Speaking of Social Anxiety

I almost quit my job this morning.

Dislike: Writing Center Director

Reason: semantics and tact. She was (perhaps unknowingly) hyper critical of me this morning, and I left without saying a word to anyone. She found my idea to help myth students problematic because.. well now I don't know why because after the professor talked with her it wasn't a big deal other than I was giving the impression that I didn't want to work with other students, or that I wanted to come in and get paid more for being a specialist.

Why is everyone so fucking stupid? Let's think about this logically:

1. I never said I was going to give up working with other students.
2. I never said anything about wanting to do this exclusively
3. When I did say I wanted to come in on a week night, it was just because I am usually booked during my normal hours and I wanted to give people an opportunity to come talk to me because I would be in the library anyways. I even told Assistant Writing Center Director when I brought it up that I would do it OFF THE CLOCK but I just wanted to see if it was ok to use the writing center to help myth students when their writing assignment at a time that was convenient for me.

I don't know what Dr. Linguist was imagining (I've been told to stop trying to imagine what other people are thinking), but we began arguing about saying what we mean and meaning what we say to students and that it is inappropriate to claim "I know how to do this assignment right." Any claims are outside the parameters of the writing center philosophy because we have no way of knowing what a professor wants. Wanna bet?

I brought up the methodical way to produce a Music 114 paper. This is a paper designed to follow a particular structure that GAs will follow while grading it. If the paper does not follow this rubric exactly, the paper will begin to lose points. Not only do I know Graduate Assistants who have graded this paper, I took the class. When I wrote the first paper, I did not follow the rubric, and I got a D. The second followed the rubric exactly with the following:

I. Introduction
a. What concert
b. What date
c. Where it was located
d. What I thought of the concert hall and my feelings towards the concert before it started.
II. Piece/Movement I enjoyed most
a. What was it?
b. Who was it by?
c. Why did I enjoy it?
i. dynamics
ii. rhythm
iii. timbre
iv. meter
III. Piece/Movement I enjoyed least
a. What was it?
b. Who was it by?
c. Why did I enjoy it?
i. dynamics
ii. rhythm
iii. timbre
iv. meter
IV.Conclusion
a. Overall thoughts about the concert
b. Would I ever attend a concert like this if it wasn't a requirement?

Any guesses as to what grade I received?

My point is this: whether I say to the student, "this is the way to do it" or "this is the proper context in which you should follow because it will yield the greatest results" only matters at a semantic level because the student is going to interpret them the same way. Further, If I chose to say the latter to a student, they will probably stare stupidly at me as say, "so.. this is the way to do it?" To which I would reply, "this is a tested method that shouldn't fail you," because I can't just say "yes." And also, many times students come into the writing center and they don't understand the terminology of their subjects. How can they be expected to write about something they can't effectively talk about?

To use my example of the Music 114 papers, many students don't understand the definition of (say) timbre which is the "musical tone quality" (Word 'look up' option). It helps if a consultant can say "trumpets have a bright sound" or "oboes can sound grating" for an example to give the student a spring board upon which they can begin to discuss the topic. It doesn't help a student to say "well what do you think the definition of timbre is?" or "what do you think they want when they ask about timbre?" That is not making better college writers. That is, in fact, deliberately withholding tools that would make a better college writer.

There is an objective truth to the answers to some of these papers, like the MUS114 essay, and also the Myth essay. So it isn't irresponsible, nor do I think is it beyond the scope of the Writing Center Mission to comfort a panicked student, especially during crunch time, by telling them that "Yes, I can help. I've successfully done this before, and I've successfully helped others succeed at this before. I know what to do." I'm not restricting the freedoms of the writer because they still have to choose the myth to write about and its interpretive context. Instead, I'm helping them avoid bullshitting for three pages by showing them what not to say. I'm not saying they all have to be written the same way, either. I'm saying that there is a right way, and there is wrong way to do things.

For example, this is the wrong way to approach this Myth essay:

"When I first started this class I had no idea what it would be like and now that I have been taking this class for a while I realize mythology is really interesting because it is a bunch of really old stories. One of the many stories we read was How Culhwch won Olwen in the Mabinogion. This story is a myth for many reasons like there is a giant and he has pitchforks under his eyes and I don't know about you but I wouldn't hold pitchforks under my eyes, etc..."

This is usually what the papers look like when the student comes to talk with me. There is no thesis statement; they don't have a proper understanding of the term myth, thinking that it is a common false hood thought to be true, and supporting that argument with something not meant to be taken as literal. After discussing a paper like this with me, a student might then have an introductory paragraph that resembles this:

"Myths are stories that contain elements of human truth pertaining to a particular culture, connecting that culture to a particular place, and often telling the origin of a people and the deities they worship. One myth of particular interest is "How Culhwch Won Olwen" from the Mabinogion. The Giant-King Ysbaddaden has pitchforks under his eyes to keep them from closing. His closing eyes and old age signify the end of one social order, and the beginning of another as Culhwch undergoes a series of seemingly impossible tasks to win her hand."

That is very similar to the essay I turned in for the Myth class when I was enrolled in it. BUT This isn't the only way to write that essay, and social shift isn't all that symbol could mean. Also, I didn't use that first sentence, but students sometimes have an urge to define what they are talking about. It also supports the point that too often the student doesn't even know what he or she is talking about, so shouldn't be expected to be able to write it.

I also believe that using a comparative method for tutoring writers is not altogether outside the scope of the writing center. If the two myth examples are compared, the insights are self-evident. The student will see very explicitly what is and what is not expected on the essay. This in turn should help the student on future essays because they will know not to use the "textual clearing of the throat," and will have better grounds for discussing the subject.

It is self-contradictory to say (or imply) that the only right answer is no right answer. No one is putting a gun to a student's head and saying "write this or I'll fucking fail you." Students want to come to a place where they can comfortably seek assistance in their work from a person who knows what they are talking about, and I want to help students maximize their learning ability. I've written most of these papers myself, so I can communicate effectively context so the student understands, and maybe even enjoys the assignment.

I was trying to do a good thing. But my boss made me feel like shit because she doesn't agree with my method of tutoring writers. She communicated that I don't consult right. That was sandwiched into a speal about language dictating our actions. I would point out that language is not limited to the phonation process; it is not entirely verbal, and that there are other languages such as gestures, timbre, facial expression, etc that can communicate more than words can. People use language to lie, decieve, and miscommunicate. Non-verbal communication, unless one has acquired mastery over it, betrays the best of us. So I abandoned them.

I left work to prove that whether or not she agrees with my consulting methods, they needed me there, and nothing is a bigger "fuck you" than leaving people high and dry. Professionalism is overrated. It is unprofessional to berate a consultant in front of other consultants and students over something as petty as semantics. It is even worse if she didn't intend to because it negates and falsifies everything she was trying to express with her lecture about the direct and specific use of language. It would have been tactical to express the problematic concerns with my proposal, and not engage me in a 20 minute debate over Writing Center philosophy which ended up costing the students more than anything. I will take my share of the blame, but not all of it because I'm not completely at fault.