<p>D is taking an English class at Smith this Fall after three years of no humanities during the regular year. But she did take a couple of humanities courses during J-term and one quote from one of the profs stuck in my mind: to a group of sophomores and juniors in the J-term class, "It's so good to deal with a bunch of students who know how to write."</p>
<p>The strong implication being that the students in her 100-level English classes, for the most part, really didn't know how to write and that was what she dealt with a lot.</p>
<p>That's not that surprising. Most of the students in the 100 levels are first years or sophomores who are either inexperienced at high-level writing, fulfilling a requirement, or biding time till they get to upper level stuff. I'm sure she had good writers in her regular courses, but probably not in the high concentration of the j-term course. First years don't usually spend j-term at Smith (their parents get lonely for them), and those students that do stay usually do it in order to pursue some cherished interest.</p>
<p>I think the story, as related, was that the prof saw a lot of improvement between the writing of a typical group of first-years and those with three or more semesters under their belt or, as you say S&P, who are inexperienced with high-level writing of the caliber Smith demands.</p>
<p>Fwiw, the conversation sprang out of a comparison between one of D's brilliant non-Smith science major friends who can't write worth beans and some humanities and social science students on the other hand who have fled as far as they could from anything math-like and are pretty well innumerate as a result. Which in turn came out of a discussion about the implications of some current political surveys. We have these conversations where one thing leads to another and it's hard to track the daisy chain.</p>
<p>Side note: D has taken two J-term courses and found them very useful academically as well as fun. This year she's aiming to take two <em>just</em> for fun.</p>
<p>I suspect that the difference this professor saw was not between first years and upperclassmen, but between those who had to take a writing intensive course and those who took one willingly. While I'm sure that students do improve once they realize that they can no longer dash off superficial papers to get an A, they aren't necessarily taught how to write. Smith does not require instruction in writing, per se, but instead requires "writing intensive courses." Maybe the FYS concentrate more on writing instruction than other writing intensive courses; I don't know, since my D did not take one. The change might be contributed as well to experience and an improved work ethic.</p>
<p>The problem with first years at any college is the kind of education they received prior to arriving. Smithies are all smart, achieving women, but not all have been held to the same standards. I see this all the time in my students (at a different school). Some cannot figure out why they don't get As for writing at the eighth grade level, while others are already writing at, or close to, college level. At my university, first years have to take two semesters of freshman English, which focuses on writing. At Smith, students who hate to write, or who have learned that they cannot do it well, steer clear of such seminars, especially if it is an optional J-term one. Although your D is one of those Smithies who can do it all, I'm sure that the conversation in your second post, between your D and non-Smithies, could have occurred just as easily at Smith.</p>