Compared to students from Latin America, Spain, or other European countries, students trained as undergraduates in US universities don't seem to have a lot of cultural capital. They can be bright and enthusiastic when they get to graduate school, but the lack of general knowledge can be a handicap. It's interesting the recent book arguing students are not learning enough in college, Academically Adrift, only talks about levels of critical thinking, a sort of context-free ability to analyze an unfamiliar problem and write about it on the spot.
Cultural capital is just having enough general knowledge of history, music, art, intellectual history, philosophy, the basic outlines of various intellectual disciplines, etc... just to be able to hold your own in the academic environment. I imagine if Academically Adrift had measured that, the results would have also been poor.
The problem is that cultural capital is not "what you learn in school." If we go back to Pierre Bourdieu, the originator of this concept, we find that this kind of "capital" is linked to class position. The analogy is to financial capital. You might not have taken a class on art appreciation, but you still know art if you belong to a certain social class. You learn things by osmosis.
Americans are more auto-didacts. We earn our learning. The education we receive is rather poor in high school, and it is possible to drift through many universities without learning very much. The Spanish major does not really provide general knowledge of this sort: it can barely give students an adequate background in Spanish and Latin American Literature.
I'm not one of the professors who gets shocked when a graduate class does not know something I think every half-way educated person should now. I'm way beyond that point. What i want to know is how to help students who don't have cultural capital, because I don't see a really quick fix. It's not a skill, but a wide background that cannot be supplied in a few months.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Idea Exchange
I've done this exercise before for undergraduates. Now I will try it for graduates.
1) Professor brings in X2 ideas for papers (where X = number of students in the class). Hands them out two per student.
2) Students trade one of the ideas with someone else in the class. They can trade with anyone they want, but nobody is forced to accept a trade. They each bring home two ideas with them.
3) The next day of class, they bring in two ideas they have generated on their own. Once again, the trade their "second-best idea" with another student. Now each student has four ideas, two from the professor, one they've thought of themselves, and one they've traded for with another student.
4) Out of these four ideas, one will be crappy or uninteresting to that particular student. He will throw that one away.
5) Each student meets with the professor to discuss which of the remaining ideas she will choose. it may be the professor's idea, or his own, or that of another student. Then, of course, the student can modify the idea; it won't be set in stone.
The advantage of this method over just having every student choose her own idea for a paper? The student gets to see a lot of ideas, six to be exact, so the good topics will tend to rise to the top. A strong student with a good idea can still use that, since he only traded away his second best idea. A weaker student can use a good idea from someone else or see good examples of ideas.
These are not well-developed theses, but simply ideas to look at something specific and see what's there. The student still has to do the work of developing a good thesis. Here are the fourteen I came up with today:
They aren't all great ideas, but I was able to come up with them in about 45 minutes.
1) Professor brings in X2 ideas for papers (where X = number of students in the class). Hands them out two per student.
2) Students trade one of the ideas with someone else in the class. They can trade with anyone they want, but nobody is forced to accept a trade. They each bring home two ideas with them.
3) The next day of class, they bring in two ideas they have generated on their own. Once again, the trade their "second-best idea" with another student. Now each student has four ideas, two from the professor, one they've thought of themselves, and one they've traded for with another student.
4) Out of these four ideas, one will be crappy or uninteresting to that particular student. He will throw that one away.
5) Each student meets with the professor to discuss which of the remaining ideas she will choose. it may be the professor's idea, or his own, or that of another student. Then, of course, the student can modify the idea; it won't be set in stone.
The advantage of this method over just having every student choose her own idea for a paper? The student gets to see a lot of ideas, six to be exact, so the good topics will tend to rise to the top. A strong student with a good idea can still use that, since he only traded away his second best idea. A weaker student can use a good idea from someone else or see good examples of ideas.
These are not well-developed theses, but simply ideas to look at something specific and see what's there. The student still has to do the work of developing a good thesis. Here are the fourteen I came up with today:
1. El aforismo y la poesía. Un estudio del género aforístico en poetas como Juan Ramón Jiménez, Vicente Núñez, Luis Feria, Ángel Crespo, Jorge Riechmann. Conexiones entre la sentencia y los poemas líricos muy breves.
2. La elegía. Considerar la elegía como género literario, examinando obras de Lorca, Hernández, Valente, Isla Correyero... Diferencias y cambios en la tradición. ¿Cómo se ve la violencia del lado de la muerte?
3. El poema en prosa. ¿A qué temática se presta el género del poema en prosa? Una investigación en la poesía de Cernuda y Valente (u otros poetas).
4. La metáfora de la vanguardia. Sabiendo que la vangurdia es metáfora beligerante y militar, ¿cuál es la presencia de la violencia en la poesía vanguardista misma?
5. Crímenes. Se trata de un libro de la poeta Isla Correyero. Ahí vemos un tratamiento algo irónico del tema, desde la perspectiva, a veces, del criminal. La idea del trabajo sería hacer una lectura de este poemario.
6. El sacrificio. Tomando la idea del sacrificio ritual como válvula de escape (René Girard), examinar la poesía de Lorca. ¿Hasta qué punto es válida esta teoría con referencia a Lorca? ¿Se veía a sí mismo como víctima sacrificial?
7. Leopoldo María Panero y la locura. ¿Cuál es la conexión entre locura y sustancias como el alcohol? Examinar la obra poética de Panero bajo esta óptica.
8. Francisco Brines. ¿Cómo es la visión amorosa de la poesía de Brines? ¿Cómo se compara con la de Cernuda y Jaime Gil de Biedma?
9. Machado y los romances de cordel. Examinar las fuentes de Machado ("Tierras de Alvargonzález") en los romances violentos de los siglos XVIII y XIX. ¿Hay continuidad o discontinuidad?
10. La representación de la violencia. ¿Se puede "representar" la violencia a través del lenguaje? ¿Cuáles son las estrategias narrativas, metafóricas, poéticas para poner en palabras los actos violentos--o para no callarlas? Utilizar la obra de dos poetas.
11. ¿Las poetas reprentan la violencia de un modo distinto de los poetas? Utilizar el libro Devocionario de Ana Rossetti para hacer una comparación o un contraste con varios poetas masculinos.
12. Después de la violencia. ¿Se puede imaginar el fin de la violencia? En tal caso, ¿qué poetas tienen una visión de la paz que no requiere otros actos violentos previos?
13. Cristianismo y violencia. El cristianismo incorpora ciertas ideas sobre el sufrimiento, sacrificio, martirio, etc..., junto con justificaciones de conflictos bélicos (u oposición a ellos). Discutir la obra de dos poetas ("El cristo de Velásquez" de Unamuno, Lorca, Devocionario de Rossetti.)
14. El alcohol como metáfora de inspiración poética. ¿Es solo metáfora, o tiene una base literal también? Mirar la poesía de Li Po y Claudio Rodríguez.
They aren't all great ideas, but I was able to come up with them in about 45 minutes.
Agenda (7)
A post on Arcade about whether prospective Graduate Students should already have a "project" or agenda. My sense is that it is never too early too have your own personal project. It might change over time, but graduate school requires a fierce commitment. I'd rather see a commitment to something specific.
How to Grade Graduate Papers (ii)
Another way I've graded papers is to accept them as email attachments and then use the track change and comment features of MSW. This is a fast method for me, although I have to stare at the screen for a long time. I insert comments and suggestion throughout the paper and then when I am done I can write the longer global comment with the grade very quickly. After I make all the local comments I know exactly what to say about the paper as a whole.
I work fast, but I am very detailed. My students were amazed once when I returned their papers two days later, but with very extensive comments.
I work fast, but I am very detailed. My students were amazed once when I returned their papers two days later, but with very extensive comments.
How to Grade Graduate Papers
The model of the Graduate Paper is the published journal article. A paper can get an A without being publishable, but a very, very good graduate student paper is, in fact, a publishable article--if it is good enough. Some young scholars publish some of their papers after they get their PhD. Someone close to me sent in a paper for a seminar to Hispanic Review and they accepted it on the spot. I'm not advocating publishing weaker papers that might come back to haunt you, just saying that there is no difference in genre between the seminar paper and the article.
So this confluence with the publishable article determines what we are looking for as Graduate-level professors. Correct MLA format, solid writing, a theoretical approach or perspective of some kind. One reason why a paper would get an A and not be publishable is if it were lacking in originality. It might be fine as an academic exercise but not contribute anything really notable to the field. The application of theory might be too mechanical.
So the graduate paper deserves extensive comments, like those of a peer-reviewed article. I just write about a single-spaced page outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Everything is fair game, from the format and prose-style to the substance of the argument. I'm looking for a strong, distinctive thesis backed up by some kind of convincing evidence. What I really want to see is a level of engagement that leads to some strong thinking: ideas that I would not have come up with myself. I don't really hold back in outlining the weaknesses. It is not really being "nice" to do this. I might exaggerate a bit on the strengths just to provide some encouragement, but I am the professor who is going to kick your ass on the final paper. Yes, I am that guy.
So this confluence with the publishable article determines what we are looking for as Graduate-level professors. Correct MLA format, solid writing, a theoretical approach or perspective of some kind. One reason why a paper would get an A and not be publishable is if it were lacking in originality. It might be fine as an academic exercise but not contribute anything really notable to the field. The application of theory might be too mechanical.
So the graduate paper deserves extensive comments, like those of a peer-reviewed article. I just write about a single-spaced page outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Everything is fair game, from the format and prose-style to the substance of the argument. I'm looking for a strong, distinctive thesis backed up by some kind of convincing evidence. What I really want to see is a level of engagement that leads to some strong thinking: ideas that I would not have come up with myself. I don't really hold back in outlining the weaknesses. It is not really being "nice" to do this. I might exaggerate a bit on the strengths just to provide some encouragement, but I am the professor who is going to kick your ass on the final paper. Yes, I am that guy.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Titles for Idiots
Even very dumb posts with very general titles, like "mentoring" or "how to write an introduction" get tons of hits. My conclusion is that the more basic the information is, the more valuable it will be.
Style and Structure (update)
My Graduate Students seemed to welcome the Style and Structure exercise, in which they took apart a scholarly article from the formal point of view. They realized that the thesis could be on the 3rd page, that they might have had arbitrary rules in their head about how things have to be. Some realized that scholarly writing did not have to be full of jargon, that is could be written in fairly straightforward prose. This was a good exercise for a class of five rookies and two students a little more advanced.
Now I'm trying to think of the logical next step. My aim for this course is to develop the competence of the students in a few key areas. Analyzing poetry and writing critical prose about it at the graduate level. My first exercise was to take apart a poem by Miguel Hernández from a variety of angles, assigning a facet of the text to each student (prosody, rhetoric, genre, etc..).
Now I'm trying to think of the logical next step. My aim for this course is to develop the competence of the students in a few key areas. Analyzing poetry and writing critical prose about it at the graduate level. My first exercise was to take apart a poem by Miguel Hernández from a variety of angles, assigning a facet of the text to each student (prosody, rhetoric, genre, etc..).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)