,” without giving me any concrete advice about how to do that. It’s frustrating, because really I don’t have a choice about who I’m working with – our department just isn’t that big.

Unlike some of my friends, I don’t know exactly what my dissertation topic is, so I’ve constructed my comprehensive exam lists using the theories that I know I want to work with in my dissertation. That means I have to work with Dr. Belle (who will chair my committee) because she is passionate about one of my theory areas, Dr. Chat because he is the only one on the faculty who works with a particular theory, and Dr. Snarky because her work provides the intersection between the other two theories. I know there are personality conflicts between at least two of the members. I’m pretty sure that when it comes time to write for these folks I will be pulled in at least two different directions, but that is just the nature of the game. At some level, I have to believe that these people are adults who can figure out how to work together.

My concern now is that all my lists are theoretical, but that is a different post.

Wading in...

In our department we create a guide to the field for the first year students, which, if they enroll in the basic 101 course, they are required to buy. It is a nice little money maker for our department. Actually, it funds itself and various happenings geared toward the first year students. It contains essays written by graduate students about different aspects of the field. Every spring there is also an essay contest from which student essays are chosen to illustrate certain types of assignments. Last year I submitted an essay. This year the Cajun Princess and I are on the editing committee.
Just recently Kendall/Hunt began publishing this little volume for us, which is nice because now it actually looks legitimate. The editing committee consists of three members –usually one veteran and two new people. The structure cuts down on the tendency for committees to start over from the beginning. Although I’ve not worked closely with our veteran committee member (VCM), I’ve heard rumors of her, for lack of a better term, flakiness. The tricky thing is I also get the sense that she is fairly territorial. Last semester she was distracted by comps so we didn’t expect her to be on the ball getting this thing going. However, I did contact our Director to make sure we weren’t missing any deadlines. She reassured me that all was well. Early last week, out of the blue, the Director sends a departmental email stating that submissions for our writing contest can be dropped of in the departmental office.
CP and I emailed, “Quoi?” to each other, but decided that when our presence was required we would be notified. Then there was another request last Friday – Could one of the committee members give a brief description of our project (graduate submissions and the student essay contest) at the next required meeting of TAs? (Tomorrow)
Not knowing who would respond, I said that I would speak at the meeting. Then I emailed VCM and CP to set up a meeting (which is today). Here’s the deal…I don’t want to step on VCM’s toes, but this thing needs to get done in a timely fashion. So far there doesn’t seem to be a problem. In her last email she thanked me for organizing this meeting. I’m not sure if that means I need to step back now or not. It’s just that for the last two years the book has arrived late to the bookstore, and I think that has a little to do with things at our end. One thing I am good at is organizing meetings, delegating, and following up to make sure stuff gets done, which means I want to play that role on this committee. The meeting this afternoon will probably tell me all I need to know. Whether it’s politically savvy or not, I have an agenda for this meeting and other commitments mean I need to make sure we stick to it.

Opening Day

The Writing Center opened today. It seemed to all go smoothly. We were actually kind of busy in the afternoon. It's been a while since I've worked in a writing center. It was fun. I know in a couple of weeks I'll be singing a different tune, but it's good for now.

As I sat through a job talk today the silliness of the situation struck me. It's like a conference of one. A mini-teach can show how a candidate will perform in the classroom, but the job talk just puts everyone in an awkward position. As a candidate you have to condense your research into a short conference presentation. As a committee member you have to try to assess a candidates ability based on that presentation. It's insufficient. I don't have any alternative suggestions, but there has to be a better way to do that.

Doing everything except what I love...

Last spring, in a moment of over confidence, I agreed to be a mentor to one of the new phd students (Little Momma). We get together every couple of weeks to have coffee and chat about this strange life we've chosen. Mostly, it's the blind leading the blind, but I think we do a fairly good job keeping each other sane.

This week was pretty hard for her so we got together on Saturday to talk things over. As we talked over the events of the week and discussed strategies to get through the semester she mentioned something that stuck with me. One of the things that draws each of us to this place is our love to read. Yet, when we get to this place all we seem to do is put off our reading. The thing we love to do becomes the very thing we avoid. Her observation probably made an impression because at the end of last semester I didn't read.

Normally, the promise of reading for pleasure gets me through the final push of writing seminar papers and grading student work. At the end of last spring I read four Val McDermid novels in three days. This year I couldn't do it. I started The Master and Margarita, but didn't finish. It's not because I didn't like it. I did. I just didn't feel like reading. Part of it was because I had other projects to complete, but that wasn't all of it. The heart of what we do is read, whether it's theory, student papers, or literature. Getting through this process shouldn't rob us of that love.

I have to hope that it doesn't. Hopefully, et just defers it for a while. I didn't share these thoughts with Little Momma. She has enough on her plate. I told her it probably all just boils down to one of the ways we are most like our students. We don't like to read things we are told to read. We want to read what we've chosen to read.

On that note, it's time to get to work reading On Rhetoric.