Student still concerned about WPE
I was amused to read Dr. Edward Borowiecís,
member of the Test Development committee, reaction to the outrage over
the new Writing Proficiency Exam.
I would first like to clear up two misconceptions.
Debbie Lensner
First as one can easily
tell by the absence of the words ìDaily Forty-Ninerî beneath my name, I
am not a member of the newspaper staff. Rather, I am simply an English
major who happens to read the newspaper.
Second, stories that run on the opinion
page are opinions. Often, they are responses to stories that appeared in
previous editions of the paper. These are not unbiased news stories, where
the writer must provide quotes from a variety of sources. Rather, they
are one person's opinion or reaction.
Borowiec devoted much of his commentary
to praising the new, essay-only WPE. In fact, he dared "anyone to dispute
[the] assertion" that the new format is better.
If Borowiec had read the opinion pieces
more carefully, he might have noticed that whether the new format is better
than the old was never a concern. Instead, as I clearly stated in my commentary,
my indignation was not directed at the removal of the objective section
of the WPE. It was the reasons behind its removal that bothered (and still
bothers) me.
Worst of all, Borowiec quotes an argument
that "students have trouble learning formal grammar, dislike it, and seem
not to retain for very long what theyíve learned."
I am appalled that a university professor
would use such a flimsy argument to justify his position.
I could do a study of my own and determine
that many students also have trouble learning mathematics and dislike the
subject. Should we therefore eliminate it as a general education requirement?
I am, however, disturbed by their conclusions.
A university where professors expect an automatic jump in writing ability
without teaching writing, and consider a subject worthwhile only if students
find it easy enough, is hardly a university.
Debbie Lensner is an English major at
Cal State Long Beach. |