<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: half-star
Review: Crowley draws from a wide-ranging array of historical sources and her own publications to present a thoughtful and (generally) persuasive case against requiring every first-year college student to take a composition course. In instance after instance, from adjunct teachers to Writing Program Administrators, Crowley provides a reasoned argument on how everyone implicated in FYC would be better served without the universal requirement.Don't read Crowley's text if you disagree with her, as she just may change your mind!
Rating: 
Summary: Honesty is golden
Review: Future writing instructors need to read what Crowley has to say. She minces no words and calls rhetoric and composition instruction what it often is: a dreary bureaucracy more interested in policing student thought and behavior than encouraging beginning writers to argue well. Her discussion concerning graduate assistants is particularly salient. She correctly assumes beginning writers should be taught by the most experienced faculty, not first-timers.
Rating:
Summary: half-star
Review: Some of these essays are familiar, and are no fresher in their reprinted form in this volume. Crowley's polemics are tiresome and her remarks about the role of first-year writing courses in the college curriculum are neither radical nor particularly useful. I can imagine educators cheering at certain portions of this volume, but the after-effect is that it was merely another exercise in reading, an occasion for an author/educator to "vent" spleen on the profession. It's hard to admire this work.
Rating:
Summary: Refund!
Review: Why did I buy this book? Crowley manages to quote and cite herself enough to make me realize that her intended audience must be herself! At least she's honest: these ARE "polemical essays." But do we really need more polemics in higher education? This profession isn't polemical enough already?
<< 1 >>
| 
