Have you transitioned from Lit to Rhet/Comp? I want to hear how that goes

[rising_star]

VirtualMessage, I'm not sure where you've worked but that has emphatically NOT been my experience with WPAs at... three different institutions that I've taught at since starting my PhD. They have helped me craft better assignments, integrate the writing work into the course better, etc. They haven't imposed any best practices on me or forced me to do things in a particular way, other than by following the same criteria outlined for all such course (which, for example, might be a minimum number of written pages with X opportunities to revise). But those criteria were outlined by a faculty committee, not the WPA, and are built into the academic catalog so it's not like one WPA could change them.

 

OP, it is definitely possible to change fields at the graduate level if that's what you want to do. I would read up on rhet/comp so that you can be sure you're using the right language in your SOP to really situate your interests in the field. If possible, maybe audit or enroll in a graduate level rhet/comp course, which will shows adcoms that you're committed to the transition and also give you the chance to familiarize yourself with the specialized language and way of thinking. Good luck, CrashJupiter!

[ComeBackZinc]

I detect a consistent theme in your posts, VirtualMessage: a deep committed to over-extrapolating from your own experience.

[forever_jung]

OP, I wanted to answer your original question- if you haven't been scared away by this thread!
 

I started my master's program with a focus on British Literature, particularly in the long 18th century. However, when I started teaching composition courses as a teaching assistant, and took the required course, I found that I was hooked. There were lots of reasons why: I love teaching; I enjoy reading/writing about pedagogy and the classroom; I could continue applying critical and cultural theory to my work; studying rhetoric made sense to me. I also found that, in contrast to literature, there truly isn't a hierarchy as to what to study. I could look at any text and analyze it rhetorically- if I wanted to take Fanny Burney's journal and analyze it for theories of disability at the time, I could do so. If I wanted to take a bawdy play and analyze the audience reception to it, I could. Both of these relate to literature and even the time period I originally came in to study, but as a literature person I was encouraged not to do these projects (which, admittedly, could say more about the faculty I was working with than literature itself). My point, though, is that in rhetoric you can still connect to literature or media studies, if you want. 

 

Which leads to the other reasons I decided to make the move to rhet/comp. I felt that literature is very hierarchical still, and I felt limited in what I could study and what would be accepted for publication, or what will endear me to departments and faculty. I have a  disability that has influenced some of my work, and when I still had a literature advisor, she told me I shouldn't do a PhD program because of it. And maybe that is true for literature, I don't know. But as I transitioned to rhet/comp, I suddenly felt like people were seeing me as a whole person, not as some academic machine. My experiences with disabilities were welcomed into the conversation rather than something that would mark me as a "liability" or whatever. I could be an academic with a disability, and my differing perspective has helped, rather than hindered me. 

 

My last point, which I suppose connects to some of the points above. I have personally found way more rhet/comp faculty and students "on the ground," protesting, advocating for students and contigent faculty on a variety of issues, doing things like participating in National Adjunct Walkout Day, setting up professional development for adjuncts and fighting to make sure it is paid, etc. I want to be part of that fight, and to advocate for students. As it says in our office, "the working conditions of our faculty are the learning conditions of our students." 

 

So that was my experience, and the reasons why I switched. The one thing I'd say to someone considering switching is to really reflect why. Is it because you are truly passionate for the field and maybe just unsure how to enter it? Or is it a "plan B" because there seems to be more jobs? If it is the first, come on over! If it is the second, I'd advise against it. As ComeBackZinc reminds us, while this subfield might have more jobs, it is certainly no guarantee that you will get one, particularly in the TT. 

 

As for your interest in comic studies, I do think it is an up and coming focus! In fact, the next issue of Composition Studies is going to focus on Comics, Multimodality, and Composition. 

[iExcelAtMicrosoftPuns]

VM might start by reading some of the field's response to Bousquet: Harris, O'Neill, and Waktins all have pieces in JAC 22.4. 

Regarding management science VM might check out Strickland's "The managerial Unconscious in the history of composition studies"(2011) in order to engage with the existing critique. 

As for who teaches FYW and academic freedom, VM might see Miller and Cripps (2005) who lend an interesting perspective in their defense of "The Rutgers solution" in their essay "Minimum qualifications".

Edit: I'd also recommend "Tenured Bosses Disposable Teachers" - there is a specific article but I haven't got my copy in front of me.

Edited March 29, 2015 by BowTiesAreCool

[heja0805]

I know firsthand about the "pedagogy" WPAs value, which has actively crippled me in teaching many first-year students in many writing classes. And yes, I think many other humanities/social science disciplines are qualified to teach writing, and I think they probably should. That is often the way it works at the nation's best schools. I rather have an accomplished historian teach me how to write than one of your "compositionalists" with their "best practices." WPAs frequently impose pedagogy and curriculum; they don't just lead discussions. By making qualified scholars conform to their "best practices," they deprive students of the diverse teaching practices that should be present in the college classroom at the discretion of the instructor leading it.  I know-  I am a troll for calling into question your disciplinary practices on a thread concerned with them. This is exactly the kind of "helpful" officiousness that troubles me about rhet/comp in general. I have no problem with collegial sharing and governance, but as I keep pointing out, that isn't how the WPA system works. Anyways, I leave it to the OP if he wants to join your ranks. I certainly would not.

 

It's a lot easier to intellectually colonize (i.e., lecture) students than to provide thoughtful, scaffolded, and interactive learning experiences for them. The best practices you describe are based on research--and according to research, class discussion does not lead to student comprehension or learning (unless it is scaffolded and integrated with activities and learning experiences). As a rhet/comp (but really more tech comm) person, I strongly believe that students in writing classes ought to actually learn something. It's true--some of the best writing teachers I've had (and observed at my institution) are lit people, but they were the same folks who were deeply invested in making their classrooms interactive and engaging spaces, scaffolded, informed by these best practices, and truly designed for students to learn. 

 

The histories and politics of our disciplines are complex, and while we won't agree on everything, I think we can at least agree that writing pedagogy ought to be dedicated to students. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by heja0805

[lifealive]

I think it goes without saying that certain sentiments on this thread are not shared by all who hold literature PhDs. But because I didn't see a lot of literature people chiming in, I wanted to make that clear. My teacher training took place almost exclusively within the rhet/comp division. I don't agree with everything they do (who does), but I've certainly found their perspective valuable. And indeed, they are keeping English departments afloat right now. If it weren't for rhet/comp, we truly would have gone the way of philosophy or Classics.

 

A lot of the resentment toward them does indeed have to do with funding issues and the job market.

 

Which is to say to the OP: If you can make the transition to rhet/comp, do it. The job market isn't spectacular, but it's better. I, unfortunately, just could not have done rhet/comp because I didn't have a high interest in it (that's not say it isn't interesting--it just wasn't for me personally). I would have liked to do it, but at the end of the day I couldn't muster up the desire. Remember that you have to write a dissertation in your chosen field, and that means having a burning passion for something. That's what will carry you to the finish line above all else. So if you feel that you can get interested in rhet/comp the way you can get interested in postcolonial pirate stories, then go for it. You might find yourself pleasantly surprised by the opportunities.

Edited April 1, 2015 by lifealive

[VirtualMessage]

VM might start by reading some of the field's response to Bousquet: Harris, O'Neill, and Waktins all have pieces in JAC 22.4. 

Regarding management science VM might check out Strickland's "The managerial Unconscious in the history of composition studies"(2011) in order to engage with the existing critique. 

As for who teaches FYW and academic freedom, VM might see Miller and Cripps (2005) who lend an interesting perspective in their defense of "The Rutgers solution" in their essay "Minimum qualifications".

Edit: I'd also recommend "Tenured Bosses Disposable Teachers" - there is a specific article but I haven't got my copy in front of me.

 

"It doesn't advance the cause of undergraduate education or academic labor to hire people to teach writing for any other reason than they're good at it—or at least show a strong promise for becoming so" (Harris 895).

 

And what defines being good at it?

 

"In this version, success is measured not in the number, educational level, or scholarly commitments of writing instructors but, rather, in terms of curricular integrity" (Cripps/ Miller 129).

 

In other words, you are good at teaching writing if you do what the WPA says you should do in the classroom (curricular integrity). Your doctorate, your publications, and your diverse range of pedagogical methods are secondary—at best—to the "best practices." These are practices defined by the full-time faculty member who lords their pedagogy over contingent faculty.

 

I suggest if the OP is still interested in this line of work that they seriously consider the MBA. If you are going to manage people in a corporate structure, you might as well make some money doing it.

Edited April 1, 2015 by VirtualMessage

[lifealive]

"It doesn't advance the cause of undergraduate education or academic labor to hire people to teach writing for any other reason than they're good at it—or at least show a strong promise for becoming so" (Harris 895).

 

And what defines being good at it?

 

"In this version, success is measured not in the number, educational level, or scholarly commitments of writing instructors but, rather, in terms of curricular integrity" (Cripps/ Miller 129).

 

In other words, you are good at teaching writing if you do what the WPA says you should do in the classroom (curricular integrity). Your doctorate, your publications, and your diverse range of pedagogical methods are secondary—at best—to the "best practices." These are practices defined by the full-time faculty member who lords their pedagogy over contingent faculty.

 

I suggest if the OP is still interested in this line of work that they seriously consider the MBA. If you are going to manage people in a corporate structure, you might as well make some money doing it.

 

Cool story, bro. 

[ComeBackZinc]

I am again amused by VM's belief that tenured literature professors are any less complicit in managing people in a corporate structure. It's like he's never actually seen how a tenured lit professor works with his or her advisees.

[LCB]

Every English PhD is qualified to teach college writing (ESL and reading require additional skills).

 

 

"It doesn't advance the cause of undergraduate education or academic labor to hire people to teach writing for any other reason than they're good at it—or at least show a strong promise for becoming so" (Harris 895).

 

And what defines being good at it?

 

I just want to ask a few questions here, and maybe also talk a bit about what I see rhet/comp as a field doing (to both respond to the debate in this thread but also hopefully talk about rhet/comp). WPA, rhet/comp, and fields dedicated to the study of writing and pedagogy should be able to have conversations about what makes up good writing and pedagogy. And let's be clear here: these are conversations about what make up good pedagogy, not assertions. Our field is filled with people disagreeing with each other on best practices, continually revising the way we do things, adapting to new situations and technologies, etc. We're not some monolithic entity beating up lit TAs in workshops until they agree with us that our way is the only way, because we don't always agree on "our way."

 

I guess I'd just ask you the same question you keep posing to rhet/comp and WPA: why do you get to define these things? I see rhet/comp as a field that doesn't assume that a good writer is necessarily a good teacher (re: your first post). Clearly, you disagree. But why? What makes you assume that having skills automatically means that one can teach them successfully to other people?

[VirtualMessage]

I just want to ask a few questions here, and maybe also talk a bit about what I see rhet/comp as a field doing (to both respond to the debate in this thread but also hopefully talk about rhet/comp). WPA, rhet/comp, and fields dedicated to the study of writing and pedagogy should be able to have conversations about what makes up good writing and pedagogy. And let's be clear here: these are conversations about what make up good pedagogy, not assertions. Our field is filled with people disagreeing with each other on best practices, continually revising the way we do things, adapting to new situations and technologies, etc. We're not some monolithic entity beating up lit TAs in workshops until they agree with us that our way is the only way, because we don't always agree on "our way."

 

I guess I'd just ask you the same question you keep posing to rhet/comp and WPA: why do you get to define these things? I see rhet/comp as a field that doesn't assume that a good writer is necessarily a good teacher (re: your first post). Clearly, you disagree. But why? What makes you assume that having skills automatically means that one can teach them successfully to other people?

 

 

It is a reasonable question. The key point of difference is that I do not want to tell other humanities PhDs how to run their classrooms. In fact, I find the practice of imposing curriculum/pedagogy on other scholars to go against the fundamental principles of academic freedom and collegial governance. I recognize that what works for one teacher does not work for another. Passions and interests vary, and the best institutions value this diversity and actively promote it. They trust and respect the expertise and judgment of their faculty. In my experience--and the information gleaned from publications on this topic--there is a deep mistrust of the contingent faculty teaching writing classes. A point reiterated in Harris and Cripps is that pedagogical decisions should not be left to adjuncts and graduate students. They must be managed! And by management we are talking about imposing curricular decisions on them that include course texts and student assignments. Given the prevalence of adjunct labor at the University, we are talking about many PhDs being told what to teach and how to teach it on the basis of their contingent status rather than their expertise and credentials. This isn't respectful of the profession, and it cripples innovative and diverse instruction. The benefit is that is justifies the administrative positions and the bureaucracies they manage and grow. This isn't a concern limited to WPAs, but it seems to be a primary preoccupation of rhet/comp. The very institutional structure of writing programs promote this kind of management hierarchy. Even for those WPAs who actively try to empower their adjuncts, these ingrained management structures undermine those efforts. This is why Bousquet's critique is distinct and the most productive. To have a truly collegial structure in rhet/comp would require the elimination of the WPA. In literature, we do not have LPAs. Nobody has ever told me what to teach in a course on Early Modern Drama or how to teach it. That does not mean that I am not accountable: student evaluations, classroom observations, etc. It means that the faculty trusts me to bring my expertise and experience to the classroom without their constant meddling or the imposition of "best practices." There are no "best" practices.  One instructor might find that teaching John Donne by having students recite verse is very effective. Another person might find that having the students imitate Donne's poetry works wonders. Another might think that a research paper would benefit the students. Maybe another doesn't want to teach Donne and rather focus on a marginalized poet. All of these people are capable of achieving good learning outcomes for their students, but in very different ways. I'm glad the MLA isn't trying to tell us the best way to teach literature.

[Wonton Soup]

LCB is right to emphasize that rhet/comp is a field made up of very different opinions on what should go on in a writing classroom. But there are some things that the field does agree on, almost unanimously. See: the various position statements of CCC or other organizations within the field. Thus, there are some things that we can rightfully call best practices, and conversely there are some things that are rightfully called bad practices. I believe that those best practices should be imposed on people who teach freshman comp. 

 

Part of the problem implicit in all this is there is a whole strata of people who teach writing without studying it, conceivably without caring about it. In my utopian world, literature graduate students and people with literature degrees would not teach first year composition. But we are not in a utopian world. We are in a very messy and problematic system where literature departments exist economically on the backs of writing programs, and in this world pushing for literature people not to teach comp is essentially pushing literature to wither away into nothingness. Which is at least not my intention, as I value humanities work generally. But lit students should realize that they effectively operate in two fields and that they will have to conform to the methods of that other field when they occupy it.

[VirtualMessage]

LCB is right to emphasize that rhet/comp is a field made up of very different opinions on what should go on in a writing classroom. But there are some things that the field does agree on, almost unanimously. See: the various position statements of CCC or other organizations within the field. Thus, there are some things that we can rightfully call best practices, and conversely there are some things that are rightfully called bad practices. I believe that those best practices should be imposed on people who teach freshman comp. 

 

Part of the problem implicit in all this is there is a whole strata of people who teach writing without studying it, conceivably without caring about it. In my utopian world, literature graduate students and people with literature degrees would not teach first year composition. But we are not in a utopian world. We are in a very messy and problematic system where literature departments exist economically on the backs of writing programs, and in this world pushing for literature people not to teach comp is essentially pushing literature to wither away into nothingness. Which is at least not my intention, as I value humanities work generally. But lit students should realize that they effectively operate in two fields and that they will have to conform to the methods of that other field when they occupy it.

 

The study of literature and the study of writing are not two distinct fields. Literature scholars study all forms of writing: fiction, poetry, non-fiction, rhetoric, etc. They publish a diverse range of articles and books on all of these topics, and much of the work in rhet/comp relies on the theoretical and historical work first done in literary studies. I fail to see how a scholar of literature is not qualified to teach college writing.

[Wonton Soup]

Because the study of literature does not make someone familiar with the theory and practice behind the position statements I mentioned, much less various debates concerning the teaching of writing that are not universally agreed upon. 

[VirtualMessage]

So by this logic I need to know what the CCCCCC says about teaching writing in order to do it effectively? I need a position statement to be a good teacher? You have got to be joking. This is the same misguided thinking behind the push for the common core in K-12 education. You cannot standardize education by micromanaging it. You hire the best people-- professional people--and you entrust them to do a professional job. You draw on their passion and their cultivated expertise to teach their students. That's how it works at the country's best schools. But maybe someone should tell Toni Morrison at Princeton what the best practices are for her fiction workshops? It is a ludicrous thought: a PhD with years of teaching, writing, and research experience instructed to follow a position statement. Again, I am not saying that people should be obtuse. Good teachers learn from others and are constantly adapting new ideas and methods. But you're talking about top-down management, and that inhibits instruction.

 

It is interesting to note how the position statement balkanizes writing instruction (as though a historian, art historian, or anthropologist can't effectively teach academic writing without making recourse to rhet/comp theory):

 

10. Sound writing instruction extends from a knowledge of theories of writing (including, but not limited to, those theories developed in the field of composition and rhetoric).

The most fundamental purpose of classes devoted specifically to writing instruction (such as first-year or advanced composition courses) is to engage students in study of and practice with purposes, audiences, and contexts for writing. In practice, this means that writers engage in supported analysis of these purposes, audiences, and contexts and through supported practice with genres and texts that circulate within and among them.

Institutions and programs emphasize this purpose by ensuring that instructors have background in and experience with theories of writing. Ideally, instructors have ongoing access to and support for professional development, including (but not limited to) attendance at local, regional, or national Composition and Rhetoric conferences. Institutions employing graduate students from outside of the discipline of Composition and Rhetoric to teach writing courses support development of this background knowledge by ensuring students receive sufficient grounding in and practice/mentoring with regard to key concepts associated with theories of writing.

Edited April 1, 2015 by VirtualMessage

[ComeBackZinc]

1. It's incredible to be hearing this at the same exact time as I am arguing about the field's complete lack of standardization and top-down approaches. The current pedagogical work in the field is dominated by cultural studies and critical pedagogy and has been for some time.

 

2. That's a problem because the world of higher education is dominated by standardization efforts, so if we don't do anything to standardize a little bit, we'll just lose control of our programs entirely, and Pearson and ETS will swoop in and take over the teaching of writing entirely. Which would you prefer? That some lefty profs do a little research into best practices and provide some minimal structure for the writing classroom in an effort to maintain our disciplinary control over pedagogy? Or that some for-profit entity come in, install a completely standardized syllabus, implement a heavy-handed assessment mechanism, and completely de-professionalize the instruction of college writing? Because those are the alternatives. I'm afraid most people who teach don't enjoy the standing of Toni Morrison at Princeton.

 

3. If you think the average WPA is out to micromanage the teaching of the average writing instructor, I'm sorry, you're just misinformed. I must tell you again that you don't in fact have perfect perspective on the whole world of writing programs.

 

4. I think your complaints about the field and about WPAs have been registered.

Edited April 1, 2015 by ComeBackZinc

[lifealive]

I personally don't think that writing/composition and literature exist as separate fields, and that literature PhDs can't be of use to composition classes. I'm a lit person who moonlights as a compositionist, after all, and my favorite composition professor also published frequently about early modern lit. I think that my work as a lit scholar informs my work in composition and vise versa. I also think that composition runs the risk of becoming just as arcane and irrelevant as high theory if it doesn't hold fast to its own interdisciplinary/democratic underpinnings.

 

But the idea that we should cede the classroom entirely to certain people because they are unassailable geniuses a la Toni Morrison is f'ing ridiculous. As is the idea that someone shouldn't have a basic position statement or teaching philosophy. If you can't even articulate why you're teaching or what methods you're prone to use, then just what. Having such things doesn't even come close to standardizing or micromanaging education. The strain of elitism running through this entire argument is sort of laughable, too. That's what makes me think this is some sort of troll job. 

[CrashJupiter]

You guys are all awesome. I've been buried up to the neck in thesis, so I was away a bit, but I'm reading through this now. Thanks all!

[CrashJupiter]

I made the transition, and I'm quite happy I did. What draws you to rhet/comp?

 

I've been working on postcolonial lit for three years and have recently been adding Irish lit into that mix. In fact, my thesis places Kavanagh and Walcott in conversation. I also really want to do more with comics. Between those three, I've realized more and more that what I'm already doing is pretty rhetorically heavy. As I've talked more and more with Rhet/Comp colleagues in my program, it seems as if I may have more opportunity to work in and move around between my interests if I went rhet. Particularly, I'm interested in examining comics (not necessarily graphic novels) as one of the last remaining truly serialized storytelling forms, and I'm less interested in trying to "literaturize" them as a means of valuation. I want to look at them as a compound medium, not a vehicle for text. I want to look at what they do. To me, asking what something does and how, rather than what it is leans more the rhetoric way. 

 

I've spent two years now teaching composition and so far really enjoy it. Teaching lit is second nature and very fun, but teaching comp is challenging and rewarding in that it feels more like I am making a real difference. 

 

And sometimes, not often, but sometimes, I really just want to write about the ways in which Five Nights at Freddy's evokes fear and then convinces you that it's incredibly scary, despite the scares being low-hanging fruit, just for example. I really really can't do that in lit.

 

I am moving to Louisville, KY, with my wife, and I know that UofL has a heavily multi-modal Rhet/Comp program, so I felt this transition at least earned an honest exploration.

---------

I'm really glad this took on a life of its own. It's more likely that this thread will be useful for people beyond myself, since my specifics weren't clogging the conversation up. Awesome!

 

 

Shout outs to ProfLorax, empress-marmot, Wonton Soup, Romanista, and ComeBackZinc so far.

Between Fields, your story is especially interesting to me, if you could expound on what you were working on in postcolonial theory and how that fed into your rhet/comp transition. 

 

And I, so far, at least, really appreciated VirtualMessage's input. Reading on some of the less pretty aspects of the conversation I've just entered into is useful. I found the responses to VM useful, as well. The controversy and high emotions are definitely something I needed to know about as I work through this. So thanks again, everyone.

 

---------

 

I do not want an administrative job. In the current climate, it would feel like enabling to me. Perhaps that's unfair, and I don't have a full understanding of WPA programs; my university does not have one connected to r/c, but does have a strong rhet/comp program. Ours is a first year English program and really does curriculum and training. Hmm. Perhaps that is administrative. It just doesn't cast itself as such, and the emphasis is on student experience. Our particular program is run by two directors, both with degrees in lit both of whom also actively teach FYE, and two graduate students who help run the program for a year in lieu of teaching. 

 

I also am seeing things about other programs that just are not true in mine, despite being at a major state school. There's no real stratification, and all of the professors, tenured to adjunct, teach undergrad classes. Graduate classes are pitched and accepted, but no one teaches strictly grad classes. That's an interesting thing to watch out for as I investigate programs. The lack of true stratification in this way (there's still the hierarchy of titles and permanence) lends itself to a department-wide collegiality. There are rooting interests, but no real rivals, even between sub-departments.

 

This conversation is awesome, even if it felt painful while you guys were having it. These are concerns beyond my experience and I'd not have thought of them myself. I don't begrudge the little backbites, since I recognize that there is a lot of baggage coming along with these issues. You're all pretty darn good at supporting your points and I'm not convinced any of you are wrong (as of the 18th post).

 

Quick aside: I dislike reading pedagogy articles. I also very much see their use. Sometimes they tend too far into the personal experience realm for my rather scientific tastes, but every last one I've read gave me something useful, once my imagination and specific situation were added. Nods toward universality are troubling, but that's true in rhet and lit, too. Again, my program is flexible enough that I've never felt bossed, despite being near the bottom of the rank pile here.

 

This whole conversation was painful, but I don't think either side was trolling. Experiences vary. Mine is not yours. Being given a little window into VASTLY different experiences here is really nice. ComeBackZinc and VirtualMessage, THANK YOU. Genuinely, THANK YOU (as of the top of the second page). That had to be frustrating for both of you. You gave me, as well as the rest of the people reading this, a lot to think about and digest.

 

---------

 

That's all for now. Back to thesis formatting. Thanks, all.

Edited April 6, 2015 by CrashJupiter

[CrashJupiter]

OP, I wanted to answer your original question- if you haven't been scared away by this thread!

 

I started my master's program with a focus on British Literature, particularly in the long 18th century. However, when I started teaching composition courses as a teaching assistant, and took the required course, I found that I was hooked. There were lots of reasons why: I love teaching; I enjoy reading/writing about pedagogy and the classroom; I could continue applying critical and cultural theory to my work; studying rhetoric made sense to me. I also found that, in contrast to literature, there truly isn't a hierarchy as to what to study. I could look at any text and analyze it rhetorically- if I wanted to take Fanny Burney's journal and analyze it for theories of disability at the time, I could do so. If I wanted to take a bawdy play and analyze the audience reception to it, I could. Both of these relate to literature and even the time period I originally came in to study, but as a literature person I was encouraged not to do these projects (which, admittedly, could say more about the faculty I was working with than literature itself). My point, though, is that in rhetoric you can still connect to literature or media studies, if you want. 

 

...

 

As for your interest in comic studies, I do think it is an up and coming focus! In fact, the next issue of Composition Studies is going to focus on Comics, Multimodality, and Composition. 

 

VERY helpful, thanks! This is pretty much exactly why I'm thinking of transitioning. I was not scared away. As you can see above, I just fell out of this bit of the internet for a while and I actually found the near-fight really useful.

 

VM might start by reading some of the field's response to Bousquet: Harris, O'Neill, and Waktins all have pieces in JAC 22.4. 

Regarding management science VM might check out Strickland's "The managerial Unconscious in the history of composition studies"(2011) in order to engage with the existing critique. 

As for who teaches FYW and academic freedom, VM might see Miller and Cripps (2005) who lend an interesting perspective in their defense of "The Rutgers solution" in their essay "Minimum qualifications".

Edit: I'd also recommend "Tenured Bosses Disposable Teachers" - there is a specific article but I haven't got my copy in front of me.

 

MUA HA HA HA. Sources. I love you. I'll be devouring these as soon as the semester is out. 

 

ProfLorax and rising_star, I apologize for multi-posting. There's so much here to respond to.

 

 

It's a lot easier to intellectually colonize (i.e., lecture) students than to provide thoughtful, scaffolded, and interactive learning experiences for them. 

...

The histories and politics of our disciplines are complex, and while we won't agree on everything, I think we can at least agree that writing pedagogy ought to be dedicated to students. 

 

Intellectual colonization. You're speaking my language. And hear, hear on that last bit. I've yet to read much on scaffolding. Do you have a recommendation?

 

 

As for the conversation that followed on the second page, my experience has not been that rhet/comp is primarily interested in pedagogy. I know there are programs that are much more comp-heavy, pedagogy-heavy, but I'm much more interested in the rhetoric side of things. I love teaching composition, but I'd never want to be a pedagogical theorist. What experiences has everyone else had in this? I see that forever_jung's experience is much more to the rhet side of things, which resembles what VirtualMessage described as an aspect of lit, rather than r/c, and that their r/c department seems to be primarily invested in pedagogy and comp. I would like to get a feel for what the ratio of these programs might be.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

I've now stumbled upon the other thread from VirtualMessage and can see why some of the reactions are what they are. I think it's a fair warning, but also think that VM's school is extremely different from mine. Yes, there's a job crisis and holy moly is adjunct exploitation and administrative bloat out of hand, but I am here for myself. I am doing this for myself. If I end up making a living doing something entirely unrelated, that's fine. I will have a doctorate and I will have earned that shit.

Edited April 6, 2015 by CrashJupiter

[Wonton Soup]

Yes, I think rhetoric is easier for many lit people to get into because it shares a similar critical tradition. It's "theory" in the sense that many lit people are accustomed to. Coming out of undergrad I was more interested in rhetoric than composition, but now I'd say my interests are even and I'm probably more familiar with comp than rhetoric. I would recommend looking to programs such as UT-Austin, Syracuse, Wisconsin-Madison, Berkeley, and Arizona State (or is it U of A?). And probably a lot more programs that I forget. 

 

It is nice to hear the OP taking the thread so well. I was worried that that direction the conversation took might have crushed some souls. 

[ProfLorax]

To me, asking what something does and how, rather than what it is leans more the rhetoric way. 

I 100% agree with this distinction! This question, what is the text doing, is ultimately what drew me to rhetoric; that, and like you, I really enjoyed teaching writing. I'm happy to share my SoP with you, so you can see how I discussed my transition. My strategy was to frame my former literary interests as rhetorical interests. 

[CrashJupiter]

Yes, I think rhetoric is easier for many lit people to get into because it shares a similar critical tradition. It's "theory" in the sense that many lit people are accustomed to. Coming out of undergrad I was more interested in rhetoric than composition, but now I'd say my interests are even and I'm probably more familiar with comp than rhetoric. I would recommend looking to programs such as UT-Austin, Syracuse, Wisconsin-Madison, Berkeley, and Arizona State (or is it U of A?). And probably a lot more programs that I forget. 

 

It is nice to hear the OP taking the thread so well. I was worried that that direction the conversation took might have crushed some souls. 

 

Contentious conversations are a valuable method of figuring things out, and I learned a whole lot of things to watch out for in this thread. 

 

As for programs, I'm going to be geographically tied this round, as my wife is going to be at Kentucky and we're buying a house in Louisville. I'm looking at Kentucky, Louisville, Cincinnati, and Indiana for sure, and likely Purdue, Ohio State, and a few others.

 

I 100% agree with this distinction! This question, what is the text doing, is ultimately what drew me to rhetoric; that, and like you, I really enjoyed teaching writing. I'm happy to share my SoP with you, so you can see how I discussed my transition. My strategy was to frame my former literary interests as rhetorical interests. 

 

I would love to see your SoP! Thanks!

[ProfLorax]

I would love to see your SoP! Thanks!

PM sent!

[rising_star]

CrashJupiter, if your wife is going to Kentucky and you may end up there, you may want to hold off on buying a house in Louisville. Certainly both of you living in Lexington and studying there would make for an easier commute...