Editor:

Sorry to read that Christopher Alexander ("Make students competent writers," April 4) thinks most of the freshman English composition instruction at the university is "disgusting, especially regarding the areas of grammar and analysis," but what is even sorrier is the way in which he has chosen to argue this point without details and with falsehoods. Instead of responding in kind, let me ask Mr. Alexander the following questions with regard to his claims.

"Criticism [by GATS - Graduate Assistants in Teaching] of any undergraduate paper with regards to grammar, punctuation, etc., is strictly forbidden." Really? When did this "law" go into effect? I've been teaching grammar, punctuation and editing in all my classes since I arrived here in 1993. I specifically set aside at least two classes per semester just to develop editing skills alone, not to mention the endless comments I make on students' papers regarding their use of punctuation and grammar.

Instead of grading grammatical mistakes, GATS are told to "grade on a 'broader, more general' level" focusing more on "communicat(ing) general themes and ideas in their writing." "General" themes? I assume here you are attempting to discuss the "process vs. product" argument in composition. It's an old argument, going back at least 30 years, and basically the question posed to writing instructors is do they focus more on style and form or the creation of the actual text. While it is true that some instructors prefer one side over the other, a good instructor will try to incorporate both sides into their pedagogy. But most importantly, this debate never advocates the use of "generalizations" (your word) in any student writing. You claim people want to see "specifics, examples, proof and details" in writing. Quite true - so why don't you incorporate these into your own writing instead of basing your commentary on "stories" that "several graduate students" told you about the English Department. You also have no real statistics, so you made up figures regarding how many readers of your column know what "comma splice, dangling modifier, split infinite [and] pronoun without an antecedent" mean, and then claim that these made-up figures are "simply ridiculous." Clever.

And you claim that instead of teaching competent writing, the "only thing" that has been accomplished by the English Department is that a "bunch (a very specific number) of papers have been written (by whom?) and returned (by whom?) with a 'nice job' here and a smile there." Do you have a copy of a paper with a smiley face? Love to see it.

Finally, you claim that "at this university, freshman composition is the last stop for [students'] writing abilities" and that "students must know how to write a competent, comprehendible paper, and it is the job of the English Department to carry out that obligation." Really, says who? Writing is a skill, and like any other skill it takes constant practice to make a person "competent" in that skill. If I took an introductory mathematics course for two semesters I would not consider myself to be a competent mathematician, but I would hope to have a sold base for future mathematical study, just as a person taking 101 and 102 should come out of their classes with a solid base for their future writing. But to expect that a mere two semesters in a subject is the "last stop" for any development of abilities is ludicrous. It is up to the English Department and every other department on campus and each individual as well to help develop students' writing skills at this university.

Lisa-Anne Culp
English graduate student