Revising a blurb (#1001)

Topics/tags: On writing

As long-time readers may recall, I’ve been frustrated for some time with how we measured the success of the individually advised curriculum for our NCA/HLC [1] reviewers. In essence, we pretended we had different sets of fairly simplistic distribution requirements and then checked what percentage of our graduates who met those requirements. We never would have done that if Brad Bateman were still an Associate Dean.

I call that approach bean counting. Why do I so object to the approach that I describe it with a denigrating term? Because it fails to capture what I think of as the central concept of the individually advised curriculum: Each student should design their own education in consultation with a faculty advisor.

As a first step in trying to effect change, I applied for funding to try a different approach, one based on taking the declaration-of-major essay much more seriously [2]. While I did not receive full funding, I did receive a planning grant to explore ways to approach the project. The announcement will be going out soon. Now I have to make sure that I’m happy with the blurb that will accompany the announcement. Here’s the draft summary I received.

This planning project will create a group to discuss and explore an alternative approach to supporting and assessing the success of the Individually Advised Curriculum (IAC) in ways more closely tied to Grinnell’s mission statement. They may discuss ideas related to the declaration process and a curriculum retrospective that will provide information on students’ ability to evaluate critically both their own and others’ ideas and their ability to speak and write persuasively and even eloquently.

I wonder how you pronounce IAC. Perhaps yak. It starts well. But my goal is not so much to tie the IAC to the mission statement as it is to tie it to the implicit goals of the IAC [3]. Let’s see what I can do with that statement.

In my customary way of writing about issues, or at least thinking about issues, I prefer to start with a problem.

The individually advised curriculum forms a core part of Grinnell’s liberal-arts education. In our most recent review for accreditation [4], we assessed the success of that curriculum quantitatively, primarily by counting the number of courses students took in each division. In this planning project, we will begin to explore other ways we might understand the success or failure of this curriculum. […]

Unfortunately, that does not follow the rhetorical model we are to use for the blurbs. In particular, all of the blurbs seem to begin In this planning project or In this pilot project. Mine must begin n the same way. Given that requirement, I suppose the original opening isn’t too bad, at least up to the tie to the mission statement.

This planning project will create a group to discuss and explore alternative approaches to supporting and assessing the success of the Individually Advised Curriculum (IAC) in ways more closely tied to the goals of that curriculum, particularly students’ understanding of the liberal arts and their ability to design a four-year plan that supports a liberal education.

That’s a bit long. But I like it more than tied to the mission statement. I’ve pulled in details of what we want beyond the quotes from the mission statement, so I need not include them in the next sentence. On to that sentence.

In contrast to the approaches used for the last reaccreditation, which focused primarily on counting courses taken in each division, they will explore mechanisms that require students to make explicit their understanding of the liberal arts and the underlying design of their four-year plans and, potentially, to defend those plans both prospectively and retrospectively.

That’s a bit long, particularly given the prior sentence. I suppose I can cut the explanation from the first sentence since it fits better in the second. I should also do a bit of wordsmithing.

This planning project will create a group to discuss and explore alternative approaches to supporting and assessing the success of Grinnell’s Individually Advised Curriculum (IAC) in ways more closely tied to our goals for the IAC. In contrast to the approaches used for the last reaccreditation, which focused primarily on counting courses taken in each division, they will consider mechanisms that require students to articulate their understanding of the liberal arts and to argue for the success of the corresponding design of their four-year plans.

Is that too long? Let’s see. It’s 86 words. The old version was seventy-five. I wonder if I should cut some words. Let’s see how long the others are. The draft pilot blurbs are 85, 68, 90, 69, 67, and 70 words. The draft planning blurbs are 92, 43, 81, 47, 89, 97, 65, and 102 words. Did I give away too much with those counts? You now have an approximate count of how many projects there are. But I did discover that the planning projects seem to have more words, and my length seems reasonable. No need to cut further!

Nonetheless, I’m tempted to edit a bit. Let’s see.

This planning project will create a group of faculty and staff to discuss and explore alternative approaches to supporting and assessing the success of Grinnell’s Individually Advised Curriculum (IAC) in ways more closely tied to our goals for the IAC. In contrast to the approaches used for the last reaccreditation, which focused primarily on counting courses taken in each division, they will consider mechanisms that explicitly require students to articulate their understanding of the liberal arts and to argue for the corresponding design of their four-year plans.

Damn. There’s a dangling modifier in that second sentence. At least I think there is. We’re not contrasting the approaches with they, which seems to make the comparison inappropriate. I hate rewriting sentences like that. I know, I’ll move it to the prior sentence, since I have more closely tied in that sentence.

This planning project will create a group of faculty and staff to discuss and explore alternative approaches to supporting and assessing the success of Grinnell’s Individually Advised Curriculum (IAC) in ways more closely tied to our goals for the IAC than those used for the last reaccreditation, which focused primarily on counting courses taken in each division. They will likely consider mechanisms that explicitly require students to articulate their understanding of the liberal arts and to argue for the corresponding design of their four-year plans.

Should I remove the section that critiques what we did last time? Nah. That’s the whole point of the project. Are there other changes to consider? Probably, but I’m not sure if I have the energy. I know, I’ll run it through Grammarly. Grammarly says,

Overall score: 99. We found 1 additional writing issue in this text available only for Premium users: 1 Hard-to-read text [5].

I find that hard to believe. In the end, I’ll go with my current assessment: It’s not great, but it will do.

Next up, writing the proposal for the corresponding workshop. Come to think of it, next up is meeting with my partner on the project to plan that proposal. I’ll need to schedule a meeting.

[1] North Central Association / Higher Learning Commission.

[2] After some further conversation, I’ve come to understand that it may be better to separate this project from the declaration-of-major essay.

[3] I would, of course, like to do so by having students speak and write persuasively and even eloquently. That’s how they’ll demonstrate the value of their IAC.

[4] Reaccreditation?

[5] In contrast, it found nine things to correct in the whole musing, awarded it an overall score of 96, and noted 21 additional writing issues that are available only for Premium users: 6 hard-to-read text, 5 word choice, 2 incomplete sentences, 2 passive voice misuse, 2 improper formatting, and 4 more. Maybe I’ll resubscribe to Grammarly Premium during their next 60%-off sale.

Version 1.0 of 2020-01-28.