Doug, It is true that without the test, WAC would perhaps not be there for the reasons that Laurence explains in his article. But Laurentian is perhaps ready to recognize (at least committed WAC profs are) that the test and WAC are in some kind of theoretical opposition and contradiction. Whereas once upon a time the test was a catalyst for putting together the WAC programme, the time is near for us to fully realize that it stops us from actually doing greater things in WAC just because some profs see WAC as remedial to the test and focus more on learning to write rather than writing to learn. Secondly, in WAC we try to stress that writing is discipline-specific and that writing instruction is also. The test can only measure generic types of writing -- mostly geared to humanities. That is why many of our science students get upset over the types of questions which they feel disadvantage them. Wac stresses the idea that writing is a process which for most of us takes more than 2 hours. The test sends a message that in two hours, students should have a fairly good copy on one of three topics they might know very little about. Given more time, I could probably find more to say. What do YOU think? Your suggestions or ideas would certainly be appreciated. I should add that SOME of us think getting rid of the test is a good idea. HOWEVER, I don't think it will happen quickly. We need to get more thinking our way, but in order to do this, we have to develop a solid WAC programme first. I think we are on our way thanks to people like Laurence and Philippa as well as Susan Dobra and Cathy Schryer before. I think our programme will get even better as it ages. Normand