Connors Chapter 4 Summary
Connors, Robert J. Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy. U Pittsburgh P, 1997.
The “underclass” of women and part-timers still prevail, even today, and “most tenure-line faculty members…will continue to…avoid teaching writing” as much as possible (208-9). Moreover, social ranking results in “increasingly marginalized, overworked, and ill-paid” instructors (171-2).
By adopting the German model (the in order to be promoted and gain tenure, you must publish books and scholarly papers to peer reviewed journals, present at seminars, and research unique scholarly findings mindset), American institutions reorganized, but created a “complex hierarchy” (177). German schools operated much like American higher education institutes operate today. Study was meticulous, and research depended on observation and experience; however, unlike American institutes, German scholars believed “Philosophiae Doctor” meant no pedagogy (174-6). American PhDs were positioned to teach, yet composition scholars were literally raped, into the profession (177).
Americans earning German PhDs returned home with a hodgepodge of disciplines from “applied sciences” to “philological studies” (178). However, rhetoric was incognito; the Germans didn’t offer it; rhetoric was not a superior method of study. Yet, it was necessary for teaching basic writing and speech (179-80). After 1870, a few curious men (who held no PhDs) gathered and produced writing textbooks, but still no department of rhetoric existed. John Genung, “a serious rhetorical thinker” and Fred Newton Scott, who “broke rhetoric out from English…” attempted to establish rhetoric as a discipline. Scott produced PhD’s, but after leaving Michigan, they abandoned composition; and Genung grew tired of the work (180-4). Around 1880, English departments formed at universities; rhetoric was upheld, but only subordinate to English.
The “College Literary Crisis” at Harvard created a need for teaching freshmen how to write theme-based essays, which resulted in “English A”, a required writing course for college freshmen (184-5). Tenured faculty felt teaching writing was painstaking and time-consuming. However, by 1890, composition was required at most universities (186-7). Writing became an exercise in “self expression” and a “primary transaction…between…student and…teacher” (188). Nevertheless, courses were large, and workload remained steady (189-92). In 1923, the Hopkins Report highlighted conditions associated with teaching composition, but nothing changed, and at influential or private institutions, classes were split amongst the instructor and assistants (193-5). In the 1890s, graduate students became TAs, and many believed that PhDs should perform research and not instruct writing (195-8). Students weren’t involved in rhetoric because of the salary (199-200).
Although women dominated composition, few earned PhDs, and others stayed on as instructors because working conditions gave them freedom to raise families; thus, the “underclass” of comp-rhet teachers primarily consisted of women and “part-timers” (200-202). However, comp-rhet was revitalized after the “postwar ‘communications’ movement, by the onset of “New Criticism”, and after WWII when the “GI Bill” materialized (203-4). CCCCs became a locality for linking “composition with grammar, logic, language, speaking, research, teacher training,” and more importantly, a zone for debate amongst scholars (204-5). Rhetoric was reintroduced in 1963, at 4Cs; and ways of interpreting composition changed. By the 1970s, the job market for those “with a specialization in rhetoric”, was good (206-7).