Nothing to Crow About
Re: Crowley’s "Freshman English"
First off, no, I could not have passed Prof. Brigg’s entrance exam (72), but yes, I can parse all the thats in #9 (65).
While I don’t want to learn Greek, Latin, or Hebrew (well, I want to, but I don’t have the knack for foreign tongues), I sort of admire the classical curriculum, but I think reveals the lifestyle of those who pursued it, and indicates much about how the prupose of the university has changed. The university was originally formed as ways to churn out pastors and preachers, but even these blokes came from the upper classes. Only landed gentry could waste their time parsing indicative Hellenic verb structures–any working man worth his salt would have to worry about getting the harvest reaped in time or something. The elitist undercurrent of the academy (on which I’ve pondered before) probably stems from these roots, I imagine. Anyway, as the social fabric changed (rising middle classes, broader distribution of wealth, industrialization et cetera) it seems only natural that more people would want (demand?) access to the learning opportunities offered. What interests me, however, is how Crowley traces the roots of English as a discipline to the classroom, and not, as one might guess, the other way round.
It is surprising to me, having read this, that most schools offer entrance but not exit exams. (Although I suppose WSU’s English Proficiency Exam requirement is an exit exam of sorts.) If freshman comp is a required course anyway, an exit exam would make more sense. There’s a bit in Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory about Charlie’s teacher moving the weekly exam from Friday to Monday before they’ve learned the material. Hmm. Perhaps we’ve got something similar happening here?
