The Death of Departmental Editing

By Scott L. Glabe | Friday, January 20, 2006

Dartmouth’s seven-year old Departmental Editing Program (DEP) will soon cease to exist—unless the administration reverses course. The DEP was launched in 1998 by Joe Asch ’79, a local businessman who noticed a decline in the quality of student writing while auditing courses at the College. After discussing this problem with art history professor Joy Kenseth, Asch agreed to fund an in-department writing editor in 1998—a pilot program that was extended to the religion and mathematics departments in 2000 and 2003, respectively. Having spent $500,000 of his money on what he considers a successful innovation, Asch wants to turn the DEP over to the College to fund and, hopefully, to expand. However, Tom Cormen, professor of computer science and chair of the recently-inaugurated “Writing Program,” believes Dartmouth’s pedagogy is sufficient without the DEP.

Cormen, it seems, implicitly agrees with Asch that student writing is an acute concern, but he believes the College has addressed the problem with its recent changes, most notably the creation of the writing program itself. Concomitantly, the powers that be have revamped English 2, 3, and 5 as Writing 2, 3, and 5. These introductory courses are no longer taught exclusively by English professors and now emphasize writing more than literature. According to Cormen’s rebuttal to Asch ( Daily Dartmouth , 1/18/06), “[t]he Writing Program [also] promotes professional development for instructors teaching the first-year writing courses.” Another change is the Composition Center has been restyled as the Student Center for Research, Writing, and Information Technology (RWiT). As Cormen puts it, “RWiT is an ‘occasional innovation’ such as Mr. Asch calls for at the end of his op-ed, and not just a renamed Composition Center,” but Asch notes that, like the Composition Center before it, RWiT is staffed entirely by students who tutor as a part-time job rather than writing professionals.

On this point, Asch and Cormen seem to be talking past each other. The former outlines a problem and the latter posits a solution, but only time will tell if the Writing Program is an adequate solution. Cormen thinks yes, Asch no. But in defending his new measures so vigorously, Cormen seems to overlook a simple fact: the success of one writing reform that already exists—that is, the DEP.

Regardless of how bad students’ writing was or is, the DEP has a proven track record of improving it. The formula is simple: by placing an editor within a specific department, students and faculty have the opportunity to develop an ongoing relationship with that editor and thus improve student writing through consistency and familiarity. This setup has garnered rave reviews from students. A letter to Asch from former religion major and current admissions officer Lauren Foley ’03, which Foley shared with The Dartmouth Review , is worth quoting at length on this point:

Next to the amazing advising skills of Prof. Ron Green, [editor] Nancy Leavitt-Reibel was the instructor from whom I learned the most during my four years. The chance to write a thesis, work consistently over time with an editor and attend a Foreign Study Program are the main intellectual highlights of my time at Dartmouth. Unlike the RWiT Center, all of my Religion professors were familiar with Nancy and whenever I took a course for my major her presence was folded into the class (indeed, sometimes required!). My Religion professors really capitalized on her as a resource and, by the time I was a senior contemplating a thesis, I had a relationship with someone who would become my Editor. I see my thesis as a co-production between me as writer, Ron as advisor, and Nancy as editor…I wanted to thank you personally for her presence. It was a tremendous gift to my undergraduate education.

Jonathan Eisenman, also a religion major from the Class of 2003, concurs, adding that: “Working with Nancy Leavitt-Reibel on my honors thesis was probably one of the undergraduate undertakings that MOST BENEFITED me in the time since.” Lest one think that Ms. Leavitt-Reibel is an aberration, Asch shared testimonials with TDR affirming the utility of the other two editors—Iona McAuley in art history and Jane Whittington in religion—as well as long letters of support from faculty members in all three departments. Moreover, as example of how the program has grown, Asch notes that “Last year, at the behest of Professor Kristin O’Rourke, Ms. McAulay edited the essays of the College’s Rhodes, Marshall, Fulbright and Mitchell scholarship applicants, arguably the College’s finest students.”

Despite this ringing de facto endorsement of DEP, Cormen remains skeptical of expanding the program or even continuing it with College funding. He frets about cost, but on this point he is pre-empted by Asch:

Well, for about one-twentieth of the College’s present administrative spending, Dartmouth could place an Editor in every department. And really, do we need all those dormitory Community Directors (who are paid substantially more than DEP Editors) when so many students write poorly?

Or better yet, for less than the annual cost of the Wright Administration’s multi-million-dollar public relations machine, the College could solve the writing problem. How refreshing it would be for Dartmouth to garner praise for the originality of its programs and the skill of its graduates rather than seeking prestige through the volume and slickness of its pricey PR program.

Cormen also frets about the feasibility of running the program on a college-wide scale:

Many of our academic disciplines have specific conventions that are very far afield from high-school English. I commend the current Departmental Editors for getting themselves to the point that they are able to serve their departments, but I doubt that our luck would hold out if we had to hire 50 more. As a professor in the Computer Science Department, I would expect a high school English teacher to take quite a while to master the conventions of writing mathematics and computer science.

T his seems disingenuous when the current (very successful) editors are in place in religion , art history , and—gasp— mathematics departments, all of which seem “far afield” from high school. But Cormen is right on a certain level: DEP, if expanded, would obviously have to adapt to the reality of a much larger size. However, when all agree that writing is so important, why won’t Cormen and the College work with a program that works? That, it seems, is the $500,000 question.

The Death of Departmental Editing

Article Tools

Related Articles