I've seen lots of people refer to it as being of middle school quality. It is absolutely possible to critique it for whether it meets the assignment guidelines (which were also posted) without that type of assessment.

I don't see attacks on the student's writing as doing anything to defend the instructor.

Critique the system, critique the TPUSA apparatus, and critique the capitulation. Posting the essay (& the grading rubric) is bait that leads to a lot of judgements about the *quality* of the writing that remind me of the way professors use "undergraduate quality" as a way to dismiss grad students.

It is possible to critique OU's administration and to defend the instructor without piling on about the paper, which is clearly a response that sharing it publicly is meant to spark.

People I trust say that it can be a useful search tool under certain parameters.

I read the series in high school and/or college (I can’t remember which) and recall it having a mix of fun and ridiculous that should give you a lot to talk about.

The Shadow of Ararat

I want our academic structures to serve the students with the hunger to learn, to empower them and to reward them, and, in so doing teach the other set that engagement leads to good grades (along with its other rewards). But totalizing students on way or the other doesn't help either group.

I also teach a junior-level interdisciplinary seminar that brings together students from across campus and last spring was extremely disheartening. Some of the students were GREAT, but the classroom dynamic was a mess in part bc I couldn't get half the class to meaningfully engage with the material.

I explicitly told my first year seminar students this semester that one of my goals for the class was to build good reading habits and I have had multiple students express gratitude for the chance to rediscover something they had lost.

If we give up on thinking and engaging with things we don't understand then what are we doing?