Rebecca+Schuman

Everybody in college hates papers. Students hate writing them so much that they buy， borrow， or steal them instead. Plagiarism is now so commonplace that if we flunked every kid who did it， wed have a worse attrition1） rate than a MOOC2）. And on those rare occasions undergrads do deign3） to compose their own essays， said exegetic4） masterpieces usually take them all of half an hour at 4 a.m. to write， and consist accordingly of “arguments” that are tangentially5） related to the coursework， font-manipulated to meet the minimum required page-count. Oh， “attitudes about cultures have changed over time？” Im so glad you let me know.

Nobody hates writing papers as much as college instructors hate grading papers （and no， having a robot do it is not the answer）. Students of the world： You think it wastes 45 minutes of your sexting6） time to pluck out three quotes from The Sun Also Rises7）， summarize the same four plot points 50 times until you hit Page 5， and then crap out a two-sentence conclusion？ It wastes 15 hours of my time to mark up my students flaccid8） theses and non sequitur9） textual “evidence，” not to mention abuse of the comma that should be punishable by some sort of law—all so that you can take a cursory10） glance at the grade and then chuck the paper forever.

Whats more， if your average college-goer does manage to read through her professors comments， she will likely view them as a grievous insult to her entire person， abject11） proof of how this cruel， unfeeling instructor hates her. That sliver12） of the student population that actually reads comments and wants to discuss them？ Theyre kids whose papers are good to begin with13）， and often obsessed with their GPAs. I guarantee you that every professor you know has given an A to a B paper just to keep a grade-grubber14） off her junk. （Not talking to you， current students！ Youre all magnificent， and going to be president someday. Please do not email me.）

When I was growing up， my mother—who， like me， was a “contingent” professor—would sequester15） herself for days to grade， emerging Medusa16）-haired and demanding of sympathy. But the older I got， the more that sympathy dissipated： “If you hate grading papers so much，” Id say， “theres an easy solution for that.” My mother， not to be trifled with17） when righteously indignant （that favored state of the professoriate）， would snap： “Its an English class. I cant not assign papers.”

Mom， friends， educators， and students： We dont have to assign papers， and we should stop. We need to admit that the required-course college essay is a failure. The baccalaureate is the new high-school diploma： abjectly necessary for any decent job in the cosmos. As such， students （and their parents） view college as professional training， an unpleasant necessity en route to that all-important “piece of paper.” Todays vocationally minded students view World Lit 101 as forced labor， an utter waste of their time that deserves neither engagement nor effort. So you know what else is a waste of time？ Grading these students effing18） papers. Its time to declare unconditional defeat.

Most students enter college barely able to string three sentences together—and they leave it that way， too. With protracted19） effort and a rhapsodically20） engaged instructor， some may learn to craft a clunky21） but competent essay somewhere along the way. But who cares？ My fellow humanists insist valiantly22） that （among other more elevated reasons） writing humanities papers leads to the crafting of sharp argumentative skills， and thus a lifetime of success in a number of fields in which we have no relevant experience. But my friends who actually work in such fields assure me that most of their colleagues are borderline-illiterate. After all， Mark Zuckerbergs pre-Facebook Friendster23） profile bragged “i dont read” （sic）， and look at him.

Of course it would be better for humanity if college in the United States actually required a semblance of adult writing competency. But I have tried everything. I held a workshop dedicated to avoiding vague introductions. The result was papers that started with two incoherent sentences that had nothing to do with each other. I tried removing the introduction and conclusion altogether， and asking for a three-paragraph mini essay with a specific argument—what I got read like One Direction24） fan fiction25）.

Ive graded drafts and assigned rewrites， and that helps the good students get better， but the bad students， the ones Im trying to help， just fail to turn in any drafts at all. Meanwhile， I come up for air and realize that with all this extra grading， Im making 75 cents an hour.

Im not calling for the end of all papers—just the end of papers in required courses. Some students actually like writing， and let those blessed young souls be English majors， and expound on George Eliot and Virginia Woolf to their hearts content26）， and grow up to become writers， huzzah. But for the common good， leave everyone else out of it.

Instead of essays， required humanities courses should return to old-school， hardcore exams， written and oral. You cannot bullshit a line-ID. Nor can you get away with only having read one page of the book when your professor is staring you down with a serious question. And best of all， oral exams barely need grading： If you dont know what youre talking about， it is immediately and readily manifest.

Plus， replacing papers with rigorous， old-school， St. Johns-style tribulations also addresses an issue humanities-haters love to belabor27）： Paper-grading is so subjective， and paper-writing so easy to fake， that this gives the humanities their unfortunate reputation as imprecise， feelings-centered disciplines where there are “no right answers.” So lets start requiring some right answers.

Sure， this quashes the shallow pretense of expecting undergraduates to engage in thoughtful analysis， but they have already proven that they will go to any lengths28） to avoid doing this. Call me a defeatist， but honestly Id be happy if a plurality of American college students could discern29） even the skeletal plot of anything they were assigned. With more exams and no papers， theyll at least have a shot at retaining， just for a short while， the basic facts of some of the greatest stories ever recorded. In that short while， they may even develop the tiniest inkling30） of what Martha Nussbaum31） calls “sympathetic imagination”—the cultivation of our own humanity， and something that unfolds when were touched by stories of people who are very much unlike us. And that， frankly， is more than any essay will ever do for them.

在大學(xué)里，人人都痛恨課程論文。學(xué)生們是那么討厭寫論文，于是轉(zhuǎn)而去買論文、借論文或者盜用論文?，F(xiàn)如今抄襲現(xiàn)象屢見不鮮，如果我們把每個(gè)抄襲的孩子都判為不及格，那我們的學(xué)生流失率會(huì)比大規(guī)模在線開放課程的還要高。而在某些罕見的情況下，本科生們的確會(huì)屈尊親自撰寫論文。這些評(píng)注性的杰作通常需要他們?cè)诹璩克狞c(diǎn)花上整整半小時(shí)才能寫完，因此其中的“論據(jù)”與課程作業(yè)相去甚遠(yuǎn)，字體也是調(diào)過的，就為了達(dá)到最低頁數(shù)的要求。噢，“對(duì)待文化的態(tài)度已經(jīng)隨時(shí)代的變遷而改變了？”很高興你讓我了解到這一點(diǎn)。

沒有誰對(duì)撰寫論文的痛恨程度能比得上大學(xué)老師對(duì)批改論文的痛恨程度（不，讓機(jī)器人來做這件事并不是解決辦法）。全世界的學(xué)生們：你覺得自己從《太陽照常升起》中摘出三句話，把同樣的四個(gè)情節(jié)要點(diǎn)總結(jié)50遍直到你湊夠五頁，然后再胡扯出兩句話的結(jié)論浪費(fèi)了45分鐘發(fā)調(diào)情短信的時(shí)間，是嗎？而我可要浪費(fèi)自己15個(gè)小時(shí)的時(shí)間來批改學(xué)生們那站不住腳的論點(diǎn)和毫無邏輯的文本“論據(jù)”，更不用提逗號(hào)的濫用了，這種濫用應(yīng)當(dāng)受到某種法律的懲罰——所有這些就是為了讓你們能草草看一眼分?jǐn)?shù)，然后將論文拋開，再也不看一眼。

另外，如果一位普通大學(xué)生的確讀完了其教授的評(píng)語，她可能會(huì)覺得這些評(píng)語是對(duì)她整個(gè)人的嚴(yán)重侮辱，徹底證明了這位殘忍、無情的老師有多么討厭她。那學(xué)生群體中那一小撮真的讀評(píng)語并想就此進(jìn)行一番討論的人呢？這些孩子的論文本來就不錯(cuò)，而且他們往往非常看重自己的平均績(jī)點(diǎn)。我向你保證，你認(rèn)識(shí)的每一位教授都曾給一篇B等的論文打了A，就是為了讓那些想得高分的學(xué)生遠(yuǎn)離她的辦公室。（這話可不是對(duì)你們說的，現(xiàn)在的學(xué)生們！你們都很棒，總有一天會(huì)成為總統(tǒng)的。請(qǐng)不要給我發(fā)郵件。）

在我小時(shí)候，我媽媽——她像我一樣，是個(gè)兼職教師——會(huì)連著幾天足不出戶批閱論文，出來時(shí)頭發(fā)亂得像女妖美杜莎，真值得同情。但隨著我年齡越來越大，這種同情日益消失了?！叭绻氵@么討厭批論文，”我會(huì)說，“倒是有一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的解決辦法?！倍覌寢屧诹x憤填膺時(shí)（這是老師們偏愛的一種狀態(tài)）可不容小覷，她會(huì)厲聲說道：“這是門英語課。我不能不布置課程論文?！?/p>

媽媽、朋友們、教師們，還有同學(xué)們：我們不見得非得布置課程論文，而且我們應(yīng)該停止這么做。我們必須承認(rèn)大學(xué)必修課的課程論文就是一種失敗的做法。學(xué)士學(xué)位成了新式的高中文憑：要想在宇宙內(nèi)找到任何一份像樣的工作，這都是絕對(duì)必不可少的。如此一來，在學(xué)生（及其父母）眼中，大學(xué)就是職業(yè)訓(xùn)練，是在獲得至關(guān)重要的“那張紙”的過程中不得不做的一件麻煩事。現(xiàn)如今，一心惦記著工作的學(xué)生們將“世界文學(xué)101”這門課視為強(qiáng)制性勞動(dòng)，純屬浪費(fèi)時(shí)間，不值得費(fèi)心費(fèi)力。而你知道還有什么事是在浪費(fèi)時(shí)間嗎？那就是給這些學(xué)生該死的論文打分。是時(shí)候宣布無條件的失敗了。

大多數(shù)大學(xué)生在剛?cè)雽W(xué)時(shí)幾乎無法把三個(gè)句子連起來——而且他們畢業(yè)時(shí)仍是如此。在此期間，經(jīng)過長(zhǎng)久的努力外加一個(gè)工作狂熱的老師，有的學(xué)生可能會(huì)學(xué)會(huì)撰寫蹩腳但還算過得去的文章。但是誰在乎呢？我那些人文學(xué)科的同事都勇敢地堅(jiān)稱，撰寫人文學(xué)科的論文能培養(yǎng)敏銳的論證技巧，因而能使我們?cè)谝恍]有相關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的領(lǐng)域取得終生的成功（除此之外還有其他更崇高的理由）。但我那些真正在這些領(lǐng)域工作的朋友卻向我保證，他們大多數(shù)的同事都近乎文盲。畢竟，馬克·扎克伯格就曾在Facebook出現(xiàn)之前在Friendster網(wǎng)站的個(gè)人資料里吹噓說“我不讀書”（原文就是這樣），瞧瞧他吧！

當(dāng)然，如果美國(guó)的大學(xué)真的要求像樣的成人寫作能力的話，這對(duì)人類而言將會(huì)是件好事。但我已經(jīng)想盡一切辦法。我開過一門研討課，專門講授如何避免寫出含糊不清的論文開頭。結(jié)果交上來的論文開頭兩句都既不連貫又毫不相干。我嘗試同時(shí)舍去開頭和結(jié)尾，只要求寫一篇有明確論點(diǎn)的三個(gè)段落的小文章——而我得到的卻是讀起來像單向樂隊(duì)同人小說的文章。

我曾批改初稿并要求重寫，這會(huì)讓好學(xué)生寫得更好，但那些差生——我正試圖幫助的那些人——根本就交不出任何初稿。而與此同時(shí)，在我喘口氣休息時(shí)，我意識(shí)到自己做了所有這些額外的批閱工作，每小時(shí)卻只能掙75美分。

我并不是呼吁取消所有的論文寫作——只要取消必修課的課程論文就好。有些學(xué)生其實(shí)熱愛寫作，就讓那些幸運(yùn)的年輕人成為英語專業(yè)的學(xué)生，盡情闡釋喬治·艾略特和弗吉尼亞·伍爾芙，并成長(zhǎng)為作家吧，多好哇！但為了共同的利益，讓其他人都解脫吧。

必修人文課程不應(yīng)當(dāng)要求寫論文，而是應(yīng)該回歸傳統(tǒng)的、難以應(yīng)付的考試，筆試和口試。你不能瞎編一句話的出處。當(dāng)教授死死盯著你提出一個(gè)嚴(yán)肅的問題時(shí)，如果你只讀了一頁書是無法過關(guān)的。最棒的一點(diǎn)是，口試幾乎不需要費(fèi)勁評(píng)定：如果連你都不知道自己在說什么，那結(jié)果很快便顯而易見。

此外，用嚴(yán)格、傳統(tǒng)的圣約翰式的磨難來取代論文寫作，還能解決人文學(xué)科憎惡者喜歡反復(fù)強(qiáng)調(diào)的一個(gè)問題：論文評(píng)分太主觀，論文寫作又太容易作假，這讓人文學(xué)科背負(fù)了惡名，被稱為不嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)、感情用事的學(xué)科，該學(xué)科里“沒有正確答案”。所以，我們就開始要求一些正確答案吧。

當(dāng)然，這會(huì)打破那種期待本科生進(jìn)行思辨性分析的膚淺假象，但他們已經(jīng)證明他們會(huì)想盡辦法避免進(jìn)行思辨性的分析。你可以說我是個(gè)失敗主義者，但說實(shí)在的，哪怕大多數(shù)美國(guó)大學(xué)生僅僅是能夠搞清楚任何指定作品的主要情節(jié)，我就很開心了。通過增加考試和取消課程論文寫作，他們至少能在很短的一段時(shí)間里嘗試記住一些史上最精彩的故事的基本情況。而在那段很短的時(shí)間里，他們甚至可能會(huì)培養(yǎng)出一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)模糊的、瑪莎·娜斯鮑姆所說的“同情的想象”——我們自身人性的培養(yǎng)，也是在我們被那些與自己截然不同的人的故事打動(dòng)時(shí)所萌生出來的東西。坦率地講，這可比寫任何文章都更能令學(xué)生受益。

1. attrition [??tr??（?）n] n. 人員減縮；人員流失

2. MOOC：即massive open online courses，大規(guī)模在線開放課程，又稱“慕課”。

3. deign [de?n] vi. 降低身份，屈尊

4. exegetic [?eks??d?et?k] adj. 注釋的，評(píng)注的

5. tangentially [t?n?d?en?（?）li] adv. 離題地，不相干地

6. sext [?sekst] vi. 發(fā)送色情短信

7. The Sun Also Rises：長(zhǎng)篇小說《太陽照常升起》，美國(guó)作家海明威（Ernest Miller Hemingway， 1899～1961）的代表作

8. flaccid [?fl?ks?d] adj. （尤指論點(diǎn)等）沒有說服力的；無效的

9. non sequitur [?n?n?sekw?t?（r）] n. 〈拉〉不合邏輯的推論；前后不連貫（毫無邏輯聯(lián)系）的陳述（或回答）

10. cursory [?k??（r）s?ri] adj. 草草的，粗略的

11. abject [??bd?ekt] adj. 極度的

12. sliver [?sl?v?（r）] n. 窄而小的東西

13. to begin with：原先，本來

14. grade-grubber：用功讀書的人；乞求得到更多分?jǐn)?shù)的人

15. sequester [s??kwest?（r）] vt. 使隔絕；使隱退

16. Medusa：美杜莎，希臘神話中三個(gè)蛇發(fā)女怪之一

17. trifle with：輕視，小看

18. effing [?ef??] adj. 〈俚〉該死的

19. protracted [pr??tr?kt?d] adj. 延長(zhǎng)的，拖延的

20. rhapsodically [r?p?s?d?k（?）li] adv. 狂熱地

21. clunky [?kl??ki] adj. 笨拙的，粗陋的

22. valiantly [?v?li?ntli] adv. 英勇地，堅(jiān)決地

23. Friendster：美國(guó)第一個(gè)大型社交網(wǎng)站，創(chuàng)建于2002年。

24. One Direction：?jiǎn)蜗驑逢?duì)，一支來自英國(guó)與愛爾蘭的男子組合，共五名成員。

25. fan fiction：同人小說，指利用原有漫畫、動(dòng)畫、小說、影像作品等中的人物角色、故事情節(jié)或背景設(shè)定等元素進(jìn)行的二次創(chuàng)作小說。

26. to ones hearts content：盡情地；心滿意足地

27. belabor [b??le?b?（r）] vt. 反復(fù)討論（或強(qiáng)調(diào)）

28. go to any lengths：（為達(dá)到目的）不遺余力；無所顧忌

29. discern [d??s??（r）n] vt. 認(rèn)識(shí)，了解

30. inkling [???kl??] n. 模糊概念

31. Martha Nussbaum：瑪莎·娜斯鮑姆（1947～），當(dāng)代重要的古典學(xué)家、倫理學(xué)家和公共政策研究者，被視為“新斯多亞主義”的代表人物，代表作有《善的脆弱性》（The Fragility of Goodness）、《詩性正義》（Poetic Justice）。