English 101 at Western is an introduction to the expectations for writing in other courses, and it also provides accessibility to grad students seeking to attend Western who need financial assistance. The issue with English 101, as pointed out by Crowley, is that it is a required class, which gives students a valid sense of resentment at their obligation to pay for a class they may not wish to take.

At Western, the introduction to composition provides a check in with students who have not met a benchmark indicated by AP, SAT, or ACT scores—whether or not it is needed. The other goal frequently discussed is providing students the skills they need to navigate their university environment, in addition to learning multiple approaches to academic writing.

Since English 101 is required, many students come in with half an ear, their freedom to choose leading them first to rebel against a class they know they don’t have to take. This robs them of the opportunity to take advantage of excellent resources, indeed maybe the most resources they will ever have for one class, because they believe the grade is more important than the learning. As a result, much of the effort in developing a curriculum will have to take into account student disinterest, an approach that I am not sure is worthwhile.

P.S.

I thought Sharon Crowley had some excellent points about making English 101 a non-required course, but her phrasing was extremely frustrated. From the tongue and cheek reference to the “Modest Proposal” that draws a line in the reader’s head from making introductory composition optional to eating children, to first praising students and teachers—lamenting the unfairness of English 101—and then describing their curriculum as a “discursive gangbang.” Crowley seems to be lacking in her own assessment of English 101, and also forgetting her rule that a universal solution is guaranteed to hurt someone else. With such reflections, one would think she wouldn’t fall into such an easy trap.