Fun read in which Inside Higher Ed and Slate education writer Rebecca Schuman defends herself against a long criticism authored by by Cornell writing lecturer Charles Green. "I think she crafts fundamentally anti-academic arguments, anti-academic in that they rely heavily on unsourced and unsupported generality clothed in hyperbole," he writes. She responds that she's writing magazine articles and that " a lot of "public" writing by academics is self-censored, over-equivocated, bogged down in data analysis, and thus unreadably boring to a non-academic audience." I would add that it is often no better researched or sourced than many magazine articles either. I'll hand it to Green, though, for his game and valiant defense of his argument in the comments.
Today: 0 Total: 33