I just finished my Writing Portfolio! My 10-30 pages of writing from courses in at least three different departments have been sent off to volunteer faculty and instructional staff for review. I can finally take a deep breath and reflect on the process. 

In the weeks leading up to the portfolio due date, I’ve spent a lot of time talking with other sophomores about our two years of Carleton writing. (Pro tip for the Class of 2029: talking about the writing portfolio is an excellent way to put off working on the writing portfolio.) So many of these conversations ended up on the topic of Carleton’s Argument & Inquiry (A&I) Seminars — the required first-term courses that, according to the “Graduation Requirements” page of the Carleton website, “teach students how to find and evaluate information in reading and research and to use it effectively and ethically in constructing arguments” and “offer opportunities and tools for critical reading, deliberative discussion, and effective college-level writing”.

With that description, A&I courses sound like preparation for thesis-driven argumentative writing and the writing using multiple sources that the Writing Portfolio requires. And certainly, many A&Is are helpful (I had a good time in my A&I), but first-term A&I courses seem to prepare students unevenly, especially for college-level writing. 

The amount of time dedicated to actual writing instruction, the assigned writing workload, the expected background writing knowledge and the amount of writing feedback available can vary widely across A&I courses. Incoming students have no way of knowing whether their A&I will fall on these variable scales. Looking back two years later, the process can feel unfair.

This isn’t the fault of the A&I courses; it’s a product of unclear expectations and misleading explanations. 

According to the “Argument & Inquiry Seminar Resources” page on the Carleton website, A&I courses are “designed to provide students with an introduction to college-level work.” This lofty goal manifests through four required elements of an A&I course: 1) “They clarify how scholars ask questions and how they find and evaluate evidence in addressing those questions,” 2) “They are discussion-based,” 3) “They are writing-rich,” and 4) “They include attendance at — and some discussion of — the A&I convo.”

Other than attending the A&I convo, these required elements are difficult to gauge. How is the aim of “clarifying how scholars ask questions and evaluate evidence to address questions” supposed to be realized in a syllabus? What does it really mean to be “discussion-based”? How much are professors supposed to privilege those directives?

The “writing-rich” designation is also unclear. The “Guidelines for Writing-Rich Courses” page of the Carleton website says that, “in writing-rich courses we strive to help students develop fundamental writing skills,” and that, “they emphasize writing skills like feedback and revision alongside the regular course content.” Different courses, however, have different understandings about what “fundamental writing skills” are and what “feedback and revision” look like. 

In the first few weeks of my freshman year, some of my peers received explanatory presentations in their A&Is about how to structure an arguable thesis while others were being assigned argumentative research papers without much guidance. Of course, worried students can, should and do go to the writing center and use other resources, but A&I courses are supposed to be one of the resources, and sometimes, they’re not.

Without broaching the question of whether Carleton should be providing a mandatory introduction to writing skills, students should not be led to believe that their A&Is will help them develop skills for “effective college-level writing” unless every A&I course actually devotes time to achieving that goal. 

If students are supposed to be instructed on “fundamental writing skills” in A&I courses, that curriculum should be more standardized; every A&I should have the same robust understanding of what constitutes “fundamental writing skills.” Otherwise, if Carleton wants to keep the variation of how each A&I operates, incoming students should have some ability to select their A&I based on the expected level of instruction and how they were marketed.

The first term of college is already such an overwhelming time, and, with the way A&Is function currently, the course that hypothetically helps acclimate students to college-level work can feel isolating. Again, two years later, some sophomores working on the writing portfolio feel unsupported and misled.

Thankfully, the Writing Portfolio exists to help students who did not learn those writing fundamentals in their A&Is or elsewhere at Carleton. Students who struggle with their writing portfolios get robust mandatory writing support. But at this point, two years have passed. Perhaps with enhanced standardized instruction in a student’s first term, more students could feel fully confident by sophomore year.