So, I’m sitting in front of my computer trying to write a paper. This paper is an analysis of the short story “What I Saw From Where I Stood” by Marisa Silver. It is a story about a woman, Dulcie, who lives in constant fear of things she cannot control in her life, and her husband, Charles, who puts up with her asinine fears up until he has an epiphany and must choose whether to stay in his marriage or leave.
The story is full of great opportunities for analysis. There are various ways to go about the analysis. For this class, American Short Stories (WRTG 3020), we are required to write a 7-8 page paper analyzing and arguing a thesis for our final paper. Seven to eight pages.
With micro-blogging sites taking over the Internet and bleeding into my everyday life, I am struggling to even reach a 3-4 page limit. We are taught, through current social media and media in general, to be as concise as possible when trying to get our point across. For example, Twitter has a 140 character maximum for each Tweet. Facebook status updates are about the same.
In today’s society, we are encouraged to argue a point or make a statement very quickly. People won’t pay attention otherwise. Many newspaper readers skim headlines instead of reading the entire story. Working for a newspaper for the past three and a half years has taught me to make quick, catchy and succinct headlines.
This kind of writing was also prevalent when Instant Messaging took off. I remember, when AOL first came out, I would sit in front of my computer and instant message for hours. That may be a little different since I was having conversations, but it was still encouraged to make them short and to the point. Now that instant messaging is back and even on smartphones, it is even more crucial to be concise.
The age of text messaging brought along hundreds of abbreviations – g2g, brb, lol, wtf, to name a few. Now we don’t even spell out full words, we abbreviate them in order to make a point terse.
Despite the newfound ways to argue a point succinctly, professors still maintain page limits. This doesn’t entirely make sense to me.
If I can fully and completely argue and prove a thesis in two or three pages, why would a professor want to read seven or eight? In order to reach page limits, students fill their papers with fluff. Instead of saying, “Dulcie fears what she does not know,” a student will write, “Dulcie is afraid of many things in her life that she has no control over and does not know how they will turn out.” Which would you rather read? The first is short, concise and straight to the point. The second makes the same argument, just with several more words in order to lengthen and aid in reaching a page limit.
However, I can see where the profs are coming from. They think that if students don’t have page limits, they won’t prove their argument successfully. That’s valid. But this opens a door of opportunity for professors to advance with the times. Teach your students how to make a point succinctly. Teach them to prove a thesis with the same assertion, evidence, counterpoint system, only using fewer “to be” verbs and prepositions. Just that alone will cut down at least half a page of writing. Teach them how to make their point without adding a bunch of nonsensical sentences that don’t really add to the argument. See this as an opportunity.
People want brevity. Unless they’re reading a novel. But, school papers are not novels and they shouldn’t be.
So, professors, if you are tired of reading poorly written papers full of fluff, cut out the page limits and focus on teaching students to get their point across concisely, just like new social media advocates. I can almost guarantee every paper will be easier to grade and students will thrive.
