That is a nice comment (http://chronicle.com/article/A-Rescue-Plan-for-College/47452/). I thought I had exorcised this 2009 anti-academic demon in comment 19. The irony of Michael Prince’s pitch is that I woke up to learning as a freshman via the Bartholomae and Petrosky approach he denigrates and definitely not from worksheets or grammar skill and drill, or from the primitive and limited ideas about writing that brushed me in other disciplines. Prince wants some kind of Writing Across the Disciplines, but my English classes had much more sophisticated and self-conscious ideas about writing than anything I found in my biology, math, political science, or history classes.
We’ve got much of Michael Prince’s same sort of put-outness very recently from Jeffrey Zorn, whose essay against the field of rhetoric and composition was posted on the National Association of Scholars website a few weeks ago. Maybe you saw my tweet:
“English Compositionism as Fraud and Failure” | Jeffrey Zorn’s stimulating, frustrating misplaced jeremiad: ow.ly/ouFjV
The waves of reaction on the Wirting Program Administrator-List were interesting: outrage against this conservative reactionary Classics professor, mellowing to the recognition that this is how the public sees us to we need to write pieces that educate people like Zorn about the richness of the field. Much like Prince’s simple distrust of teaching rhetorical analysis, Zorn sees no value in Sondra Perl’s work, yet her close observational studies of basic writers in college have been huge in the writing process movement. So I don’t know if Zorn believes students should draft and revise or reflect on their writing processes or engage in peer editing, or if he believes these things and uses them but doesn’t know why they are such standard pedagogical moves in the field.