No one can argue writing isn’t a valuable skill. Labuz is correct in finding this proposal to be an interesting and potentially helpful idea for undergraduates who aren’t necessarily versed in extensive written communication. And they certainly should be. This university should be doing more to ensure its students are able to articulate themselves well in written form, as it underpins much of their ability to represent themselves and their work in the right light.

It’d be nice if the university instituted a program like that.

Unfortunately, this proposal isn’t it.

The proposed Certificate in Written Communication would cost approximately $200,000. If it’s actually creating a substantial effort to help students from every undergraduate major hone their writing skills outside of current efforts, then why not?

Ask the rhetoric department. This proposal makes it clear near the end of its pitch that there are already about 140 higher-level writing courses at this university, serving about 2,800 students. Not to say that’s necessarily enough, but the proposal, shockingly, doesn’t say it’ll expand this number! The rationale for this certificate is clearly just a piece of paper with a defined course: “We anticipate that students who choose the Certificate in Written Communication will be students who already typically enroll in writing-intensive courses, so again, we do not anticipate significant pressure on other academic units. The Certificate program will help to organize a curricular path for these students, allow them to pursue their interests in depth and provide an attractive credential in the process.”

You know what else helps provide an attractive credential to prove students can write? Writing samples. Newspaper clips. Examples of their proficiency in writing. A certificate in writing proficiency is like putting an exclamation point next to the major on your diploma — if you have to provide evidence that a liberal arts program at UW-Madison needed some supplementing to make you a good writer, it might devalue the impact of the degree. You may as well slap a “good job” sticker on there.

But the classes offered might actually provide a little more depth to those already aiming to improve their skills — molding better prepared writers isn’t necessarily inferior to more adequate prepared ones.

Unfortunately, the classes and theory areas are a bit limited in their ability to do that. To graduate with the certificate, you must complete Comm. A and B classes (like every other student) and then take three higher-level courses in writing. In addition to the 140 preexisting programs, this proposal outlines potential classes created as a result of the new full-time faculty.

Although I understand the classes may fulfill the request for more undergraduate research or at least introduce students to research in the field of rhetoric, the theory-based section of the proposal seems completely counter-intuitive to the aim of this proposal. Explain to me how classes in rhetorical theory, cross-cultural rhetorics, biliteracy and literacy as a human problem represent a pragmatic attempt to make someone a better writer? If we are dealing with those attempting to improve their own writing skills, why are we to assume they’ll be interested in the entirely nuanced issues of theoretical underpinning of written communication? And why is it necessary to include that in a curriculum on skill-building?

The other sections are fairly useful — the service learning section would allow internships and capstone courses to deal with the nitty gritty of written communication. Another section focusing on the writer also addresses multiple modes of writing in a changing global and media landscape.

And that’s all fine and dandy. But if we’re essentially serving 60 students a semester with these classes, and they’re being taken by those who are already informally “mastering” written communication, it’s not exactly the most efficient use of money.

More importantly, it’s not innovative. The proposal very clearly states that L&S had planned to make two higher-level writing courses a requirement for those seeking a liberal arts degree. Why didn’t they do it? Not enough money or staff. That’s fine, but this proposal assumes this addition of faculty will jumpstart the program and increased interest can be funded later when it exists (which contradicts their assumption that it will actually just attract those who already were taking the courses).

In a time in which L&S students need a reinforcement of this sort of skill set, and even those in the humanities need to be shown the practical application of their studies, that mandatory requirement should be the ultimate goal, working across departments to make it happen. This proposal creates another separate program where an integrated, planned effort is needed.

Innovation does not mean a ramshackle implementation of forgone standards. While the motivation is certainly there to make a program like this happen, it needs to be more comprehensive and forward-looking. Maybe this can be reworked and submitted for the third round, but this proposal certainly doesn’t fly.

Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a first-year graduate student in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Please insult Joe Labuz. He sure don’t write so good.