Lyman Barner 1 Luke Jordan Lyman Barner Dr.

Lauren Mason English 1101H: Honors Introduction to Composition and Rhetoric 8/18/2013 Three Syllabi Essay Due to the direct nature of the writing and lack of extensive subtext or unclear purpose, David Wallaces syllabus appears to me to be more appealing as a class syllabus and as a representation of a style of class and teaching than either Rob Jenkins Welcome to My Classroom or the course maps by Ashley Squires. Wallace expertly uses a combination of professional and conversational writing to express a desire to interact with his students on a comfortable basis while simultaneously establishing clear academic boundaries. On these two points, the other syllabi fall short. The tone of the writing in Wallaces syllabus is a key indicator of certain attitudes toward the students. For example, in the Course Rules and Procedures section of the syllabus, his use of self-deprecating humor serves to cause the student to empathize with him, even as he sets ground rules regarding class participation and work-related rules. However, unlike in Jenkins syllabus, the rules themselves are not saturated with humor, and are able to be taken seriously, leaving no indication of leniency that a student might be able to try to take advantage of. It is also noteworthy that he justifies the rules that he has set in many cases, such as the presentation of papers and assignments, and the use of a participation grade. This preempts dissent from students who feel that the rules should not have to apply to them because of

Lyman Barner 2 some extenuating circumstance or another, while also showing that he is a reasonable teacher, and does not force restrictions on students simply because of policy, or without good reason. Another important effect of the almost peer-to-peer tone of Wallaces syllabus is that the lack of overly-professional language keeps students from feeling as though the material is foreign or intimidating, and thus causes the reader to feel that the class will be engaging on a level that they will be familiar with. Some students may value formality, and feel that Wallaces tone is unprofessional and hints at a lack of challenging course material, but the light language is only used where appropriate, and where it regards serious issues, Wallace remains honest and does not veil his rigidity. While Wallaces writing and word choice serve to make him an easy choice, the required reading materials and discussion-based classroom style also seem to indicate that his teaching will encourage active participation as opposed to scaring it away by creating a highly challenging environment in which only the ultra-prepared can voice themselves. He shows a consciousness of the ever-present problem of finances among students in promising that extra materials that he has to charge them for will not exceed $10, while many other professors are often quick to select expensive texts simply because they are commonly used and easy to teach from. Such a gesture shows a level of sensitivity toward students that cannot come from a professor who requires a $400 textbook. Wallaces weakest point, perhaps, is his lack of credentials both other syllabi were written for classes taught by degree-holding professors. It would be reasonable to infer that Wallaces class would be more limited in terms of what type of education could be gained from it because of his lack of education relative to Squires and Jenkins. This is at least partially

Lyman Barner 3 alleviated by the Wallaces dedication to offering a valuable, personal education to h is students, which would seem to indicate that if he was unable to teach on a certain topic, he would, at the very least, find out how to make that information available to a student who asked for it. Another valid challenge to Wallaces class is that it is a lower-level class than Squires, and of course, an upperclassman would be far more likely to choose Squires class because of this. While that is generally unquestionable, the only fair way to make that comparison would be to pretend that the two classes content was the same, and it was the question was which professor to take the class from. In this case, I would still choose Wallace over Squires because Wallace seems to have a desire to participate in the class with his students. Squires appears far more interested in teaching pre-prescribed content than interacting with her students, which I have always found to be extremely helpful in a learning experience. I find the structure and honesty in Wallaces syllabus to be more attractive than Jenkins attempts to veil rigidity and superiority with humor, and the personable attitude of the syllabus to make it less intimidating than Squires class outlines. This middle road between impersonal rigidity and forced humor that Wallaces syllabus walks make it an easy first choice for me, between the three.

Lyman Barner 4 Works Cited Jenkins, Robert. "Advice." The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2013. Squires, Ashley. "Shitty First Drafts." Shitty First Drafts. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2013. Wallace, David. "David Foster Wallace's Syllabus.pdf - Google Drive." David Foster Wallace's Syllabus.pdf - Google Drive. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Aug. 2013.