Russ Hunt wrote:
> Doug Brent wrote:
> > One more question: does anyone have any interesting news about funding
> > of linked courses? Did anyone have any success getting new money out of
> > central funds or out of the disciplines served, or did it all come out
> > of money that was being used to teach writing anyway.
> In our case, and I suspect in yours, the folks with the power to fund
> said, okay, where are your _costs_? And why should we fund _your_
> program as opposed to others? We were (are) in a position to say well,
> there there really are no costs, because we're taking money that would
> have been used to teach these courses, well, to teach these courses.
> The difference is that they're linked. That doesn't involve money.
This is what we do-- the writing courses are funded already, and the
links are in the disciplines, so there's no extra costs. I should get
my colleagues to comment on the degree of collaboration they're involved
in. (Barry, are you listening?) I think that the closest collaboration
was with a Philosophy link, and the two profs who did it put in the
extra time without compensation. I'll talk to the writing prof about it
and report back. (I believe she's written an article about it, but I
haven't seen it yet.)
I keep forgetting about the strange way U.of C. is funding their writing
courses. We have the advantage of 11 full-time permanent faculty who are
generally eager to try new approaches to teaching writing.