Response to Dr. Foreman's opinion
By: Shannon Krein
Issue date: 12/9/09 Section: Opinion
In response to Dr. William Foreman's response on my article about the WPST, I would like to point out that I did not say that everyone has the same writing ability, nor did I imply any kind of chauvinism when it comes to writing on campus.
I believe that I wrote that if students should have to take the WPST at all, it should be given when the students are entering the university along with the ELM and EPT. Just like with the ELM and EPT, if she or he has not scored high enough the student should have to take a remedial course in writing.
Every student at CSU-Stanislaus has to take courses in writing; not every student at CSU Stanislaus has to take a calculus class. In high school, students have to be able to pass English classes that require a higher level of writing than the WPST.
I guess you could say that there is something wrong with the education system in America if you really wanted to delve into this argument. Almost every job after college will require you to express what you are thinking through some form of written communication.
You say that every Cal State must have a graduate writing assessment. Well, if that is the case then before graduation students should have to take the WPST to assess whether or not they are ready to graduate, not to measure whether a student can or cannot write critically in a class that requires the same writing skills that a student should have learned in high school and their freshman year of college.
If faculty believe that the WPST is too difficult because it prevents students from continuing their studies, than they should have prepared them better. You, being an English professor, know better than anyone else how important writing skills are. If students cannot pass an exam that asks them to write about the worst day they have ever had, or the worst job they can imagine, should they really have been allowed to become a junior or senior in college?
The whole point of going through college is to become a well-rounded individual. I will agree with you in that I could not do calculus to save my life, but math is not used in every profession; writing, at some point, ALWAYS is. I scored low on the ELM, and I had to take a remedial math class so that I could enter the university and, essentially, graduate.
I suggested that the WPST be treated the same way as these tests or, as I just noted, as an exit exam. I still agree that I should not have been made to take or pay for the WPST.
That is just my opinion, which is why it was on the opinion page. I gave a persuasive interview to one of my Communication classes this morning and they all agreed that the WPST, if given, should really be administered a different way, if administered at all. It does not measure if a student is ready for a WP course. That was the point of my article.
The WPST is poorly designed and truly insults a college student. Every student at CSU Stanislaus has to take a freshman-writing course; that freshman writing course expects more from a student than the WPST. They should use that class instead of an exam to assess a student's readiness for the WP course.
I believe that I wrote that if students should have to take the WPST at all, it should be given when the students are entering the university along with the ELM and EPT. Just like with the ELM and EPT, if she or he has not scored high enough the student should have to take a remedial course in writing.
Every student at CSU-Stanislaus has to take courses in writing; not every student at CSU Stanislaus has to take a calculus class. In high school, students have to be able to pass English classes that require a higher level of writing than the WPST.
I guess you could say that there is something wrong with the education system in America if you really wanted to delve into this argument. Almost every job after college will require you to express what you are thinking through some form of written communication.
You say that every Cal State must have a graduate writing assessment. Well, if that is the case then before graduation students should have to take the WPST to assess whether or not they are ready to graduate, not to measure whether a student can or cannot write critically in a class that requires the same writing skills that a student should have learned in high school and their freshman year of college.
If faculty believe that the WPST is too difficult because it prevents students from continuing their studies, than they should have prepared them better. You, being an English professor, know better than anyone else how important writing skills are. If students cannot pass an exam that asks them to write about the worst day they have ever had, or the worst job they can imagine, should they really have been allowed to become a junior or senior in college?
The whole point of going through college is to become a well-rounded individual. I will agree with you in that I could not do calculus to save my life, but math is not used in every profession; writing, at some point, ALWAYS is. I scored low on the ELM, and I had to take a remedial math class so that I could enter the university and, essentially, graduate.
I suggested that the WPST be treated the same way as these tests or, as I just noted, as an exit exam. I still agree that I should not have been made to take or pay for the WPST.
That is just my opinion, which is why it was on the opinion page. I gave a persuasive interview to one of my Communication classes this morning and they all agreed that the WPST, if given, should really be administered a different way, if administered at all. It does not measure if a student is ready for a WP course. That was the point of my article.
The WPST is poorly designed and truly insults a college student. Every student at CSU Stanislaus has to take a freshman-writing course; that freshman writing course expects more from a student than the WPST. They should use that class instead of an exam to assess a student's readiness for the WP course.
Be the first to comment on this story